Points Reduction!!!

[waterside glens]

jeez can i not go on holiday without sh··· happening. this has spoilt my day and it,s raining . sunny ibiza my ar5e .we,ll just have to beat leeds fri to get the points back and i,vefound a pub with a big screen to watch it

[Fraggle]

Alex the Warrior posted:
Our income is relevant to this. For £80,000 to represent an overspend of 2.3% then the following figures (rounded) apply to our accounts last season.

Income must've been - £3,478,010.
50% allowable spend - £1,739,005.
Amount spent (52.3%) - £1,819,130.

Amount we could've spent without losing points (52%) - £1,808,565

Income required to spend £1,819,130 (and just be fined) £3,498,325. Therefore, an income of just an extra £20,225 would've seen us ok. Therefore, something as simple as drawing a team with an away following instead of UTC in the cup would've seen us keep our points.

My maths certainly wasn't up to working that out. But it really begs some serious questions. There is never any excuse for this club not to have at least the minimum income required for a maximum spend on the salary cap. All it takes is for Mr Whelan to write out another JJB Sports/Patrick/whatever sponsorship cheque for the club and we're sorted, irrespective of income from games. Infact, he could probably cover the whole £3.5m if we asked him, it's less than another Latics player. From past discussions on this topic and educated guesswork, we've concluded that ticket sales will cover the large majority of the £1.75m for the salaries themselves, before any sponsorship or corporate deals or any other income streams are considered to cover the overall income. We've got loads of other sources of income, I would certainly hope a club of our size would be able to at least match ticket sales in other income if not exceed ticket sales by some margin with all the corporate hospitality and everything else. Our average crowd attendance was the highest last year for a long time, lots of season ticket sales, so I don't really think the problem was with people coming through the turnstiles.

If we've fallen short of the income required for a full salary spend, then what has the commercial department been doing? Did someone forget to ask for the JJB extra money? Have Tesco/Rock FM/Uncle Joe's/all the other sponsors not paid up? Has the income from programme sales, Golden Gamble sales, merchandise, corporate boxes, events at the stadium, lotto and all the other things that bring money into the club been mismanaged?

Something is not right at all.

[Easy Now !]

Let's face it, it's gonna go down to the last game of the season, with prob our game and wakey's game being on sky sports.
You watch, Sean Long in trouble in off season, after putting a massive wad on wakey beating saints, fixing the game thus sending wigan into NL1

[GeoffN]

Alex the Warrior posted:

mike binder posted:
we spent 80 000 over the max limit we was 2% over the max limit nothing to do with our income

You mean 'we WERE' for a start.

Our income is relevant to this. For £80,000 to represent an overspend of 2.3% then the following figures (rounded) apply to our accounts last season.

Income must've been - £3,478,010.
50% allowable spend - £1,739,005.
Amount spent (52.3%) - £1,819,130.

Amount we could've spent without losing points (52%) - £1,808,565

Income required to spend £1,819,130 (and just be fined) £3,498,325. Therefore, an income of just an extra £20,225 would've seen us ok. Therefore, something as simple as drawing a team with an away following instead of UTC in the cup would've seen us keep our points.

No, Mike's right. You're overcomplicating things. Our income was over £3.4 million, therefore the £1.7 million "finite limit" applies. That £1.7m represents the allowable 50% (i.e. 50% of £3.4m).

We spent an extra 2.3% (of the full £3.4m), which equates to £78,200 (which has been rounded up to £80k in the news reports).

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
No, Mike's right. You're overcomplicating things. Our income was over £3.4 million, therefore the £1.7 million "finite limit" applies. That £1.7m represents the allowable 50% (i.e. 50% of £3.4m).

We spent an extra 2.3% (of the full £3.4m), which equates to £78,200 (which has been rounded up to £80k in the news reports).

I concur also!

At the end of the day we knew what the absolute maximum would be. We went over that by £80,000. The RFL drew the line even allowed to go 2% over, we crossed that line and so are getting punished for it. It's only fair and even Maurice Lindsay has accepted it so it's not like Wigan are being victimised.

Quite a lot of people are saying Saints and Hull should have got a more severe fine because they'd done it before. Both times they got the punishement they deserved so to punish them again would be double punishment, which wouldn't be fair.

Whether we'd have been deducted points on the first day of the season, the last day or yesterday it wouldn't have changed a thing. I doubt there will have been any games where we went out there not planning on winning so what difference would it have made.

[JIMH]

GeoffN where are you getting this £3.4m and £1.7m figure from its been quoted everywhere that the limits are £1.8m which is 50% of £3.6
this bbc/sport report quotes it here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 252930.stm

[mike binder]

the limit is 1.7 million the 100000 left is for challenge cup boneses, which want come in for us as we have not got to the final

[primrose-n-blue]

I could have a field day TROLLING at this mess...
but I wont stoop so low, your having a tough enough time at it as it is.

What I will say is though....
"How on earth did you manage to get away with only a 2 point deduction when the penalty for salary cap breach is 6 points?"
Could it be because the club had pleaded guilty?
I am aware that other clubs have had their penalty reduced on appeal...Wakey from 4 to 2.
Or perhaps could it depend on ther severity of the breach?

PnB :eusa18:

[jaws1]

primrose-n-blue posted:
I could have a field day TROLLING at this mess...
but I wont stoop so low, your having a tough enough time at it as it is.

What I will say is though....
"How on earth did you manage to get away with only a 2 point deduction when the penalty for salary cap breach is 6 points?"
Could it be because the club had pleaded guilty?
I am aware that other clubs have had their penalty reduced on appeal...Wakey from 4 to 2.
Or perhaps could it depend on ther severity of the breach?

PnB :eusa18:

The penalty is on a sliding scale the more you go over the more points get deducted.

[Fraggle]

primrose-n-blue posted:
What I will say is though....
"How on earth did you manage to get away with only a 2 point deduction when the penalty for salary cap breach is 6 points?"
Could it be because the club had pleaded guilty?
I am aware that other clubs have had their penalty reduced on appeal...Wakey from 4 to 2.
Or perhaps could it depend on ther severity of the breach?

Is that the same 6 point breach that no club has yet been penalised with? I think GeoffN is probably as sick of repeating his message about the sliding scale of penalties depending on the size of the breach as I am explaining why the punishment is only being announced now.

As for trolling attempts, sorry PnB but I think we've probably already said ourselves just about anything that you could come up with. You'll struggle to find anyone who is defending the club's actions.