WiganWarriorsFans.com

i really want to see the official club response to this...

....£222,000 over - how did we try and explain that away

who was it we overspent that much on
n i think now i can safely say maurice MUST go before he realy does run the club into the ground

At least our phone in contests are legal

Table has been updated on BBC and we are 9th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... efault.stm

Wigan have the right to appeal the decision but chairman Maurice Lindsay said they were not ready to make a decision yet.

"You are always disappointed with any deduction and you are disappointed when you put together what we thought was a very strong argument and it's over-ruled," said Lindsay.

"We had two key witnesses, Stuart Fielden and Harrison Hansen, who wanted to give evidence, and I thought they were very persuasive and very honest but they apparently weren't considered."

Wigan were due to face a panel on 16 July but asked for more time after claiming they were unable to fully prepare their case until the outcome of a preliminary hearing.

The club's argument was based on the fact that nine of their players agreed to defer wages for last September, October and November in returned for improved contracts in 2007.

However, the panel said that was against the spirit of the salary cap.

Its all perfectly logical to me ........ check out sporting life for the info.

Basically, 9 of our players agreed to defer monies owed to them for September/Oct/Nov last year until this year, as we were aware we would breach the cap.

Stu Fielden and Hansen even went to the tribunal to plead the fact that they hadnt got monies from the club for that period, but they were disregarded.

pie eater and proud of it posted:
Its all perfectly logical to me ........ check out sporting life for the info.

Basically, 9 of our players agreed to defer monies owed to them for September/Oct/Nov last year until this year, as we were aware we would breach the cap.

Stu Fielden and Hansen even went to the tribunal to plead the fact that they hadnt got monies from the club for that period, but they were disregarded.

Presumably we also took our accounts for this year which showed that we had space in this year's cap to fit in those deferred payments as well as this year's salary.

I suppose it's all very complicated, but it does make you wonder who looked at the accounts around the time of the signing of Fielden and what was said. The fact the signing was agreed means the RFL have agreed to some deal, so for them to go back on that now makes me wonder if we've not got a legal case against them.

The thing thats bugging me the most here is all the plonkers who reckon £222314 is 13% over the cap

These opposition fans are soooooooooooo bent in their hatred toward Wigan they fail to work out it is 6% over the 50% limit.

what is the panel on about - not in the spirit of the cap :exc:

Not paying tax on players wages by using offshore accounts is not in the spirit of the cap but they don't bother about this.

If the money has not been spent and that meant we were within the cap then that should be fine.

They let you loan players out or off load them.

is deferring money that bad?

Think we should appeal against this decision.

the ruling should be based on how much we actually spent on wages in 2006 not whether the payments were moral or not

:conf: So deferring payments breaks no rules BUT is against the 'spirit' of the cap. If we broke no rule then how the hell can we be ruled guilty Clubs regularly do things against the spirit of the game but go unpunished, E.G Saints fielding reserves teams.