Quote ="Dux"According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu'" If this is the case, you're right. It's a non story, other it being a hugely brave move by Wigan to commit so much of the cap on one player. A long term injury to him, and all of a sudden your thinned out squad minus it's marquee match winner looks somewhat brittle.

Quote ="Dux"According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu'" If this is the case, you're right. It's a non story, other it being a hugely brave move by Wigan to commit so much of the cap on one player. A long term injury to him, and all of a sudden your thinned out squad minus it's marquee match winner looks somewhat brittle.

Maybe the RFL have told Wigan they can break the cap and they will turn blind eye.

That is certainly the suspicion. I don't see how they would get £100k cap room made available and Sam on the biggest deal for a RL player in the world. (£100k+ cap room available is a direct Leneghan quote).

How, it could just be Joels salary plus the £50K allowance from O'Loughlins (something I mentioned earlier in this discussion)

As I said, keep checking the RFL Operational Rules.

That's always a risk.
In the case of long term injury there's provision in the regulations for clubs to apply for dispensation to exceed the second tier liability thresholds - to pay players who play more first team games than originally estimated as a result of such an injury.

(second tier liability being salary cap speak for the maximum you can pay players who are outside the top 25 in terms of salary cap value).

[url=http://www.wigantoday.net/sport/wigan-warriors/lenagan_we_did_want_thomas_1_3950697Gareth Thomas?[/url




This clarification you repeatedly demand - what format would that need to take in order to allay these overwhelming suspicions of wrongdoing you're experiencing?

Whether the lower clubs can afford to take advantage of this amendment is irrelevant. Clubs should have the opportunity to hold on to the players that they have invested plenty of time and money in to. People are only moaning because it's a Wigan player. The salary cap hasnt changed for a few years and because of that Wigan have had to wave goodbye to Ashton and Saints did Eastmond. Joel's gone now as well and if Sam had followed it would have been a disaster to the sport as a whole.

Of course people are only bothered about a potential advantage given to one team because it's Wigan. I mean if it was Leeds nobody would care ... NOT. Get a grip and lose the Cherry and White chip on your shoulder. If whatever rule is applied to all teams equally then I'm sure most people will be fine with it.

Can you not read dude? Andy Wilson is saying there are no changes to the cap and that Wigan have had no help they weren't entitled to.

So either Wilson, or the journalist/s that made the original story about his contract renewal are lying about the deal.

I never went right through the posts just saw people moaning cos it was Wigan on the earlier pages. Only just seen what Andy Wilson's said. Not too sure tbh, if a marquee/homegrown ruling hasnt been brought in then one needs to.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/23920/sltv-sam-tomkins-to-stayBut the rules have been changed to facilitate what Wigan has just done.[/url

Andy Wilson didn't quite give the full story.

What troubles me is this 'allowances' bit the RFL refers to but, as usual, is not open about. We know about the allowances for long serving players - up to 50% off cap for the longest serving player. So if Tomkins' salary is now also 50% off cap that means Wigan will be in a position to sign up other players as well without feeling it under the cap. How many marquee players are allowed per team? And what is the 'allowance' value? And how will this affect teams unable even to reach the cap much less spend beyond it, even though they may have a wonderkid in their squad?

I thought the existing allowances were £50k, not 50%.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Either way, we don't know what this new allowance is or how many players it relates to and I can't see it being anything but a load of trouble.

We'll file it under 'Wigan - Miscellaneous salary cap cheating' until we get clarification of the mess. Surely to god someone at the RFL reads my posts on this forum and hopefully there will be an RFL press release to clarify. If anyone doubts my reach, you can read between the lines that Andy Wilson's blog is all about me.

If it's in the Telegraph you can bet it's written by a RU journo who knows next to nothing about RL. Like [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/8874740/Wigans-Joel-Tomkins-switchs-codes-to-join-Saracens.htmlthis guy[/url, who thinks 'Tomkins' is spelt with a p.

The usual "conspiracy" theories! LOL

Of course. But you must be able to see that it needs clarification? We've got the RFL's website running an article stating Wigan have taken advantage of ammended salary cap rules for marquee players then Andy Wilson stating there are no rule changes.

Definitely needs clarification in some way.

It could just be that it's a combination of O'Loughlin getting 50k off his salary on the cap, wasn't there another kinda 50k off for home grown players after a certain number of time, as well as perhaps a new 50k for a side containing members of the England squad? That might be what is being classed as the new "marquee" clause type thing.

Either way, we've lost 4 big players, a couple of squad players, and so far have signed 3 squad players, it really isn't out of the realms of possibility that the "special dispensation" is only another £50k or so.

I hate to turn the discussion back on itself in a never ending circle, but if that is the case (And I'm not saying it's not) it doesn't tally with Tomkins being reported as the highest paid league player in the world or with Leneghan's statement that he could offer a player a deal that would beat any club in either code, when clearly he couldn't.

Add the £50K to Joels salary and then add Sams and it will be a tidy amount. Then consider Hoffman, Deacon, Coley, O'Carrol and Ben Davies have also left the club.
Anyway according to tonights Wigan Evening Post the "marquee player" amendment is due to be discussed by the Superleague clubs next week.

But Wigan have already been given permission to use it? Very suspect.

And on Sam's wages, fine, it could be possible. But what is your opinion of Leneghan's comments about beating any offer from any club in either code? Any meaning to that or just a complete lie wrapped up in positive PR for the fans benefit?

I can't remember the wording, but did he say beat any offer or just make a more attractive one? It just came across as a chairman trying to say that we will always be able to attract good players and shouldn't need to worry about RU as much as everyone is. But that's the way I took it, a bit of propaganda. I don't think he could seriously even consider trying to compete with the likes of French RU or whatever.

His wording was:



A 'more attractive package' to me means contract terms as opposed to spurious nonsense like the honour of playing for a club and stuff like that. Could also include intangibles like living in Wigan, the local women, the classy lifestyle in the area.

I think it is more likely to be saying what he thinks people want to hear to make them happy. Theres no way you can really get a current SOO and Aus test player to come over here whilst at the same time staying under the cap

Do you really think £300k is compensation enough for having to live with that though? I doubt it.