Saracens Statement on Behalf of Nigel Wray

goode

Here is a statement from Saracens confirming they will not appeal the sanctions imposed for breaching the Premiership Rugby Salary Cap.

Saracens today confirms that it is not going to appeal the recent ruling of the independent panel in relation to salary cap breaches.

Any review or further appeal would be a costly, time consuming and destabilising exercise and so for the good of the game, the Premiership and this wonderful club and all its great people, a club which I have loved and served for 25 years, we have decided not to appeal but to take our punishment and hopefully soon put this behind us.

I recognise that the arrangements between myself and players, made in good faith, which comprise the material element of the charges, should have been brought to the attention of the salary cap manager for consultation prior to entering into them.

It is significant that following extensive investigations the independent panel stated that we have “not deliberately sought to circumvent the regulations” albeit we recognise that some of our actions were considered to be “reckless”.

As chairman, I must take full responsibility for the arrangements that led to this outcome. It is important to stress that our excellent coaching staff were not involved in these issues in any way.

In addition, we can confirm that we are complying strictly with the salary cap regulations in the current season and will continue to work transparently with Premiership Rugby in this regard.

We will shortly introduce robust independent governance measures acceptable to all, including the appointment to the Saracens board of a director, who will oversee a new governance regime. I will continue as always to support the club financially going forwards to ensure there is no financial instability or uncertainty.

This amazing club, which has been such a huge part of my family’s life and indeed of many, many others, has produced an incredible number of world-class rugby players. About ten of our current team have been together for between seven and ten years, as indeed have all the coaches; fourteen players have played over one hundred times for the Club and for me it is the caring and the closeness of everyone in the Saracens Family that achieves success throughout every part of our wide-ranging Saracens activities, both on the field and away from it.

Perhaps we have done the wrong thing for the right reasons, but we must now draw a line and come together as Saracens to fully support our players, our coaches and our hard-working staff.

Q&A

Why has the Club decided not to appeal the decision?

The Club believes that a review or further appeal would be a costly, time consuming and destabilising exercise. So for the good of the game, the Premiership and this club, we have decided not to appeal but to take our punishment and aim to put this behind us.

What does this mean for the season ahead?

The season ahead will be challenging but Mark McCall, his coaches and players will prepare for all of our games in the same focused, committed way and that will continue to be the case. We are a very tight family and this will only make us closer.

Does this outcome affect any of your Premiership titles?

No. The sanctions do not have an impact on any trophies the team has previously won.

Will the Club now be forced to sell players to comply with the salary cap?

No. The Club allocates a set budget for player remuneration which the CEO and coaching staff take full responsibility for. This budget falls within the salary cap and has no connection whatsoever to third party co-investments.

Is the Club now in compliance with the salary cap?

Yes. Under PRL regulations we are in compliance.

How does this outcome affect the Club’s transfer policy?

It does not prevent the Club from signing new players in the future.

What has the Club done to make sure this doesn’t happen again?

We will now introduce robust independent governance measures acceptable to all, including a new appointment to the Saracens board who will oversee governance.

And longer term, what does this mean for Saracens Chairman Nigel Wray?

Nigel has been involved with the Club for 25 years and his support for the Club remains as strong as ever. He will ensure the Club moves forward from today in the right way as quickly as possible.

And here is a joint statement from Premiership Rugby and Saracens:

PREMIERSHIP RUGBY and Saracens have concluded matters relating to the recent breaches of the Premiership Rugby Salary Cap, with Saracens confirming they will not request a review of the decision by the independent disciplinary panel.

This means that the disciplinary process is at an end and the sanction on Saracens Rugby Club is confirmed as:

a total fine of £5,360,272.31
and a total deduction of 35 league points
The Gallagher Premiership Rugby table will be updated today.

Darren Childs, Chief Executive of Premiership Rugby, said: “We welcome Saracens’ decision to accept the verdict of the independent panel and are pleased the club has crucially reaffirmed its commitment to the Premiership Rugby Salary Cap.

“This is the right outcome for English club rugby. Bringing this process to a conclusion means that we can focus on working in partnership with all Clubs to continue to build a competitive and successful league.”

Nigel Wray, Saracens chairman, said: “We have made mistakes and so, with humility, we must accept these penalties. As a club, we will now pull together and meet the challenges that lie ahead.

