Wigan breach fault of the RFL?

[adrenalinxx]

I've heard that Wigan will plead not guilty to the RFLs claim of a salary cap breach because the RFL did not provide Wigan with the correct information when re-signing Kris Radlinski.

Apparently under his original contract at Wigan he received extra money from the RFL as a deal to keep him in rugby league. When he retired that contracted end and so the deal with the RFL also ended.

Wigan signed up Radlinski to play for free but asked the RFL is the bonus money clause would still apply because Radlinski was still playing rugby league, the RFL agreed to pay the bonus money that Kris would have earned playing the final few matches of the season.

At the end of the season the RFL said the money they paid to Radlinski would count on the salary cap even though it didn't before his first retirement.

So the RFL changed the stipulation of the bonus contract deal without informing Wigan.

[LORENZO]

Makes some sense but not sure where you got this from. :doz:

[ultimate warrior]

adrenalinxx posted:
I've heard that Wigan will plead not guilty to the RFLs claim of a salary cap breach because the RFL did not provide Wigan with the correct information when re-signing Kris Radlinski.

Apparently under his original contract at Wigan he received extra money from the RFL as a deal to keep him in rugby league. When he retired that contracted end and so the deal with the RFL also ended.

Wigan signed up Radlinski to play for free but asked the RFL is the bonus money clause would still apply because Radlinski was still playing rugby league, the RFL agreed to pay the bonus money that Kris would have earned playing the final few matches of the season.

At the end of the season the RFL said the money they paid to Radlinski would count on the salary cap even though it didn't before his first retirement.

So the RFL changed the stipulation of the bonus contract deal without informing Wigan.

If this is the case then it is understanable why we have pleaded not guilty, and if it is this that has allegedly put us over the cap, then as I see it we should not rceive any punishment at all. We will just have to wait and see what happens after the hearing.

[shawcross da warrior]

spot on adrenelinxx my dad told me this a few m,onths back and said if we do get done it wil be because of this i have heard this so i will back you all the way.............

[DaveO]

I thought the club GB thing which paid Money to Rads and Cunningham would have ended a long time ago.

If it didn't and this is correct do you think the RFL will admit they were wrong over thus? I don't. They will point to one of the more obscure rules in the salary cap and that it applies and because Wigan were aware of the full sc rules they should have known this.

Dave

[thegimble]

DaveO posted:
I thought the club GB thing which paid Money to Rads and Cunningham would have ended a long time ago.

If it didn't and this is correct do you think the RFL will admit they were wrong over thus? I don't. They will point to one of the more obscure rules in the salary cap and that it applies and because Wigan were aware of the full sc rules they should have known this.

Dave

It the above is correct and now its beginning to look like it is.

Court Case will happen and SL will be dragged through the mud.

[mandi ww]

why is it always wigan that suffer for other people mistake i dont think the rl will take responsibity for the mess i always said these rl officals were biased towards wigan looks like if this is so i was right all along

[gpartin]

mandi ww posted:
why is it always wigan that suffer for other people mistake i dont think the rl will take responsibity for the mess i always said these rl officals were biased towards wigan looks like if this is so i was right all along

Pardon?

[gpartin]

Oh, right, sorry Mandi I wasn't being sarcy just genuinely confused.

I don't think the RFL could be accused of anti-Wigan bias... Although perhaps every other club and their fans could.

[Exiled Wiganer]

If this is the reason, it makes perfect sense, and we would have a number of very strong arguments we could bring. If we placed reasonable reliance on the guidance of the RFL on a matter ultimately determined by them then we should win a challenge (which I assume would be way of judicial review, but perhaps it would be contractual).
By analogy, the RFL did not ban Cunningham (as I strongly believe they should) for taking performance enhancing drugs because they were administered by an RFL related person. (I have always been astonished by this ruling, as in every other sport there is an onus on the player to be responsible for whatever he takes, with ignorance no defence).
I feel much more content with the world now.