Cas blame us for going down

[WESTCUMBRIARIVERSIDER]

i can see both sides to this story, but as someone said in another thread about the salery cap, when we were done for 2005 the rfl auditors said we were ok last year hence the signing of fielden, so as was said it is the rfl auditors that should be pulled over the coals.

[Fujiman]

WESTCUMBRIARIVE RSIDER posted:
i can see both sides to this story, but as someone said in another thread about the salery cap, when we were done for 2005 the rfl auditors said we were ok last year hence the signing of fielden, so as was said it is the rfl auditors that should be pulled over the coals.

Maybe the problem was Radlinski. One article mentions him regarding the breach of the cap.Maybe the RFL deemed he didn't play for free

[DaveO]

thegimble posted:
So Dave0 the problems we had were in direct result of situations over the last 2 years.

The squad since 2000 has been weakened year on year resulting in mediocrity. We have won 2 trophies in the era of the GF.

You are not talking about the same thing. The problems we have had over the last two years have been as a result of what happened in those seasons. The injuries to Hock and Lockers in 2005 and the recruitment of cover where why we went over the cap in 2005. The RFL said we couldn't sign cover, we did, we went over. If we have gone over in 2006 it will be down to recruiting Fielden to help get us out of a hole created by a team that would not play for Millward but would play for Nobby.

What you seem to be saying is the standard of our team or recruitment has been poor for a number of years but the fact is had Lockers and Hock not got injured in 2005 or had the Millward era not been such a disaster we wouldn't be having this discussion about the salary cap.

Now you tell me the problems we have now have only been in place for 2 seasons. Long term failure in recruting good players eg Dallas, Smith, Lam and Barrett have over the recent years been success. Even likes of Danny Orr was been vilified this time last season.

Yes DV had a bit of a reputation but has not set SL on fire. Richards has improved this season. But yet again we are left with questions over the likes of Higham, Millard, Withers and countless others who are not good enough. Though Higham is an impact player hes not as good as when he had Cunnigham running sides ragged ready for him to tear apart.

That has got nothing to do with why we went over the cap in 2005 or if we have in 2006. If we had a team full of top grade players and had the injury situation of 2005 and dealt with it the same way we would still have gone over the cap.

The situation were in are from short term thinking by people at the top. Weve sacked replaced managers for varing reasons. the side has had no stability since 2000-2002.

Gregory's side punched above its weight and once he went ill Betts was out of his depth, due to the problems we had with the lack of real quality and the quality we haeg Faz got injured quite a bit.

Not relevant to why we went over the cap.

So if we know what we are allowed to spend at the beginning of the season then surely MO and DW should ensure we stayed on track. Not destroy a season where we could get a CC final and a trp 4 finish.

If we get more than 4 points deduction the forget Wembley morale in the squad will plummet and we will go down as there is no fight in this sqaud.

I agree if we get a deduction this time then the team would not cope but if the club had not acted last season by recruiting Fielden which was as important for morale as it was for his playing contribution then we would have gone down anyway. It would not surprise me in the least if that wasn't a calculated risk and that it is as big a shock to Mo as it is to us that we have been losing at home to HKR because it will IMO be those points lost that send us down as much as any deduction.

In fact given the way the team is playing I would not say we are safe from relegation even if we don't get a deduction.

Oh what would i give for Danny Orr to come back at no 7 with Barett.

I wanted that to happen as well but it isn't why we may have broken the cap.

Dave

[DaveO]

Fujiman posted:
Maybe the problem was Radlinski. One article mentions him regarding the breach of the cap.Maybe the RFL deemed he didn't play for free

That may be a possibility. The rules state if you retire a player half way through a season and then employ them as a coach then their wages (as a player I think) will count on the cap.

Now I know Rads wasn't employed as a coach but what I am getting at is the RFL can decide how much a player costs in terms of wages despite what a club may pay him for his playing services. So we could end up in the situation where they deem Rads full salary counted on the cap.

If so and Wigan actually paid out £1.7m or less in wages last season then Wigan should take the RFL to court if possible because that would be an arbitrary decision that isn't reflecting the clubs wage expenditure.

The press would also have a field day because of the fact he just got an MBE and him playing for free is a big part of the Rads legacy. So if they RFL decided he didn't even if it was a notional salary they attributed to him and it took us over the cap they would look stupid. Never stopped them before mind you!

Dave

[DaveO]

standishwarrior posted:
absolutly spot on!!! when will dave open his eyes and realise what doris is doing to the club??

My eyes are wide open. You want to have a discussion about Mo and him ruining the club. Fine. That is a different subject than us being the reason why Cas went down or why we went over the salary cap in 2005 and may have done in 2006.

Here's a question. Given the injury crises of 2005 was he correct to recruit cover thus taking us over the cap? Or should he have left well alone and tried to complete the season with a paper thin squad that was left? That is the choice he had and we know which one he took. Was he right to do so?

What a lot of anti-Mo people do is seize on an issue like the salary cap and before we know where we are we are talking about player recruitment over the last decade, why we haven't won any trophies or why we should never have got rid of <insert ex players name here>.

He makes mistakes and when he does I slag him off. But I can't cope with the way far too many people are so biased against him that every thing that goes wrong is his fault and if anything goes right it must have been somebody else who is responsible.