“We confirm our commitment to the Salary Cap, and the underlying principle of a level playing field, and will continue to work transparently with Premiership Rugby in this regard.”

The charges against Saracens, which relate to the seasons 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, were brought following a nine-month investigation by Premiership Rugby. In accordance with the Salary Cap Regulations, the charges were referred to the independent dispute service, Sport Resolutions, which appointed a panel chaired by Lord Dyson.

The decision of the independent panel was to uphold all of the charges, finding that Saracens had both failed to disclose payments to players and exceeded the ceiling for payments to senior players in each of the three seasons.

What do you think?

67 thoughts on “Saracens Statement on Behalf of Nigel Wray

  1. Well there is an awful lot of subtext in there

    “The Club believes that a review or further appeal would be a costly, time consuming and destabilising exercise”
    The club believe we would lose any appeal because we are guilty but don’t actually want to admit that we are guilty

    “I recognise that the arrangements between myself and players, made in good faith, which comprise the material element of the charges, should have been brought to the attention of the salary cap manager for consultation prior to entering into them.”
    I recognise that the arrangements were underhanded and sneaky trying to find loopholes in the wording of the agreement we signed

    “It is significant that following extensive investigations the independent panel stated that we have ‘not deliberately sought to circumvent the regulations’.”
    because legally they couldn’t prove it doesn’t mean they didn’t think it

    “In addition, we can confirm that we are complying strictly with the salary cap regulations in the current season”
    …because the cap breaches relate to payments outside their basic salary

    “No. The sanctions do not have an impact on any trophies the team has previously won.”
    …Other than to put an asterisk against them in everyone’s mind

    6
    1. That “subtext” is just your opinion though Leon. I could easily offer an alternative to each statement you’ve made in a totally different way.

      Think the key is they messed up, got punished harshly enough that it should discourage them or anyone else trying to play in the grey areas of the cap.

      I think they have acted responsibly in taking their medicine now rather than letting it drag out.

      This should draw a line under it and everyone should move on and get back to enjoying watching the best and most competitive league in the world.

      1
      1. Ben H. Another take. Could it be that Saracens took there med as they had little chance of winning an appeal & their punishment could have been increased? Could, should they should have been stripped of all their titles for the last 3 yrs at least, as per Lance Armstrong who also cheated? Is the principle not the same? Did the ‘entrepreneurial’ Wray not simply try it on, but got caught out? Isn’t that it?
        As for, ‘This should draw a line under it and everyone should move on’, are you a Sarries fan perchance? If so, wouldn’t you, they, like to to just sweep it under the rug? Another last ? How come ‘the best and most competitive league in the world’ hasn’t produced a WC winner since 2003? No tribalism involved with any of the aforementioned is there?

        1. “the best and most competitive league in the world’ hasn’t produced a WC winner since 2003”

          Faf De Klerk might disagree with you there

            1. At least 5 of the SA squad play or have played in the premiership in the last few seasons.

              Think its also fair to say that the premiership provided considerably more players to the world cup than any other league!

              My point about Sarries is that all of our comments are opinion and not fact.

              Yes I am a Sarries fan but that doesn’t change my view. It doesn’t benefit anyone to keep dragging this conversation out. Time is much better spent talking about what happens on the pitch!

              1. Yr comment about the ‘best league in the world’ is ‘opinion and not fact’. I haven’t counted, but SR probably contributed a couple of players to the WC too. And ‘all of our comments are opinion and not fact’, is simply untrue. As for, ‘It doesn’t benefit anyone to keep dragging this conversation out. Time is much better spent talking about what happens on the pitch!’, well wouldn’t this particularly benefit yr Sarries?

        2. Don P, the problem we’ve got is that whatever side you’re on we need absolute transparency. Both side of this – the “bankrupt the club, throw Mark McCall in prison and give all of Nigel Wray’s money to the other clubs” side and the “they were only looking after player welfare and the penalty is ridiculous” side – are arguing in a vacuum without any actual facts. It’s made worse by the fact that their short statement, acknowledging that the breaches were unintentional, and the severity of the penalty seem to contradict each other. The report must be released in full.

          As for stripping them of championships, etc what basis do you have for that? Several sources in the press have said that the playing personnel wouldn’t have been any different during the period, so why would the results have been any different? Be careful of throwing stones in glass houses when you accuse others of tribalism, especially when ignorant of the facts.

