Salary Cap Hearing

[GeoffN]

...the club has been penalised only for a difference in the interpretation of some of the rules.

Commenting on tonight’s decision, Chairman Maurice Lindsay said,

“Our salary cap statement for 2006 was based on having reached an agreement with several players to renegotiate their existing contracts in effect the players surrendered their 2006 contracts and accepted new and in some cases extended terms. Even though the players did not therefore receive monies in 2006 the Tribunal categorised those payments as an over spend. We were not given details at the hearing as these will be provided to us in writing in the next 15 days.

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/news_full.asp?newsid=3102

I think we've got an excellent case for an appeal.

[Fraggle]

GeoffN posted:
...the club has been penalised only for a difference in the interpretation of some of the rules.

Commenting on tonight’s decision, Chairman Maurice Lindsay said,

“Our salary cap statement for 2006 was based on having reached an agreement with several players to renegotiate their existing contracts in effect the players surrendered their 2006 contracts and accepted new and in some cases extended terms. Even though the players did not therefore receive monies in 2006 the Tribunal categorised those payments as an over spend. We were not given details at the hearing as these will be provided to us in writing in the next 15 days.

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/news_full.asp?newsid=3102

I think we've got an excellent case for an appeal.

We weren't given details? What has the RFL been doing for the last week and a half since we asked the hearing to be moved? No wonder we lose money trying to run competitions with that lot in charge...

[cpwigan]

:conf: Surely to God you have to present your evidence there and then? In a court of law do you not have to disclose all information to the prosecution/defence ?

[Matthew]

cpwigan posted:
:conf: Surely to God you have to present your evidence there and then? In a court of law do you not have to disclose all information to the prosecution/defence ?

That would be good wouldn't it:

"For reasons that we may or may not disclose sometime in the future you are hereby convicted of murder and sentenced to life..."

It really is the blind led by the clinically insane

[Fraggle]

Matthew posted:
It really is the blind led by the clinically insane

It's a shame you didn't put that in your excellent message to Sky Sports, that's a brilliant line!

[Mike]

I think we've been cheating and the RFL is probably correct to dock us points. The relevant section of the rules is quoted below.

From: http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Oper ... les_07.pdf

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE SALARY CAP
1.1 There are 2 principal purposes of The Super League Salary Cap. The first is to restrict
clubs’ main item of expenditure, players’ costs, to try and ensure, as far as possible, the
long-term financial survival of rugby league clubs.
1.2 The second purpose is to improve the competitiveness of the League by restricting to a
finite level of how much one club can spend on its playing staff
1.3 As financial reporting evolves over the years and different circumstances or transactions
occur, it is clearly impossible to legislate for every possible eventuality, and consequently
the spirit of the rules and their objectives should take precedence over any technical
interpretations.

The reason why I think we did cheat is the rule 1.3. If we knowingly tried to exploit a loophole (the deferment of salaries) then that goes against the spirit of the rules. Given in August 2006 we knew we would be breaching the cap by 200,000 pounds and that equates to stopping paying 9 players some or all of their salaries for 3 months, we must have known that we couldn't possibly sign Fielden and stay under the cap. We would have had to release 9 players (in addition to those we did manage to offload) for the majority of the second half of the season - how could be possibly have acheived that?

The most amusing thing is that Fielden himself had his (larger than Bradford contract) payments defered, so persumably ended up worse off than when he was at Bradford. He came for the money - which put the club over the cap - so he had to defer the money! Mind you, Bradford would have been in serious trouble had they not let him go.

PS the st helens "tax" situation seems to be covered by the following rule:

2.3 In matters of contention, the RFL will be guided by the treatment accepted by the Inland
Revenue as to items that may be capital or revenue in nature. However, while this may
assist the RFL in determining an issue, it would not bind the RFL, particularly where such
a treatment may in fact be tax effective but, nevertheless, is in conflict with the primary
purpose of the Salary Cap rules.

Although here, the RFL seem to say that even though they don't have to interpret the situation in the clubs favour (i.e. the inland revenue say its OK for now) they choose to.

In our case they chose not to see it our way - oh well.

[Fujiman]

GeoffN posted:
...the club has been penalised only for a difference in the interpretation of some of the rules.

Commenting on tonight’s decision, Chairman Maurice Lindsay said,

“Our salary cap statement for 2006 was based on having reached an agreement with several players to renegotiate their existing contracts in effect the players surrendered their 2006 contracts and accepted new and in some cases extended terms. Even though the players did not therefore receive monies in 2006 the Tribunal categorised those payments as an over spend. We were not given details at the hearing as these will be provided to us in writing in the next 15 days.

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/news_full.asp?newsid=3102

I think we've got an excellent case for an appeal.

Also noticed this in the Daily Mail article

"The RFL are also understood to have questioned image rights contracts held by the club and whether they carried over into the current season."

Further trouble?

[cpwigan]

1.3 As financial reporting evolves over the years and different circumstances or transactions
occur, it is clearly impossible to legislate for every possible eventuality, and consequently
the spirit of the rules and their objectives should take precedence over any technical interpretations.

Strewth what a rule. However, they then totally contradict it with their rule re offshore tax accounts.

Even with rules like 1.3 there are grounds for appeal. You see similar cases when money lenders/loan sharks use silly rules that are thrown out in court.

[GeoffN]

Mike posted:
I think we've been cheating and the RFL is probably correct to dock us points. The relevant section of the rules is quoted below.

From: http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Oper ... les_07.pdf

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE SALARY CAP
1.1 There are 2 principal purposes of The Super League Salary Cap. The first is to restrict
clubs’ main item of expenditure, players’ costs, to try and ensure, as far as possible, the
long-term financial survival of rugby league clubs.
1.2 The second purpose is to improve the competitiveness of the League by restricting to a
finite level of how much one club can spend on its playing staff
1.3 As financial reporting evolves over the years and different circumstances or transactions
occur, it is clearly impossible to legislate for every possible eventuality, and consequently
the spirit of the rules and their objectives should take precedence over any technical
interpretations.

The reason why I think we did cheat is the rule 1.3. If we knowingly tried to exploit a loophole (the deferment of salaries) then that goes against the spirit of the rules. Given in August 2006 we knew we would be breaching the cap by 200,000 pounds and that equates to stopping paying 9 players some or all of their salaries for 3 months, we must have known that we couldn't possibly sign Fielden and stay under the cap. We would have had to release 9 players (in addition to those we did manage to offload) for the majority of the second half of the season - how could be possibly have acheived that?

But why is it against the spirit of the rules? We're still paying (and declaring) the wages, just not this year.
All that should count is the money actually paid.

Suppose, for arguments sake, Fielden's contract stated that he was playing for free for the part of 2006 that he was here, then a pro-rata increase applied for the next three years. Why is that against the spirit of the rules?
It's simply an agreement between the club & Fielden, and is little different, in practice, from promising a youngster that although he's only on peanuts now, if he sticks with us he'll be on good money later.

[cpwigan]

To show how silly this is. Kris Radlinski acted against the spirit of the salary cap by offering to play for free.