English and European rugby champions Saracens will be relegated at the end of the season for breaching the salary cap rules, marking the downfall of what was the northern hemisphere’s top club in recent years.
Premiership Rugby, which runs the English top tier, said Saturday that Saracens will finish the current season before being dropped down to the second-level RFU Championship.
The London-based club have won four of the past five English titles and three of the past four European Cup titles.
However, those victories were followed by allegations of rorting the English league’s salary cap rules by making payments to companies owned by Saracens players.
“I acknowledge the club has made errors in the past and we unreservedly apologise for those mistakes,” new new Saracens chairman Neil Golding said in a statement.
“I and the rest of the board are committed to overseeing stringent new governance measures to ensure regulatory compliance going forward.”
Premiership Rugby would review the salary cap system to ensure “a level playing field for all clubs”, chief executive Darren Childs said.
Exeter Chiefs were beaten by Saracens in the past two Premiership finals and chief executive Tony Rowe said he was relieved the champions had been strongly punished.
“(Saracens) had two choices: they could either open up their books so that Premiership Rugby could do a forensic audit of exactly what has gone on, or they could take relegation. So it was their choice not to open up their books,” Rowe told the BBC.
“We just want to move on. They have cheated. And I’m just a bit upset it has taken so long to do this. At the moment they are still picking their team each week largely from the squad they had last year, which is still in breach of the salary cap.”
Saracens are bottom of the table. They are second in their European Champions Cup pool but could still qualify by beating Racing 92 on Sunday.
Saracens’ sizeable England contingent, including national captain Owen Farrell, Maro Itoje and Billy Vunipola, would still be available for international selection if they played in the Championship.
But it would be an unsatisfactory situation for England coach Eddie Jones, who is due to announce his Six Nations squad on Monday.
It now remains to be seen how many of Saracens’ leading names will still be at the club next term.
Derm
Roar Guru
On average 35% not English qualified per squad in Premiership.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes we’ll just shows how poor yet desperate they are at this game. Saturated with overseas players and still they need to break rules to win. This is a long way from ‘English rugby players playing rugby’. This is ‘buying’ trophies.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Cool, so am I, cos no it wouldn’t. They would win more, but EVERYTHING suggests the ratio would be worse. Has been with Aus, SA since professionalism brought greater frequencies.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
It is really simple .....crushingly simple ....and you're still not getting it. I'm saying if England played NZ more often, the win ratio would improve in England's favour. Nothing at all to do with SA, OZ, Argentina or (your latest deflection) the 6N. Life's too short buddy. I'm done on this one.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Its really simple. You think more contact, means better results. It doesnt. So distance isn't my friend....until...it is. I could agree, and say that that same distance has resulted in 100% of the 6N going to the 6N currently in it, or 5 and 4 before it, rather than 15% if NZ had been the 7th, or 6th, or 5th, all along. And, I'd have the stats to back it. So in that respect....distance is definitely your friend. :happy:
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Of course it's flawed - it's an unproven hypothesis. And you're well within your rights to disagree, I'd expect nothing less from you. However, constantly misunderstanding a simple proposition is less forgivable, as is constantly making erroneous assumptions. I'm clearly not assuming 'England were equal to or better than SA or Oz'; that's your own invention and not even relevant to my (still) simple assertion. Nor have I made any comparison to Argentina, because it's simply not comparable or relevant, to my (still) basic assertion. Tranmere Rovers could play their neighbours Liverpool every week, their results would hardly ever change. I don't know if you constantly practice diversion and irrelevance in your arguments, or if it's simply beyond your control?
taylorman
Roar Guru
I get it, but I don’t agree with it. You’re saying over that period England were equal to or better than SA or Oz. Well no, they weren’t. Frequency has increased five times yet no improvement. Until there is, it’s a flawed argument. You ‘think’ it would improve, but have zero facts that supports that. Argentina has greatly increased its frequency, yet have still never won. Best watch what you wish for I say. :laughing:
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
You don't have to give me anything, take it from 1996, 1997 or whatever - the stats don't budge. Let me explain the concept of 'more often' here, since you're struggling. If England's fixtures since '97 with NZ (24), looked more like SA's (52) or Australia's (64), then my contention is their win ratio would improve. Get it?
