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.

and that is where the problem arose. Wigan didnt pay those players that amount for playing in 2006. They paid them more in 2007/8/9/probably 10.

And that is why they werent punished for exceeding the cap by £220k

you missed off quite a bit

And some of the money they paid them in later years was for playing in 2006. It is clear that this was the case, the players accepted not receiving the money in 2006 in return for revised contracts that saw them receiving that money in later years. It was still for playing in 2006 and so still counted on the 2006 salary cap.
I don't see any problem, apart from the punishment not being a sufficient deterrent. However since then both the punishments and the methodology of monitoring the cap have changed for the better. The current system would have prevented the breach which is much better than retrospectively punishing teams for breaches.



Only irrelevant speculation.

wow, and i get accused of trolling threads.

FMD whats wigans situation from 3 years ago got to do whether having a salary cap helps the game grow or not.

the funny thing is everytime i see someone arguing for the cap, they are 99.9% of the times either a wigan or a leeds fan.

i disagree, as did Wigan and the punishment from the RFL, and as such the RFL

but tbh this is just going in circles



relevant to the point i made

You're saying the RFL punished them for not breaching the salary cap? When the RFL said they breached the salary they meant something else?



It's not particularly ambiguous, is it?

Possibly because you (like Wigan) have failed to come up with any explanation as to how deferring a payment changes what that payment is for.

unless I start Shi77ing £20 notes Quins RL will never be able to AFFORD to spend the full cap...

Because, as Wigan argued and would have appealed. The payment wasnt for playing in 2006 but 2007 as per the contracts stipulation.

Whilst you (and the RFL) may wish to assume that Wigan payments in 2007 were actually for 2006 there is no evidence that is the case. The fact is that the RFL hadnt got rules in place to stop that and relied on vague and spurious reasoning to 'send out a message' hence the fact the actually punishment was completely arbitrary and not as per the rules set down. That is also why the RFL didnt fine Wigan as there is no way Whelan would have paid it and the RFL would have been laughed at by whatever arbiter they found

They didn't appeal. Presumably because they knew an appeal was unlikely to succeed.



It's not complicated. The payments for 2006 that they deferred were still for 2006 when they were eventually made. It is highly unlikely an arbiter would rule otherwise hence the lack of any appeal.