          1
          1. You’re right about the requirement for transparency Stuart, but perhaps you need to tell that to Wray? 1 fact I’m not ignorant about is that Saracens were found guilty. I’m on the side of honesty & not cheating. Which are you on? Side of not tainting rugby’s name I’d hope? Stop trying to minimalise chicanery, being an apologist. If you don’t condemn it, do you not condone it? Cleansing of Saracens’ & rugger’s soul time I’d have thought. There is a fundamental issue at stake here. Anything else is distraction, minutiae, Sophism. They were lucky not to forfeit their titles in ? on the basis that they were underpinned by corruption. Besides, who’s to say that the ‘corrupted’ players would have stayed without Wray’s ‘bribes’? Do you know for a fact that they would have done so?

            1. Initially I fully condemned Sarries actions, as cheating is cheating and ultimately it has brought the game into disrepute but the more I find out about it the less angry I am about it.

              The specific players in question would almost certainly have stayed at Saracens without the additional reward as other prem clubs would need to have made a big offer to lure them as they are true one club men and as a result probably couldn’t have afforded them. That would mean French offers were the biggest risk which would mean calling time on their England careers

              At the end of the day they have broken the rules. They knew what they were doing was borderline at best and definitely against the spirit of the cap so they should suck up their punishment apologise for their mistakes so we can all move on

              1
              1. Leon – I’m a Sarries fan, but completely agree about taking it on the chin and moving on. The problem is that in the absence of a full release of the report all the haters (and there are many, in most cases driven by blind vindictiveness rather than any logic) will continue to speculate assume that their rantings are justified. The only way to put it to bed and nip in the bud some potentially serious impact on the league and international setup is to release the full report (redacted to protect privacy of individuals where appropriate).

                1
                1. Yes I agree that a lot of the anger is coming from a position of ignorance but I also think that a lot of the anger is coming from the way Saracens have responded. there has been no apology, no admittance that what they have done was against the spirit of the cap and no contrition at all
                  They have stated they don’t believe they have done anything wrong and the punishment is harsh but they won’t dispute it because “Any review or further appeal would be a costly, time consuming and destabilising exercise” which creates a very us vs the world, backs against the wall hostile stance

                  1. The problem is that the rest of the league has always made it us vs. the world! The old school aristocrats of the game hate that we usurped them and the others hate us because we’re simply much better at developing world class talent than they are. They basically want us to carry on developing Lions-level talent and then give them to other clubs for free because their useless at doing it themselves or else suffer competitively while paying the salaries of a third of the first choice England squad. I have no problem with being penalised for breaking the rules, but I do have a problem with being singled out and slapped with what feels like an excessive penalty given what little we know of the case, especially when there is no way every other club is pure as the driven snow in regards to the salary cap. As far as I’m concerned I look forward to this blowing up in the league’s and RFU’s faces!

                2. Nonsense Stuart. Words like ‘haters, blind vindictiveness, rantings’ are utterly subjective. ‘I’m a Sarries fan’, seems yr only factual statement & states much. This ‘full report’ stuff is piffle. A shameful attempt to side track. Would a ‘full report’ change the fundamental fact that Sarries were found guilty of cheating? I don’t think so.

  2. It’s less of “I’m sorry” and more of “I’m sorry we were found guilty”.

    This was always on the cards, I think some got hung up on the whole appeal idea, when in reality an appeal wasn’t an option. Sarries could question the process which gave the decision but not the decision itself. This is pretty common with dispute resolution organisations. Ombudsman schemes come to mind.

    In all I’m glad it’s announced now instead of hanging over the league for months.

    It will be interesting to see if Sarries lose any players when this season is done. I suspect this won’t impact anyone immediately but will impact future contracts.

    1
  3. Am I the only one that can’t get their head around the fact that Sarries are now not breaching the cap and don’t need to offload players? How is that possible? Would be very interested in answers to this conundrum.

    3
    1. I don’t profess to know anything about how the cap works of exactly how it was being breached but I believe that Sarries argument was that as they had set a precedent of having one of these co-investments cleared in the past they assumed that they then didn’t have to declare them in future. It could just be that in not declaring them they are deemed to fall under the cap rules and now by ensuring they are more transparent they aren’t? That is a wild guess not based on anything other than my opinion

      2
    2. If the press release is true then the players “salaries” are within the cap, it’s just the co-investments with certain players that caused them to exceed it.
      If the co-investments have been wound-up then Saracens could be within the cap again.

