no, you are wrong, they didnt.


this may be relevant if it was what Wigan did. But they didnt. They offered players new contracts on less money for that year, and new contracts on more money for the year after. This wasnt against the rules.

Wigan were contracted to pay out less than the SC for that year. And the next year also.

it is still quite a punishment. One that would be unheard of in any other sport.

what !!!! its in the rule book and they broke it , things happen in cricket that would be unheard of in RL.

get a grip

Cheat now pay later , so hire purchase cheating , interesting concept

They use hockey sticks in other sports. Should we introduce those into Rugby League?

If you want to discuss other sports please do so here:
[urlhttp://viewforum.php?f=30[/url

except it wasnt, and as such they couldnt possibly have done.

or not

Indeed. I wonder why they closed the loophole then?

How hard would it be to have a clause stating that any use of ' loopholes ' will be deemed as being cheating , and cheating gives the RFL unlimited scope to punish the said users of the loophole

id wonder why if Wigan broke the rules the RFL felt the need to close a loophole that never existed.

Unless Wigan didnt break the rules?

it would quite obviously be impossible.

No, they did:





Still not enough of a punishment to stop them from breaching the cap by a huge amount. They did appeal to stop the, harsher, 2007 punishments from being applied.

As would trying to force clubs to play players they dont want to

Something like:

wrong again,

They were punished as per the rules for a 6% breach of the cap. Now im sure even you can work out £220k isnt 6% of £1.7m. So they clearly werent punished for a break of £220k as if they were they would have been deducted 6 points rather than 4

this is because they werent punished for breaking the rules cap, but the spirit of the cap, and as such the proscribed punishment wasnt applied but a different punishment for a different offence


and again, you are incorrect, they didnt appeal anything. They correctly clarified that it would be nonsensical to apply 2007 punishments to a 2006 breach.

i wouldnt force anyone to do anything.

Simply strongly encourage them to, and reward them for when they do

Breaching the spirit of the cap is against the cap rules (or was against the 2006 rules, they were rewritten in 2007). They broke the cap, they were correctly punished for it.



They went to a tribunal to get a ruling against the RFL's decision to apply the 2007 punishments. Makes you wonder if they wouldn't have breached the cap if the 2007 punishments had been in place.

Oh, and [url=http://www.wiganwarriors.com/news_full.asp?newsid=3102from the horse's mouth[/url. They renegotiated the contracts of several players so they "did not therefore receive monies in 2006". Not so that they were not paid, or paid any less, for playing in 2006.

'the spirit of the cap' is so vague as to be unenforceable. Had Whelan wanted that punishment would have been laughed out of court. Instead he just left the game,
Because that decision was obviously wrong.

yes, they re-negotiated the contract so that they were paid less in 2006 and re-negotiated new contracts from 2007. Thanks for confirming what i said

other than it was used.

Play now , get paid later , they put them on hire purchase contracts , apart from Radlinski of course , he is now probably the highest paid reserve coach in the world

which i agree should be regulated.

I have no gripe with contracts being unevenly spread throughout the length of the contract. That would be better for a clubs long term planning. But it shouldnt be done how Wigan did it.

It doesn't matter how much they were paid in 2006. What matters is how much they were paid for playing that season. Even if those payments were made later, or earlier. It's not a difficult concept and presumably was explained in the written judgement hence why I can find no further comments from Wigan.



Except you say it was enforced.