Wasn't there an example of Wigan and the RFL with the Quentin Pongia affair, the RFL did not disclose the full facts on the lines of confidentiality and I seem to remember the Wigan players were innoculated but the rest of the super league players were not protected. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/23794 ... scare.html

Wasn't there an example of Wigan and the RFL with the Quentin Pongia affair, the RFL did not disclose the full facts on the lines of confidentiality and I seem to remember the Wigan players were innoculated but the rest of the super league players were not protected. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/23794 ... scare.html

If it was known by all the other clubs, I’m not sure why it would be “confidential” in any other way though. The panel have highlighted that it was a “surprising” agreement and one that wasn’t available to all clubs. It leaves the massive question of “why not?” hanging over the RFL.
Due to the very poor redaction of the document, it’s obvious the player in question is George Williams. However, there’s no mention of any RFL contribution to his salary in any of the press releases when he signed his marquee deal in 2017. How many other clubs knew the RFL were contributing to Wigan’s salary expenditure? How may other clubs are in benefit of similar RFL contributions to a player’s salary?
I’m afraid I’m erring on the side of thinking this is corruption and the RFL giving secret financial payments to selected clubs.

The ones who have marquee players? Just a wild guess, mind.

I doubt that to be honest. The general idea of the payment seems to be to stop players going to the NRL, but most players on marquee money are from there (Hurrell, Merrin, Austin, Sandow, Roberts etc).
It’s also seems that these payments do count on the salary cap of the club they play for. If so, why do Wigan (and possibly other clubs) deserve money from the RFL and others don’t?
It’s more than suspicious if you ask me. Secret payments to certain clubs and players from the sports governing body is outright corruption at the highest level.

The "ambassador" rule has been in existence for a couple of seasons now. Doesn't Cas Tigers get some sort of dispensation for Mike McMeeken ?

I thought we did. Wasn't it 25 grand or something similar? Don't Saints get it for Lomax too?

Come to think of it, Saints get something for Jonny Lomax too dont they?

*posted this at the same time as the one above, Jinx!*

Let’s get all this muck raked over, for years the mystery alleged payments to Saints “Lomax”. Watkins Leeds, and others who belong to this protected secret species, who have dispensation because they are deemed susceptible to being signed by the NRL or the rugby union. I don’t care either way if these contract awards are right or wrong, but lets have some transparency who gets dispensation, and consequently more room on the cap.

Yes, but the Lomax and McMeekan agreements were different in that they were made public knowledge and the additional contract is directly between the player and the RFL. In Wigan’s case it seems that Williams has had some of his Wigan playing salary paid for by the RFL in a secret arrangement.
Some very important differences there.

That’s the odd thing though, in that there is no salary cap dispensation in Wigan’s case. The payment from the RFL has counted on Wigan’s salary cap.

Perhaps, but it’s still xxxxxxx£££ given to Wigan, while others are not subsidiaries, let’s have it out in the open Nottingham tiger

So basically you’re saying we’ve been mugged right off whilst others are getting these payments knocked off their cap allowance?

Seems as plausible as yet another non event thread about Wigan being cheats, started by somebody who hasn’t got a clue what the facts are (and nor have I).

Yawn

The thing is, the facts are now there in the public domain in terms of the Wigan issue. Anyone who doesn’t have suspicions when the document clearly states that the RFL have entered into a confidential agreement in regards to a paying part of a player’s salary, that wasn’t offered to other clubs, is naive in the extreme.
My understanding about the Lomax and McMeekan agreements is that this is done externally between the player and the RFL. So in a way, yes, it seems Wigan have got the rough end of that particular stick (why didn’t the RFL just agree a similar deal with Williams?).
Worth pointing out that the issue here is with the RFL, not Wigan. If the RFL are offering to give them money, they would be completely daft to turn it down.

Tell you what I’m saying NickyKiss, not Wigan bashing, but would like to know whom is privy to these central contracts, and exactly how it’s decided, transparency would be nice, because for example if George Williams is leaving, and the bond to keep him in super League has failed, do Wigan now pay this money back. Cloak and daggers as per usual.

The title should probably be changed then but without 'Wigan' in the title it's just not to drag in as many of the usual suspects!

I've so far seen Lomax, Watkins and McMeekan mentioned so we've potentially got four and who knows how many more there are. If they're on the list then I guess guys like McGillvary, Hill, Currie and others may be on there. Take Catalans away and London who have just come up and we might be left with a maximum of 2 or 3 clubs without these payments and if have they haven't produced anyone worthy of it then I'd probably concern myself more with why that is the case!

Why would union want to sign lomax? There are about 100 half backs better in union

Absolutely. The question isn’t the likes of McMeeken and Lomax though, who have an open and transparent contract with the RFL that was announced publicly. The question is how many other secret agreements have the RFL made with clubs to subside the playing contracts of players.
The reason it’s Wigan under discussion as they are the club who have now been named in a published document. To me it’s more about the sport’s governing body making secret arrangements with certain clubs to contribute to player wages.

Think you’ve missed the point Ruune, these central contracts were brought in to protect our top players from being purloined, by the NRL or the RFU. It’s not about Lomax it’s about the secrecy.

Wasn’t this the England players that were given a salary cap dispensation/central contract to stop them from going to the NRL?

This included George Williams from Wigan and Mike McMeeken from Cas. Roby from Saints?

No. This is a murkier affair.
The ‘central contracts’ were additional payments made to certain players by the RFL, seperate to their club playing contract and publicly announced. These players have to make themselves available for a certain amount of promotional work etc each season.
These didn’t include George Williams, who has had part of his playing contract paid for by the RFL in a secret deal made between the RFL and Wigan. No salary cap dispensation, just the RFL paying a proportion of his wage.

And you have evidence of Williams being paid by the RFL I assume?

its written in the ruling that part of somones wages were paid by the RFL for 'ambassadorial services'. the player is redacted, but the timings suggest its williams.

Its interesting the "RFL's head of delivery, professional games competition, and salary cap" didn't know anything about the clause.

As is always the case, the redaction of these documents is very, very poor. They don't even change the length of the word when they redact, so it's pretty easy to work out.
The first instance of the redaction of the players name is exactly the same length as the words 'George Williams'.
You've then got the words 'England international' redacted when it gives details.
The timings given in the document abut the player's new contract coincide exactly with George Williams signing a new contract.
I guess the specific player isn't relevant either. A player (who is an England international who has a first name with 6 letter and a surname with 8 letters) has had some of his playing wage paid, in a secret agreement, by the RFL.

So not only are the RFL inept at lying, but they are inept at covering their tracks, am sure nobody is surprised!

In fairness, it's the Sports Resolutions lot who publish the document.
I work a lot with redacted documents. You can't just 'cover up' the word(s) you want to redact as it's too easy to work out. They need to change the length of the words they redact and sometimes redact full sentences, otherwise the redacted information become obvious.
My favourite ones were in the Ryan Bailey and Zak Hardaker documents. They redacted information about diagnosed mental health conditions but it was so obvious the players could have taken them to the cleaners!