      2
    3. The base salary of the players that they were declaring to PR has always been in the cap, however Nige was investing significant sums of money into private business owned by the players which were buying up properties in St Albans. Co investment is allowed under certain circumstances but Sarries were using it as a way to provide additional remuneration without declaring or consulting PR.
      The co investment will have stopped dead but the question will be would the players continue to stick around at their next contract renewal without it

      1
      1. Leon, for what it’s worth I suspect most of the players will. Let’s not forget that most of the players, including the biggest stars, are home grown and have lived and breathed the club their whole careers. Besides, the number who had these co-investments is small anyway.

        1. Yes the players in question are specifically Faz, Mako, Billy, Itoje and Wiggy.

          Wiggy is already as good as gone so no problem there and the remainder are all products of the Sarries academy who have been with the club their whole career. I suspect they would only leave if the offer was very large and the English teams probably can’t afford them so in reality we are talking about France which would mean an end to their England Careers

          2
    4. For Staggy, the point is that their salary total has always been, and continues to be, under the cap. The investigation and penalty have been in regards to investments that NW made with players outside the club, generally with the intention of providing the players with a career to move to after rugby. These aren’t prohibited by the salary cap rules, but nor are they expressly allowed, hence the confusion all round. It’s a messy grey area, not helped by ridiculously complex rules in general for the salary cap (apparently the legal document setting them out runs to over 50 pages.

      The answer to your question about how they can get under the cap without selling players is that as long as these co-investment have ceased (or else been fully declared and cleared with PRL) then it’s not an issue. There were only a small number of players involved anyway, all of which were home grown from the Sarries academy.

      1
      1. Read Brian Moore’s comments Stuart. It’s not messy as you allude. There is a ‘do’s’ & ‘don’ts’ list. Sarries breached the ‘don’ts’ list. Tried sliding under the radar. Crashed & burned. Joined Icarus.

        2
        1. Sorry Don. It’s exactly that messy. How can something that should be very simple be made to make up over 50+ pages of legal gibberish. I’ve met Brian Moore and he’s welcome to his opinion, but as someone who played most of his career in the amateur era and shortly afterwards I don’t believe he has any greater knowledge of the matter than we do.

          3
            1. Yes, I realise that. I’ve met him in his legal guise. He’s an insurance lawyer and has no clue about finance. He’s a twat to boot.

          1. He was a lawyer by profession. He stated how Sarries breached the ‘don’t’ list in regs. How is that opinion? Why are you still so in denial? Coming clean, owning up, taking their med is the only way rugby, not just Saracens, can begin to cleanse the game of being tainted. It’s a wider issue than just being insular & about how poor Sarries have been hard done to! If they had’t put their hands in the cookie jar, they couldn’t have been caught out, could they? Jeez!

            1
  4. As a “SAFFER” and longtime supporter of “SARRIES” due to the SA connection, can someone please explain what the salary cap actually means. I understand a salary cap to mean, A maximum amount of pounds paid to a player on a monthly or annual basis. Does a win bonus affect the salary cap? Does the man of the match award affect the salary cap? Does a player driving a certain brand of vehicle, all costs covered including insurance contravene the salary cap? If a player kicks 5 dropped goals to win a match and receives a “special” win bonus does that contravene the salary cap. I am very surprised to learn that there is a “Salary Cap” in England rugby. I was under the impression that one was able to sell one’s skills and talent to the highest bidder. Obviously I was wrong. Not so in soccer I believe.

    1. Close its a maximum paid to the team as a whole rather than an individual cap and includes benefit in kind reward such as cars etc. I don’t think there are the performance related bonuses in the Prem because of the cap.

      Indeed no cap soccer which is why you see clubs going bankrupt on an annual basis huge transfer fees and prima-donna players.

      1
    2. Hammy, just read the full explanation of the cap on the Gallagher EPL website. Too many comments on here are just opinion and guess work.

        1. I don’t know why you keep having not so subtle digs at my comments Jake, perhaps YOU could enlighten me? Just to add, surely it makes perfect sense to consult the source material for accurate information?

          1. Very touchy Acee. I was genuinely interested because (1) the document is 114 pages and I really cba to read it and (2) you have just discredited everyone else’s opinion without giving any real justification. As you have claimed to have read the material, please put us out of our misery.

