As I said if you add up Sams current wage plus the £50K allowance for O'Loughlin and Joels wage I expect that would put him on top or very near the top of the tree salary wise.

If the marquee player doesn't get approved then I guess only Dudson and Flower will be recruited. If it is agreed then I think there maybe one more signing.

BTW Roby and Ryan Hall were two other marquee players mentioned in the article.

There are also some other possible changes to the salary cap that I know of will also be discussed/debated next week.

You should be a politician Rogues. What is your view on Leneghan's comments that Wigan can offer more than anyone else? Propaganda to please the fans and nothing more? Or is there something drastic going on with the cap discussions?

Are these changes the ones I pm you about?

Ok so its gone from a change to the rules to a proposed change.

Maybe leneghan is hedging his bets. I have no doubt that if sam was on say 100k. Add to that 50k from head choppers wage. Then say 75k from hoffmiester and joel then you have 300k.

But lenaghan is hoping the RFL adopt his ideas therefore taking sams money off the cap allowing the purchase of some additional players. If it does not get retified then the promote goulding to centre

I'd actually have less problems if the RFL said they would pay wages off cap for england nationals. That way success is rewarded. But with injuries it may not hold some players as you would not be garuanteed the money each year.

I believe Shaun Wane is on the Rugby League programme on Radio Merseyside tonight so there may be questions asked on there. It should be worth listening to.

Problem with that is what you mentioned, you couldn't plan ahead as you might not be in the England team 12 months on.

The only way "England" players could be off cap is if they were centrally contracted, but that could only be justified if there were increased numbers of internationals which meant missing a large chunk of club games (i.e. RU, Cricket).

We don't want to go down the cricket road. The England players basically owned by the England cricket board and hardly play for their county.

Apologies, I misread the article. It appears that the meeting was actually held yesterday.

Wigan and RFL discussed it two weeks ago.

Yeah I know, RU is a bit more leniant but that's the way that I feel we'll have perhaps have to go to create more of an interest in the international game. But I suppose thats a discussion for another time/place.

This "exemption" scenario could work, but it would need for every team in the league to be an attractice proposition for players coming OOC. Take Widnes for example, if they finished around the playoffs next year, and (for example) Johnny Lomax was out of contract, if they were willing to name him as their exemption (and Saints couldn't match, Roby) then that would be talent spreading out over the league as they'd be able to make it worth it for him financially. Wouldn't happen at the minute though as outside the top 4 or 5 teams just aren't attractive propositions. Low attendances, poor stadium, poor team etc etc.

Quote ="St pete"Wigan and RFL discussed it two weeks ago.'" But I believe the full meeting of all clubs was yesterday. There maybe something on here tonight at 8 p.m. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bb ... merseyside It just depends when the Wane interview was done.

Quote ="St pete"Wigan and RFL discussed it two weeks ago.'" But I believe the full meeting of all clubs was yesterday. There maybe something on here tonight at 8 p.m. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bb ... merseyside It just depends when the Wane interview was done.

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"But I believe the full meeting of all clubs was yesterday. There maybe something on here tonight at 8 p.m. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bb ... merseyside It just depends when the Wane interview was done.'" Was anything said?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"But I believe the full meeting of all clubs was yesterday. There maybe something on here tonight at 8 p.m. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bb ... merseyside It just depends when the Wane interview was done.'" Was anything said?

Only some grunts by Wane which appeared to confirm the article on the RFL's site.

I confess I took more notice of the interview with McManus.

Quote ="St pete"Was anything said?'" Very interesting especially in relation to what I pm'd you earlier. 39 minutes in www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00l99h9

Quote ="St pete"Was anything said?'" Very interesting especially in relation to what I pm'd you earlier. 39 minutes in www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00l99h9

A bit more here. www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/1 ... um=twitter

A bit more here. www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/1 ... um=twitter

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"A bit more here. www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/1 ... um=twitter'" So what does that mean?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"A bit more here. www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/1 ... um=twitter'" So what does that mean?

I can't figure it out whether its 100k per player, or up to a total of 100k in total.

If you've produced a player who is current in the knights or England squad, you get a certain figure extra on the cap, if that player also plays for you, that figure is doubled. If said player plays for another side, they get the same amount.

It means what it says on the tin so far as I can see. Clubs who develop players who end up in the ETS or Knights squad get allowances: two per player. If the player was developed by AND plays for a club both allowances go to the one club; if the player was developed in one club but plays for another when in the ETS/Knights then they get one allowance and the current team get the other. So, Wakey won't get any allowances at all so far as I know because I don't think they have developed anyone towards either team and nor did they have any players in 2011 who were in either team but developed elsewhere. The maximum allowances can reach is £100,000 above the salary cap. I don't know how the finances work in practical terms because the RFL has not disclosed that bit (surprise, surprise) but if the allowances are on a sliding scale, as apparently they are, one would assume that those in the Knights attract a lower allowance than those in the ETS.

No I couldn't figure that one out either. I wonder if that's been kept deliberately vague in order to allow the big spenders of Leeds, Warrington and Wigan freedom to crash the salary cap?

Yup, thats obviously it.

Why are people finding this so difficult?

'Clubs....will be given dispensation to spend up to £100,000 more than the £1.65m salary cap limit'

£100K max in total. In line with the way other maximum exemption thresholds are given under the regulations.

There'll be monetary examples included when the updated Operational Rules are published. (A general press release isn't the place for them).

Then why not raise the cap £100,000?

It may have been one of several options proposed.

There isn't that much widespread support for such a simplistic approach though is there?

This way, Clubs are incentivised to invest in player development. There's also a clear link to improving the national team.

Once you argue that these are activities that should be encouraged, it makes sense to outline criteria that must be met to be entitled to claim the exemption.

If the RFL want to put the focus on youth then why not have a percentage of any home grown players wage not count to the cap.

For example, home grown players salary only count at 60% on the cap.

That way all teams would focus on youth, teams would be able to keep the eastmonds, tomkins, Grahams etc.

It would be less complicated than the current format being talked about.

Wakey would get half an allowance for Gareth Ellis, I should think.