And your 3rd offence should come into the tier....meaning even an upheld 2 point deduction is lenient considering Wigans recidivism.

Disgraceful
We lost by an even closer margin against hull so we should get them back.
Plus 2 points for undue stress over the whole issue.

Our last offence was 12 years ago. If it was last year i'd agree. Come to think of it, if it was in the last 5 years I'd agree. 12 years is a long time.

The salary cap indicate the MAXIMUM spend and is not some approximate figure.
I believe that Wigan's accountants are clever enough to know where the line is and equally bright enough to know if they've exceeded it or tried to cheat the system.
It's not like they havent done such things in the past, is it ?

If there should be no penalty, then fair enough but, how much is little enough to escape punishment.

The worst aspect of all this is not the deduction or, the "refund" of the 2 points, it was the new supremo coming out and saying that it was wrong, before any appeal had even been lodged.
He should have allowed due process to take place and THEN passed comment.

Under a different owner etc.

Regardless whether or not Wigan deserved a points deduction, a 2 point deduction is just laughabl and very easy to claw back in the first place

Brilliant reading

Hahahahaha

The issue here could so easily be prevented. As is often the case in the world of the RFL, they have created a mess by not having a clear and well-known system for dealing with salary cap breaches. As a result, when it happens there will always be those who are annoyed because they perceive a sanction to be too harsh, and those who are annoyed because they perceive it to be lenient. It then all happens again when there's an appeal.
This could be so easily sorted out by publishing a clear and open policy that outlines the sanctions for breaching the cap. Everyone will then know what the punishment will be before breaching the rules. There can't be any kind of appeal/moaning if everyone knows the punishment in advance. It doesn't really matter what the sanctions are, but on reflection I'd go with:

First offence:
A fine of value of the breach for anything up to for 10k. Then two points for each 10k over the cap starting at 10k (ie going over the cap by 10-20k would be a 2 point deduction; 20-30k would be a 4 point deduction; 30-40k would be a 6 point deduction etc etc etc).

Second offence in a 5 year period:
A fine of 10k plus a 2 point deduction for every 10k over the cap (ie going over the cap by 1-10k would be a 2 point deduction; 10-20k would be a 4 point deduction; 20-30k would be a 6 point deduction; 30-40k would be an 8 point deduction etc etc etc)

Third offence in a 5 year period: A fine of 10k and two additional points for each band outlined above (ie going over the cap by 1-10k would be a 4 point deduction; 10-20k would be a 6 point deduction; 20-30k would be a 8 point deduction; 30-40k would be an 10 point deduction etc etc etc)

And so on, adding 2 points for each band for every repeated offence.
If this was published in advance, there couldn't be the kind of debate and hassle we have every time a club breaches the cap. It's just so basically simple - set out the sanctions in advance and everyone knows where they stand.

Why have rules

It is suspended until 2020, so if they offend again this season it will come to light in 2022.........

Why have rules

Two points did seem too harsh for what sounded like an administrative error. It is much different to where clubs deliberately try to circumvent the rules, like the did in 2006, where they asked Fielden and others to take a reduced amount that year but increase next year, by deferring payments. That is deliberately intended to get round the rule. Someone not filling out a spreadsheet properly is a different thing, with no advantage gained. Fine the club, no problem, but points, for that? Not fair on the players who bust a gut but then miss out on finals, when their play deserves it (okay, maybe not this year) because some back-roomer made a slip-up? Not for me.

The punishment has to fit the crime.

Who do you think you are talking sense on here? Shame on you

So in example Salford over spend by £2m and win everything then the following year get a 2 point deduction differed, sound reasonable to me

Tried reading it three times.
Anyone??

Think he's trying to be hypothetical. But it's a head scratcher.

Should be called
Wigan we can do what the

I do not think that Wigan breaking the salary cap in the near is very likely. This is because Ian Lenegans pockets are no longer deep enough to pay the full cap.

Fans of all the other mid table teams will be in arms now as those 2 points could be the difference in missing the play offs

Should be called
Wigan we can do what the

Didnt work the first time d**b a*s

I would agree with that were it an administrative error in this case. It wasn’t, however much Lenagan might try and say it was. The rules are simple, easily available and when it was pointed out to them they disputed it should count on the cap. That’s not an administrative error. That’s trying to get away with going over the cap. Which they’ve now done thanks to Lenagan’s new bestie.

Salary Cap Stuff like this should be "cast in stone" to stop appeals, something on the lines of with no excuses accepted:

1 to 10,000 .................caution.
10,000 to 20,000.........2 points
21,000 to 50,000 .......4 points
51,000 + ..................6 points and fine equivalent.

That's my reading of it too - their first response was to defend their actions and claim that it's a stupid rule anyway; which indicates that this wasn't some Excel slip-up by the Accounts Apprentice, but a deliberate act.

It does rather make a mockery of the rules, which will bite them when the next breach happens: "It was an admin error and we don't agree with the rule anyway, give us our points back," will now be the standard defence.

The cranks are back long live RL Fans we are wigan and can do what we like

got to love the anti Wigan brigade haven't you pal