            3
            1. OTOH Jake, although I’m not Acee’s mother, you could take a gander at the Gallagher site & put yrself out of yr misery couldn’t you. You apparently don’t have to read all 114 pages, although how do you know that’s the no? And whether Acee’s touchy or not, is irrelevant opinion, isn’t it? Go on Jake, you know you want to!

              1
              1. Ooo Don, you’re twisting my arm now. I had heard the number of pages quoted on a couple of podcasts but, if I am struggling to sleep over the weekend, I may give it a shot.

                1. So long as you don’t proof read the whole 114 Jake, you make just about make it out of the other side before Xmas.. with a bit of luck & a following tail wind.

  5. There is a breakdown of it (salient points) on the Gallagher website. Ok? Think I’m rapidly becoming the new Don P. In which case, you can shove this site where the sun don’t shine.

      1. No sleight on you Don. Sadly , one or two people here are falling prey to keyboard warrior/type before you think syndrome. Just to clarify, Hammy asked for the main details of the salary cap which, to my knowledge are on the Gallagher website. I can assure anyone who’s bothered that had they been 114 pages long, i wouldn’t have read them either.

  6. Don, thank you for making my point perfectly. Until the report is issued in full none of us, including you, knows what the actual facts were. I’m all for Saracens taking their medicine, but the speculation about how bad it was will rage in the vacuum of facts. Once the truth comes out my guess is that it will probably reflect worse on the club than the most blinkered Sarries apologists thinks, but also not nearly as horrific as the haters want it to be. There’s inevitably a lot of sour grapes and vindictiveness behind the current vitriol. As for the players in question, one of the very few facts we do know is who they are, a handful of players who have been with the club since they were pups and one near-retiree with a decade of club service behind him. None were tempted to the club by the co-investments, nor has there ever been even the slightest inkling they would go elsewhere, with or without them.

    1. Stuart, have you read Brian Moore’s comments? Sufficient fact to state that Saracens broke the rules. They got punished. This is fundamentally it & the key points. Moore didn’t exhibit anything to do with grapes, sour or otherwise. I don’t particularly support any club, but I support integrity & condemn sharp practice. Factually, the club & players involved were guilty. Legally, ignorance is no excuse. What else is there? What is the other truth, are the other facts that need to come out? Surely anything other than a misdeed being penalised is an attempt at mitigation? Why do people find it necessary to fudge, obfuscate, muddy the waters so? A straight admission of guilt, contrition & putting it right henceforth is the only way forward?

      1
      1. Don,

        You’re clearly ignoring everything I say, or else it’s over your head. My problem is not with the rules being applied and accepting the penalty. One has to assume that you’d rather keep feeding the fire of your hatred with speculation and fantasy than know the actual facts. What a sad, little, pathetic excuse of a man.

        Yours in contempt.

          1. Acee – I should be so lucky!!

            Don P – Thank you for proving my point, once again. There is no logical or intellectual reason for not wanting more facts about something this complex, except for one….that you realise that the actual detail would make your previous statements, vitriol and pathetic bias look foolish (although you do a perfectly good job of that yourself). Therefor my assessment of your character and intellect stands.

              1. The strength of an argument is based on it’s logic and intellectual rigour, not it’s popularity. I wouldn’t imagine someone with a single digit IQ like you would understand though.

                2
                1. Stuart why do you continue to undermine yrself with emotive language & personal insult? Yr ‘the strength of the argument..’ stuff may be correct, depending on which side of the ‘argument’ you refer to. The ‘argument’ that all ‘the facts haven’t come out’, or the other, not ‘argument’, but factual statement that Sarries breached the salary cap & were justly punished for their misdeed? How’s that for ‘logic & intellectual rigour’?

                    1. Interestingly the second article from the rugby paper (the one you posted twice) gives a bit more detail on the companies than I have seen before and helps clarify why this is clearly not straight forward joint investment as per previous allowed examples.
                      Faz investments could be genuine joint investment as there is not enough information to judge otherwise but Maro took over an existing business set up and by a firm Wray is heavily involved in and Wiggy Billy and Mako took over a businesses that Wray had set up by a business associate and that he was sole share holder for. Whilst not cut and dried it clearly hints at dodgy backdoor dealings rather than either them setting up the business and Wray investing or the business being established as a joint venture. For this to be seen as a breach of cap I can only assume that these business had inherent value when taken over by the players

                    2. But the truth doesn’t hurt me Stuart. It hurts Sarries & rugby though, ie the guilty judgement truth. And how is all this winding me up? I’ve already stated I don’t support a particular club. Besides you’re the 1 using personal, subjective & emotive language, not me. As for the popularity bit, were you AWOL during the WC? Did you miss all the excrement that came down on my head? ‘Talk’ about facts. Pah!