Dave

[Alex the Warrior]

I remember standing in a downpour at Leigh in 2005 and seeing us struggle throughout the first half and starting to fear the unthinkable - relegation. At the time, I was happy for us to get more bodies on board and a late run pulled us clear. Lat year, the problems were even more acute. Signing Fielden convinced me that we would stay up.

I'm sure it is fair to say tha some of the problems have their roots further back than that.

What this highlights yet again is the farcical nature of the salary cap. It was bad enough at £1.8m but to keep reducing it is ridiculous. Somehow, the SL cannot see the contradiction of doing this and their mantra about raising standards. If half of the clubs in last seasons competition were in breach of the cap then it obviously doesn't work. This doesn't even count London going out of business and being allowed to continue without penelty.

One look at the league table shows that all it has done is to icrease the relegation scrap. The gap between the top 3 and the rest seems to be growing.
The standard is falling, RU are poaching players and the cap is to blame.

Some posters are talking about packing in the game because of Mo and his handling of the cap. My dissatisfaction is with the game in general and the farcical way in which it is run. The salary cap is the biggest, but my no means the only, folly from HQ.

[Welski]

Sorry dont know what happened there I've got an REM moment going on.

[Fraggle]

Morph posted:
It does seem strange that everything else rises with inflation, but the salary cap reduces considerably each year. it also penalises the most successful clubs in terms of only income generated, only 50% can be spent on wages to a max of 1.6 million. so if Wigan's income was £10 million a year, still we'd only be able to spend 1.6million, its a crazy system. Doesn't encourage club to produce junior talent as they can't fit it in undedr the cap, Well done all the talentless people at the RFL

And that's what the people who say Wigan are only getting their just reward because ML was responsible for the cap have forgotten. The current salary cap is NOT the one that was originally introduced. It was originally just 50% of income, as I recall, meaning that if your club is commercially successful then it can rightly spend more money than a club that does not work hard off the pitch as well as on it. The later rules such as the 20/20/20 or 20/25 or £1.6million limit have all added an unneccesarily restrictive element to making sure the clubs survive.

As for trying to even up the competition, it's perhaps a laudible aim but given that it is a rare season where all the clubs actually manage to meet the rules then it could well be argued that the rules are not appropriate (and are of course being changed for next year). It would be like trying to enforce a 10mph speed limit on the motorway - some people with sports cars would very likely struggle to keep their car's speed low enough just because of the design of the car making the rule a bit pointless.

[DaveO]

Fraggle posted:
And that's what the people who say Wigan are only getting their just reward because ML was responsible for the cap have forgotten. The current salary cap is NOT the one that was originally introduced. It was originally just 50% of income, as I recall, meaning that if your club is commercially successful then it can rightly spend more money than a club that does not work hard off the pitch as well as on it.

Correct but the RFL have never looked at it that way around. They have always seen the 50% limit as a means of clubs being protected from themselves overspending, not an incentive to earn more so they could pay more. If you look at the rules this is still the number one aim of the salary cap.

The secondary aim of the current cap is to even out the competition.

This makes it all the more surprising then that next year the 50% rule effectively goes. They have changed it so clubs that can't afford to spend to the cap limit due to the 50% restriction can apply to over spend the 50% limit.

This may be why a club like HKR may be able to supposedly be offering King £300K a year.

What it means though is there is even less incentive for clubs to increase their overall income in order to spend more on players.

So you are going to get the situation where well run clubs can spend 50% of their income but less well run clubs can spend say 60% up to the maximum of £1.65m cap next year.

As to the level of the cap going down this shows how timid the rfl are and how the smaller clubs hold the others back. When it was £1.8 they decided to to drop it to £1.7m but add an annual inflation increase in.

Then they decided to remove a certain amount of junior players wages from the cap and because they were doing that decided no inflation increase should be applied.

This year it went down again supposedly because the national insurance that the club pays as an employer was removed from the equation meaning the net effect on how much clubs could pay a player was the same.

However last time I looked at the rules I am pretty sure that never happened so the cap really did reduce.

Next years increase to £1.65m will no dount not go through as some sort of sop to clubs who are having to suddenly play more juniors and fear Wigan and Saints will be even better off.

I think I am right in saying that for every year the flat rate cap has been in the rules have changes quite significantly.

Dave

[Nine]

The Yorkshire paper is sounding off before the RFL has even confirmed who is over the cap and by how much.

Meanwhile, they and Cas have conveniently developed partial memory-loss and an inability to add up. Cas themselves breached the cap in the year they won NL1. Also, we ended up 3 points ahead of them (and ahead of Wakey & Huddersfield) last year despite a 2-point deduction for a beach the previous year. We were deemed to be in thr wrong and punished according with the rules. So what's their point?

We couldn't be deducted points for our 2006 spending that same year because the books aren't done until the end of the year. If we're in the wrong again, we'll be punished according to the rules as they stand now. Which won't affect Cas at all. So, again, what's their point?

They only way Castleford would be in SL now is if Wigan had neen penalised for the 2005 salary cap breach in 2006, and in the same year had that year's spending checked, been found guilty of a breach and penalised in the same season, adding 4 or more points to the 2 we had already been deducted.