Bath have remained silent on claims that they are being investigated by Premiership Rugby over breaches of the salary cap. Bath’s 39-16 defeat of their West Country rivals Gloucester was overshadowed by the claims made earlier that they were being probed about paying more than the £5.5m limit on players.
Premiership Rugby has also refused to comment on a report in yesterday’s Saturday’s Daily Mail that Saracens and Bath are under scrutiny. When Bath’s head coach, Mike Ford, was twice asked if he knew about an investigation and what the club thought about the claims, his reply, which he repeated twice, was: “We agree with the salary cap.”
Gloucester’s director of rugby, David Humphreys, declared his club were in support of the salary cap both now and in the future, saying: “Mine and the club’s view is that it is a huge issue which is not for public debate. It goes to the core of the game here. From someone who was involved in the Pro12, one of the big things talked about here was the competitiveness of it and that any team can beat anyone else.
“So I think it is a fantastic league to be part of and the salary cap is something we support and certainly going forward, we will be supporting it.”
Leicester’s director of rugby, Richard Cockerill, also described the salary cap as a good thing. Recommended sanctions for such offences are points deductions and fines, although the extent of any alleged breaches is not apparent.
Speaking after Tigers’ 23-19 league defeat to Northampton, Cockerill said: “The cap is there for a reason. It is a good thing because it keeps the league competitive. Ultimately, if you have one or two clubs with owners that want to spend limitless amounts of money, it’s OK. But sides like ourselves, Gloucester and Saints, who pay our own bills and we have a robust financial structure in that we spend what we can afford to spend, that’s a good model to be part of.
“There is no point having two or three sides who can spend £15m, and the rest can spend £5 or £6 m, because that is what makes the league uneven.
“We can only afford to spend what we’ve got. What we create, we spend. We are not in debt, and that is exactly how we want to stay.”