19% over cap

[OJ]

Something said on the phone in yesterday on GMR about it being something to do with the payment made by the RFL to keep Rad's away from converting to rugby union all those years ago also something about Michael Dobson but I agree we should all just stop speculating and wait and see what really has happened. Not too bad talking about it on here but I don't even look at the topic on rlfans anymore because it has just turned into a topic for an outpouriong of bile from fans of other clubs who would love nothing more than to see us suffer. Best thing to do on there is ignore them and let them frustrate themselves when nobody responds but that is easier said than done!

[Antwigan]

If we are confident of not breaking the cap then why did 'we' fight hard to revert punishments to the 2006 salary cap rules? Wouldn't
it have been better to stick with the 2007 punishments and the other named teams who have admitted guilt and were not contesting the 2007/2006 punishment change charged with the full punishments for 2007, thus receiving a larger punishment.

[pedro]

Saints had club GB money for Cunningham too.

[Cruncher]

Antwigan posted:
If we are confident of not breaking the cap then why did 'we' fight hard to revert punishments to the 2006 salary cap rules?

I guess because you can never be sure of the outcome of a trial, no matter how good you think your case is. And 12 points would have relegated us.

At least now, if we fail to convince the tribunal and get the heaviest punishment - 6 points - it's still more than likely that we'll stay up (though beating Saints on Friday would more or less guarantee it).

[gpartin]

Cruncher posted:

Antwigan posted:
If we are confident of not breaking the cap then why did 'we' fight hard to revert punishments to the 2006 salary cap rules?

I guess because you can never be sure of the outcome of a trial, no matter how good you think your case is. And 12 points would have relegated us.

At least now, if we fail to convince the tribunal and get the heaviest punishment - 6 points - it's still more than likely that we'll stay up (though beating Saints on Friday would more or less guarantee it).

Also if there are legal issues with parts of the cap, who's to say any of it is well written and legal. I think Wigan have done the right thing highlighting the problems!

[GeoffN]

Antwigan posted:
If we are confident of not breaking the cap then why did 'we' fight hard to revert punishments to the 2006 salary cap rules?

I wondered that, too, but Saints were also involved in that hearing, and they must have been confident of not losing points.

[thegimble]

Cruncher posted:

Antwigan posted:
If we are confident of not breaking the cap then why did 'we' fight hard to revert punishments to the 2006 salary cap rules?

I guess because you can never be sure of the outcome of a trial, no matter how good you think your case is. And 12 points would have relegated us.

If we got 12 wed bt 1 point behins Salford and they have a bad run in. Even if we got 12 i think wed survive. Salford do have a gaome in hand but thats at Hull and they come to us.

At least now, if we fail to convince the tribunal and get the heaviest punishment - 6 points - it's still more than likely that we'll stay up (though beating Saints on Friday would more or less guarantee it).

[butt monkey]

gpartin posted:

Cruncher posted:

Antwigan posted:
If we are confident of not breaking the cap then why did 'we' fight hard to revert punishments to the 2006 salary cap rules?

I guess because you can never be sure of the outcome of a trial, no matter how good you think your case is. And 12 points would have relegated us.

At least now, if we fail to convince the tribunal and get the heaviest punishment - 6 points - it's still more than likely that we'll stay up (though beating Saints on Friday would more or less guarantee it).

Also if there are legal issues with parts of the cap, who's to say any of it is well written and legal. I think Wigan have done the right thing highlighting the problems!

I wonder if there are any small alterations to the Salary Cap, from previously to the last season currently under review. Anyone?

I suppose that Wigan hope to expose, in their defence on the 25th, failings or retrospective contradictions that will help their fight against any prospective punishment.

[Spanakopitta]

agree with everything you've put

Got to say it looks pretty poor to all onlookers that our governing body can't even put the rules together properly... we had a meeting, agreed to change the rules, put the proposed changes in the meeting minutes and everything.....then never bothered to actually amend the rules to match.

if i did that i'd get the sack (or at least a very harsh warning).

Hopefully this will be the kick up the a*se the rfl needs :eusa4:

as for percentage over, may be somebody screwed that up too and its only 1.9% over.....well if stains are only 0.8%

[cpwigan]

You cannot guarantee the outcome of the hearing SO you plan for every eventuallity. Hence, you look at the issue of deductions. Given, this issue only recently arose, I would suggest Wigan decided to employ the top legal rep (forget his name). He started looking at everything and said. You do realise they (the RFL) cannot increase penalties retrospectively. So the impetus came from legal representation. The 3 clubs rightly took that action to safeguard themselves. So far, so good.

I cannot believe we would be pleading not guilty if we were so blatantly over the cap.

What I cannot fathom is when we signed Fielden there was uproar and hysteria. Did the RFL not check then and give us the OK or is my memory frazzled?