taylorman
Roar Guru
2000 is selective but I’ll give you that. But even if its the same the increasing frequency that you talk of- 19 meetings in 19 years yields the same as 23 in 95 years. Once again, where is the improvement?. If greater frequency- in fact five times more frequently- a massive shift that should easily align with your suggestion- yields no improvement – with the last five years particularly worse…where is your point? Oh, perhaps the events of the last three months is enough to revise the previous 114 years? …understandable…I guess…
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Please let me drag you back to the point Donald. I’ll keep saying it, because I’m convinced it’s true, but if these two teams got it on more often, that win/loss ratio would shift England’s way. Distance is your friend, my friend. And no. Your margins haven't improved against England in the pro era. Taking 1905 to 2000 as pre-pro fully kicking in, and 2000 on as pro, the margins in terms of average points difference, tries scored and loss percentage has remained exactly (exactly) the same. As indeed has the distance between the two nations.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Aha, sure explains the 5 wins and 19 losses in England then huh? 1 win at home in 8 since 79. Our margins have increased vs I believe everyone in the pro era, England included, so ahh, until we actually see evidence of that, ignorance is your friend. Mind you…an Oz coach has definitely helped. :thumbup: But until they actually put those things called points on the board, its just more wishful thinking, and we’ve heard way too much of that… oh, and one win in 10 here in the pro era, so that distance thing, definitely Englands friend. One thing having a ‘feeling’, another having facts. Pretty sure that isnt trump like… And in all honesty. the reason I can keep saying this is the northern sides find it so difficult in churning out top quality players, that for me is the main difference. Wynn Jones and Sexton were touted by many as the seasons best performers. I mean what does that tel you? That longetiviety trumps talent? Its almost like its like pulling teeth to unerath genuine world beating individuals when I can bet there will be two or three All Blacks at the next world cup that no ones heard of now that will be wolds best in their position. In no way, shape or form could you ever say that about England.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
I don’t need to provide sources for the feared English juggernaut because I clearly stated it was me. None of my argument is scientific. I genuinely thought with the resources (cattle and financial) available in England, they’d be consistently world class. It hasn’t happened. Doesn’t mean it can’t just that it’s less likely to. I admire a lot in English rugby, follow a local team and have a lot of English mates who love rugby. I have found that there Englishmen in crucial rugby roles that, through my unexplainable bias, I hated - Sir Clive, Rob Andrew, Owen Farrell. I passionately love beating English rugby teams and are deeply depressed when we lose. No wonder I’ve feared the juggernaut - and been pleased it never arrived
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
England benefit least from a two year gap. I'll keep saying it, because I'm convinced it's true, but if these two teams got it on more often, that win/loss ratio would shift England's way. Distance is your friend, my friend.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
No one's claiming bragging rights over NZ, and equally, you'd have to point me to your sources (heads up; you can't in either case) where anyone credible claimed England would dominate the game 20 years ago. Seriously mate, this is up there with Trump's 'everyone's saying it, a lot of people are saying it', kind of nonsense. I've no idea what's going to happen next with Eddie. I still can't compute how he can prepare a team to dominate NZ for a full 80 (and I mean a full 80; there really wasn't a period of ascendancy or valid response, which I've rarely if ever seen) and then be equally dominated next game. At least it's always interesting.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Yep. And the climate isn't changing either. All good.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Oops. Completely forgot you come from a place where there's no real competition. No real excitement. Where you just go through the motions of imagining one. Where the outcome is pretty much known, and we all pretend to get excited. On reflection, I'm not surprised you're amazed. I'm sorry for revealing the impossible possibility. Best you just turn over and forget this ever happened. Shush now. Everything's fine. See? Isn't that better? Nasty man ......
taylorman
Roar Guru
I feared an English juggernaut in the 80’s, and am still waiting. One popped its head in around 15 years ago, then regressed back into its cave so quickly it was almost added to the extinct species list. :laughing: Honestly Neil, there are a quantum of articles about how the Abs have lost their mojo over the years, and yet, never happens bar ‘the odd glitch’. Our failure at the world cup for example exceeded every Irish effort at this tournament. Theres one reason the ABs will get back on top…they have better players and coaches, and will continue to do so. Full stop. The only threats will come from new sources- SA’s continuing integration into the sport, perhaps a revival in Japan. But not from the 6 nation sides. They’ve been fumbling over themselves for over a hundred years now. And ONLY when they get the magnitude of input from the SH have they managed to make a semblance of a dent.
taylorman
Roar Guru
aha, when has any team ever beaten NZ again and again? They said that after Ireland the year before, hmmm, not quite. And will England get two years prep for the next one again? hmmm... Its quite humurous how some ride high off the back of the odd win...Chicago and Dublin were 'history defining' yet the quarter annhialation was 'ho hum' back to normal...
taylorman
Roar Guru
Why is that? Youre not thinking theyll all actually stay there do you? Theyll jump ship on the first lifeboat out. And pain? from England and the Lions? When has that ever happened? oh…that one match… :laughing: gotcha…
taylorman
Roar Guru
Oh, first it was Leicester, then Leinster, then Saracens, now...Exeter? The whole point about beng the 'Crusaders' of the north is that over a long period they dominate their comp. Amazing that there are several teams that do that, especially since thats actually impossible. :laughing: