WiganWarriorsFans.com

Sutty posted:
Surely we can't be. If we are, it's an absolute disgrace. We haven't had any injuries and we have even managed to offload Gleeson and Withers has retired.

I wouldn't have thought we would be over this season.

Fraggle posted:
The only way we could possibly be over this year is something relating to bonuses or deferred payments, but it does seem unlikely.

Warrior4eva posted:
I know it's all rumours etc but from what I have been told ML was being over optimistic. We had no money left after Dobson etc joined mid season. Fielden signing had to agreed by the RFL. ML told them that if we get rid of this player and that player and loaned another player out then by end of season we would be under salary cap. RFL thought this was feasible and agreed for Wigan to sign Fielden.

ML then deferred payments to this season to keep us under but unfortunatley the independent auditors disagreed with the deferred payments leaving us over the salary cap by some margin.

ML will argue that they did everything honestly and openly with RFL which he did but he couldn't get clubs to take players on loan and in turn couldn't balance books. His aim wasn't to go over and hoped it would be alright by the end of season unfortunately it wasn't.

ML to argue that the 2,4,6 point deduction should be applicable as the salry cap relates to last season and that the 4,8,12 point penalty should take effect next season.

NB, Castleford claiming by us getting Fielden he single handly got us out of relegation. I believe their gripe is the fact that Dobson chose us over them (even though we broke salary cap)and I believe it was him and Nobby tactics that were the reason we stayed up.

Automatic posted:

Warrior4eva posted:
I know it's all rumours etc but from what I have been told ML was being over optimistic. We had no money left after Dobson etc joined mid season. Fielden signing had to agreed by the RFL. ML told them that if we get rid of this player and that player and loaned another player out then by end of season we would be under salary cap. RFL thought this was feasible and agreed for Wigan to sign Fielden.

ML then deferred payments to this season to keep us under but unfortunatley the independent auditors disagreed with the deferred payments leaving us over the salary cap by some margin.

ML will argue that they did everything honestly and openly with RFL which he did but he couldn't get clubs to take players on loan and in turn couldn't balance books. His aim wasn't to go over and hoped it would be alright by the end of season unfortunately it wasn't.

This unfortunately has a ring of truth to it given the carefully worded statement Wigan came out with which specifically does not say we didn't break the cap. The way I read it was we told the RFL what was going on but that was basically we would be over the cap.

The deferred payments is interesting because it boils down to the auditors saying money that was actually physically not paid last season ought to count on last seasons cap. That isn't actually covered by the rules if you read them.

That being the case my view is that if the RFL agree with the auditor then this should be the basis of any legal challenge because at the end of the day Wigan's actual wage spend will have been under the cap limit.

It also begs the question what will the auditors do with the deferred payments when they audit this seasons salary cap? Will they include them again on our spend or ignore them? If they do the latter then for this season we will have actually paid players more than the cap limit. If they do the former well we will no doubt be in the dock again this time next season which is silly.

ML to argue that the 2,4,6 point deduction should be applicable as the salry cap relates to last season and that the 4,8,12 point penalty should take effect next season.

Hasn't got a leg to stand on with that one IMO.

The rules clearly state:

"For the avoidance of doubt the penalties set out at Section 14 shall apply rather than those that would have applied to the breach had it been detected in the year in which it occurred."

If he won't argue against the deferred payments being included then he just has to accept the penalty.

By the way, I have just spent some time reading the regulations and it is possible to get a 2 point deduction for an overspend up to 51.99% of the salary cap. The four point deduction comes in at 52%-54.99%, the eight points from 55-59.99% and 12 points for breaches greater than 60%

Dave

GeoffN posted:
I thought before I got to your signature that that looked like your post Dave; when were you automated?

Does this mean I am a Cyberman?

DaveO posted:

GeoffN posted:
I thought before I got to your signature that that looked like your post Dave; when were you automated?

Don't know, do I get a prize? Does this mean I am a Cyberman?

Dave