                    1. The articles are by hacks with opinions, just like you Stuart. The Rugby Paper criticised the time the verdict process took & lack of detailed info, but didn’t deny the verdict. The Times, from what I could peruse before I had to pay an annual (?) subscription to read further, used derogatory lingo when describing the adjudicating panel as ‘beaks’, so again, a certain bias in tone by another hack doesn’t alter the basic guilty verdict. Neither does the stuff about the Ltd Co set ups etc. The bottom guilty line remains the same. If you bothered to read Moore’s comments properly, you would see that the money, or in kind remuneration, is rugby related. Ie, as the players involved are employed by Saracens, a rugby club, then by definition the dosh involved is rugby related.. & illegal. Back to where we all came in! Far from my being unable to grasp the pertinent facts or have their going over MY head, perhaps YR siege mentality has clouded yr judgement a tad?

                      1
  7. Leon – I’m a Sarries fan, but completely agree about taking it on the chin and moving on. The problem is that in the absence of a full release of the report all the haters (and there are many, in most cases driven by blind vindictiveness rather than any logic) will continue to speculate assume that their rantings are justified. The only way to put it to bed and nip in the bud some potentially serious impact on the league and international setup is to release the full report (redacted to protect privacy of individuals where appropriate).

    1
  8. Yes, I realise that. I’ve met him in his legal guise. He’s an insurance lawyer and has no clue about finance. He’s a twat to boot.

  9. Tony Rowe, Exeter Chair, is seeking to sue Sarries for lost revenue over past lost titles. He labels Wray a ‘cheater’. He also regrets agreeing to keep schtum, with the other Prem clubs 4 yrs ago, over a prev salary breech by Saracens. Obviously another ill informed Sarries hater then?

    1
  10. This page and comments section represent my entire knowledge of this situation.

    From what I’ve gleaned here:

    – Saracens knowingly broke the salary cap rules. Therefore the club was punished accordingly.

    – Nigel Wray’s statement did not include an apology as such. It read more as an expression of relief that the penalty wasn’t more severe. Having said that, I can also accept that even if that weren’t the case, not appealing would still be the right thing to do, for the reasons Wray outlined.

    – The case for the defence seems to be that:
    a) the co-investments made were not material in keeping the implicated players at the club, given that they were products of the Saracens club set-up and/or loyal “one-club men”.

    (Side note: Mako & Billy Vunipola joined in 2011 and 2013 respectively, so admittedly a lot more than 3 years ago, but we don’t know how long the co-investment thing has been running, and it could quite credibly have been an incentive to move to the club, particularly for later-joining Billy).

    b) Only a few players were involved, namely the aforementioned Vunipolae, Farrell, Wigglesworth and Itoje.

    Look, I have no dog in this fight, but on point A, if it made no difference, why did they do it then? And on the second point, OK rugby’s a team sport and the depth of talent at Saracens is a key strength, BUT the players implicated just happen to be arguably the club’s best, or at least most influential, players.

    Speaking solely for my money-grabbing self, if someone had offered me a complimentary stake in some property investments in St Albans, I’d have bloody jumped at the chance. Average house price around £600k (roughly double the national average) and up by about 55% over the past 10 years.
    https://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/stalbans/?q=St%20Alban%27s&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=home
    3 bed houses in St Albans are rented out for about £2k per month.

    Now, forgive me for projecting my greed onto others for a moment, but it is mental to suggest that this kind of passive income wouldn’t be a motivating factor in choosing where to (continue to) ply one’s trade.

    Objectively speaking, making those investments local is a great idea, because it gives those guys an even stronger connection to the area and less likely to move to another club. (Good reason to make sure it’s not done cynically in breach of rules then!).

    In summary, it seems to me that Nigel Wray was caught with his skiddies round his ankles, and wisely decided not to continue waving his willy around, but to pull up his trousers and focus on trying to convince everyone that he wasn’t wanking, just doing a wee.

    1

Leave a Reply