Gleeson

[cpwigan]

Hock was already built into the salary cap for 2011 and beyond. Gleeson has nothing whatsoever to do with Hock.

Gleeson made a huge blunder away from RL and in RL he then proceeded to commit Cherry & White suicide. Everything he did was of his own making.

[DaveO]

It is its a live cap but as Dave O has mentioned and it is possibly correct if wigan have had to give him a payout to go quietly on good terms then that payout has to be deducted from the cap.

Any pay out is counted pro rata for the duration of his old contract. So Wigan would have liability this year and next If he was paid say £90k to leave I think that works out at £30k liability this season and £60k next given we are 1/3 into this season already.

Of course he could have been paid more or less than that but that is how it works.

[DaveO]

And with both parties keeping "mum" over the amounts (for legal reasons) how could the RFL prove what amounts (if anything) did come from the cap for this season?

If Wigan were to say for example £20,000, how could anyone disprove that, knowing any financial arrangement with Gleeson would always remain secret?

We'll it's in the operational rules what happens if players are released so do you honestly think the RFL will not demand proof of any compensation payment?

And do you think Wigan would be daft enough to lie about it and indulge in false accounting to cover up the fact they paid a higher amount out? It would come out in the end as the false accounting did at the Storm.

[don corleone]

Yawn,Yawn,Yawn READING YOUR POSTS IS LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY PAL.

[butt monkey]

And with both parties keeping "mum" over the amounts (for legal reasons) how could the RFL prove what amounts (if anything) did come from the cap for this season?

If Wigan were to say for example £20,000, how could anyone disprove that, knowing any financial arrangement with Gleeson would always remain secret?

We'll it's in the operational rules what happens if players are released so do you honestly think the RFL will not demand proof of any compensation payment?

And do you think Wigan would be daft enough to lie about it and indulge in false accounting to cover up the fact they paid a higher amount out? It would come out in the end as the false accounting did at the Storm.

What happened at the Storm and what happened re: Gleeson are totally different. The Storm did not have to pay compensation to departed players etc. It was simply a Salary Cap issue and their ability to pay over the odds that got them into trouble.

I cannot see for whatever reason, no matter how much you might like to proffer in opposition, that Wigan (or Gleeson for that matter) have any legal obligation to give the RFL any financial information that may have arisen. Gleeson was not simply "released" so there is a difference. There are still Privacy Laws you know no matter what jumped up twerp in the RFL might think to the contrary and I would more than guess that in this turmoil, neither party would have to give full details for whatever reason - otherwise Gleeson's pay-out would become public knowledge within days, so why should/would the club/player withhold the details of the pay-off if this was the case?

[cpwigan]

Illegal payments are still made in RL. Let nobody kid you otherwise.

[DaveO]

What happened at the Storm and what happened re: Gleeson are totally different. The Storm did not have to pay compensation to departed players etc. It was simply a Salary Cap issue and their ability to pay over the odds that got them into trouble.

You are suggesting Wigan be dishonest and not declare the full amount paid to Gleeson, so it would not affect our cap - yes?

Well the Storm were dishonest and did not declare payments to players so it didn't affect their cap.

There is no difference. The fact Gleeson is an ex-player makes no difference the reason for being dishonest is exactly the same.

I cannot see for whatever reason, no matter how much you might like to proffer in opposition, that Wigan (or Gleeson for that matter) have any legal obligation to give the RFL any financial information that may have arisen. Gleeson was not simply "released" so there is a difference.

What legal or for that matter any other obligation do they have to tell them how much they pay any player then? At any time? I'll give you a clue. It's in the rules which they agree to and there are sanctions if they were ever found to be breaking them. They agree to the rules as a condition of being in the competition. Disclosure is part of that.

There are still Privacy Laws you know no matter what jumped up twerp in the RFL might think to the contrary and I would more than guess that in this turmoil, neither party would have to give full details for whatever reason - otherwise Gleeson's pay-out would become public knowledge within days, so why should/would the club/player withhold the details of the pay-off if this was the case?

My employer knows how much I earn. My immediate boss does. The tax man does. So do numerous organisations who require proof of earnings. My salary is not divulged by any of them or anyone working at these places because if they did, the would be in serious trouble. It will be the same at the club and at the RFL.

Do you really think when a player signs a contract and a club agrees to enter the competition and abide by the rules they do not enter into agreements to make such disclosures? How on earth do you think the salary cap works?

It is totally naive to suggest Wigan would tell the RFL they paid one amount and paid the player another.

[cpwigan]

I do not think that happens Dave but some things are paid for and not declared. Talking RL in general not Gleeson BTW.

[ancientnloyal]

Yawn,Yawn,Yawn READING YOUR POSTS IS LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY PAL.

DaveO and the salary cap posts? Im glad to have it cleared up on demand.

[butt monkey]

DaveO I cannot be bothered to raise a point by point argument against your own misguided point of view.

However to raise the issue that in somehow the RFL have as much clout as say the taxman is ridiculous should the pay-off transactions not be divulged.

Salary bla, bla bla, this is not an issue of a regular wage but of a one-off payment to leave, that could have been placed any in fund of Gleeson's desire. Whether the taxman know about is Gleeson's problem - but I doubt the taxman will give details of to a rugby executive should he request them.


As for suggesting I say Wigan would be "dishonest" Where do I say that??? I said they do not have to print out every detail of what happened and what transpired that saw Gleeson leave Wigan. As I said and you read in the papers every day about gagging orders etc, is that SOME THINGS do not enter the pubic domain and the financial dealings that saw a mutual "parting of the ways" will be one of them. If it was not - why the secrecy between the parties involved when his leaving was announced, the one paragraph announcement said very little if anything at all as you yourself said - so why was that?

Do not try and play Devil's Advocate when your point of argument is simply "The RFL must know what transpired and the financial repercussions or we will be in trouble" Who exactly in the RFL do you TRUST DaveO to have this information and never pass onto the public domain?