IIRC Wigan broke 'the spirit of the cap' rather than the cap itself.

I'd suggest that all the breaches the RFL have discovered over here have been fairly minor by comparison to what the NRL have discovered at Canterbury and Melbourne which might justify the more lenient punishments we've seen in SL.

Which British club has been found operating two sets of accounts?

I thought they had gone well over although I could be wrong. But as I recall was this not the same incident where ML challenged this, and when all around thought they would get a six point ban ended up with 2 through a technicality? I agree no club has been so underhand and devious as the Dogs or Storm, but had Wigan been relegated that year had they not gone and got Fielden, when surly they must have known it would take them over, then I wonder how massive the difference in cost would be between what they would have lost as to what the Storm have hidden?

IIRC, a 8 point ban that ended up at 4 because Wigan successfully argued that they couldn't introduce the new penalties retrospectively.



Again IIRC Wigan re-negotiated several contracts in order to fit Fielden's contract within the cap. That was eventually ruled a breach of the 'spirit' of the cap. I'd imagine this type of thing happens at every club to some extent every season (including Leeds) but the scale of the re-negotiations at Wigan was ruled a breach by the RFL.

I await Rogues Gallery input to clear up any confusion.

Where's Gilder gone? Has he disappeared because, in the words of many-a-hull fan, he's been owned?

In order to avoid relagation though, that is the part where cap mis-management becomes cheating to gain unfair financial gains IMO of course. FWIW i think Storm have been let off lightly only have the penaties against them they have, a banning for the season with all results reversed would have been a fairer result for all involved this year for me. Although how you penalise them for seasons gone by is another kettle of fish.

Has anything been mentioned about what Storm are going to do with their current squad? Surely they cannot afford to keep the current team unless they all accept a pay cut? Does this mean that there will be some shedding of players for the club?

I've been thinking about this too. But there are too many senarios at the moment. I was thinking that they must offload players to get under the cap. But how can they do that when a player could and quite rightly so say "no that's my contract pay it" which still leaves them over the cap. But surly there must be a set of contracts that are sent to the NRL stating the players contracts and that the other payment was, for aguments sake, under the counter. If this was the case then they could operate with the current crop paying their NRL sent contracted saleries and be under the cap. But then there is the question of taxes and the like, who is accountable for them for the other payments. IMO this is very messy and this is only the tip of the iceberg as to who is accountable for what. Like I say there are far too many other variables at the moment to be able to assertain who is paid what, illegally or not. But what i am suprised about, given how initially harsh the NRL have jumped on them is why they are allowing them to carry on this season. I find that very strange.

So, here we have a Leeds fan that will excuse Wigan for breaking the "spirit" of the salary cap but will repeatedly criticise Leeds for not adhering to the "spirit" of the overseas quota when they actually do adhere to the actual quota, rather than some fictional "spirit" of a quota that doesn't exist.

I am beginnning to wonder if you;re really a Leeds fan at all.

Wigan did what probably all SL clubs do to some extent each season when negotiating and re-negotiating player's contracts. The RFL deemed Wigan (on quantity and/or back-loading) to have broken the spirit of the cap and were punished accordingly. I have no issue with the RFL's actions in Wigan's case.

I perceived the debate to be concerning the proportionality of the punishments handed down by the respective governing bodies. I don't see what (again from memory) Halifax, Wakefield, Hull, Castleford, St Helens, Bradford and Wigan did (in regards their breaches) to be in the same degree as what Canterbury did and what Melbourne have apparently done.

In terms of $$$$ you are right but the point is some of the above gained success/survival through cheating which isn't tolerated in the NRL and is punished accordingly i.e Titles stripped and proper ££ sanctions imposed whereas our soggy Kit-Kat RFL just blow hot air imo and many others.
The $$$ involved relates as much to the prize money they gained as it does to the actual $$ they paid over the Cap but it still points clearly to cheating and an underhand approach to gain an unfair advantage which the clubs you mentioned did over here.

You accused us all of being looney for having an opinion, no one else did that, but then I suspect yours was the correct opinion again?

No, what I actually said was



But that does not fit with your childish agenda does it?

I am taking it you are sensitve and have had this said to you before, therefore resent it?

Gotcha you idiot our post simply proves his point. You direct personal abuse to anyone differing with your opinion. He calls you on it. You deny it (yet it's plain to see) then have a sly dig by saying he must've been called Loony before. Thereby doing exactly what he called you out for doing.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't shy away from calling a window licker a window licker, as you should know by having been on the receiving end so often but you're the biggest hypocrite on here because you cry about me (or Danny) doing it yet you're the worst culprit.

Suprise Suprise.



Your childish and silly agenda gets more and more boring.

I agree with your key point in that no club in the Uk has (been caught doing/)done anything remotely comparable to this.

With regard to wigan - wasn't the key point that the RFL disaproved of that they weren't just re-negotiating players contracts but actually moving money owed to players under their current contracts into future years (as opposed to say negotiating a reduced salary but with a longer contract - which is perfectly legit)

Can't believe it took 4 pages for someone to mention that - it was my first thought

I'm very sensitive, that's why I like plenty of KY.

My window cleaner has hurt his back. Can you pop around to lick my windows?

You want to continue your childish posts then PM me. That way others don't have to suffer the derailment of their threads.

Apologies to those for another thread been ruined by Gareths chilidsh agenda.

Shame they didn't so that when SL clubs cheated their way to SL and CC trophies.

The distinction I would make is that Wigan (even as the single biggest penalty applied by the RFL under a breach of the salary cap rules) were still (in monetary terms) seeking to remain within the cap spend allowed in the 2006 season.

What Canterbury were found guilty of and Melbourne appear to be in a similar situation is a systematic defrauding of the rules and regulations. Canterbury were not relegated or had their franchise removed and I doubt Melbourne will either.

All we can judge is whether the penalties applied (by the RFL and the NRL) are proportional to the breaches committed.

Shouldn't you be apologising to those on this thread that you called "loony" just for daring to have an opinion different to yours?




........you window licker,

Good for you. You keep defending Wigan for breaching the "spirit" of the cap. When are you next going to stick the boot into the club you "support" for breaching the "spirit" of the quota?

I wasn't aware I was defending Wigan.

I am comparing the action taken by the RFL in relation to the action taken by the NRL.

As long as the punishment both ruling bodies hand down is proportional I don't have an issue with it.

"International Resuce haven't heard the last from me ...."