They only gave us the okay on the basis of what Wigan intended to do to stay within the cap. The row seems to have arisen since, when, according to the RFL, Wigan didn't manage to make good on this promise.cpwigan posted:
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?
It looks as though Wigan's defence will now centre around the question of which actions are permissable when it comes to levelling off your wages bill, and which aren't. I don't know what the particular bone of contention is, but it may have something to do with just how interfering and dictatorial the RFL should be allowed to be with regard to individual clubs' spending strategy. In other words, surely it's unacceptable for them to tell you what you can and can't do with your own money, so long as the end is result is that you're under the cap.
As I say, I don't KNOW if this is the gist of Wigan's position, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in there somewhere.
The trial judge has already called the salary cap regulations "badly drawn", "against natural justice", etc. That doesn't sound as though he's impressed by what he's seen of the RFL's case so far. It's also worth noting that Tony Rea of Quinns - another completely neutral observer - appeared to come down on our side, when he said something to the effect that we had quite a good case.
