You couldn't make it up....

Yes but without the relevant paper work it is a stadium that fails to meet the minimum 10,001 capacity that Premiership clubs are meant to have. Its another example of Premiership hypocrisy. 

You miss the point. NOW it doesn't meet the minimum criteria that the Premiership insist on others meeting. It doesn't matter if the capacity is 3000 or 9999, it is still not 10,001, yet they've been allowed to play on. 

Why can they play without meeting the criteria but others would not be allowed to?

Saracens had a ground with a capacity in excess of 10,000 and held the relevant safety certificate. They invested in improving the ground and whilst those improvements were being made, the capacity dropped to below 10,000 and the safety certificate was essentially void. This would have applied throughout last season whilst work was ongoing.

Work has completed bringing the capacity back above 10,000 and the safety certificate has been applied for, awaiting issue. Whilst awaiting issue, they have to operate on a reduced capacity.

It's not like they've moved to a new ground that is under capacity and have been allowed to play there whilst doing the relevant improvements..

Before anyone shouts at me, im not defending Saracens, Premiership clubs, PRL or the RFU. The governance of the game and the pandering to a dozen clubs at the top of the pile is shambolic to the detriment of the wider game. 

But let's try and see this for what it is - a club improving their facilities and infrastructure, not an attempt to work around the current regulations.

For what it's worth, my recommendation would be to change the entry criteria to remove the minimum capacity element (which i believe is justified on the basis that a capacity in excess of 10,000 makes a safety certificates mandatory) and replace with a requirement that clubs must hold the relevant level of safety certificate regardless of capacity. My understanding is Doncaster hold this despite their capacity being c.5,000. I don't think there is anything stopping a club for applying for a safety certificate based on capacity (feel free to correct me if im wrong).

As confirmed by their CEO yesterday.

As I understand it he hasn't lost his job as he is working with the administrators.

That’s nonsense, Richard. The legislative level applies to all sports, not just rugby union. As I have pointed out before, however, the FA sought a derogation for Bournemouth when promoted to the Premiership because their ground was less than 10,001. PRL could have done the same but didn’t. Nothing to do with the Rec!

However, i go back to my original point - Saracens already had a 10,001+ capacity stadium. They then chose to redevelop part of it which meant they had to operate for a period of time under reduced capacity and are having to continue to do so until they get the new safety certificate for the updated ground. This is not uncommon across pretty much every sport where clubs want to redevelop their ground without moving out temporarily whilst it's done.

It's not like they were starting at 2,000 and wanting to grow from there.

In addition, im pretty sure the decision to not approve promotion for both Ealing and Doncaster (the incorrect decision) stated that neither club had any plans in firm place at the time to develop their grounds further.

 So whilst one club had a definitive plan for redevelopment and carried that out, 2 clubs had no plans for development.

Trying to compare the 2 situations is like trying to compare apples with oranges.