Wigan deducted two points for salary cap breach

[Padge]

15 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

The only operational rule I’ve seen relating to this just says to temporarily change ground you need written consent from the board. Nothing about the opposition. 

Just checked the operational rules for 2019 and you seem to be correct, it is now down to the RFL, who I presume broker between the two clubs.

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Apart from the conspiratorial ending, a fair assessment.

No I'm not a fan. But then I tend to react negatively to people who criticise other people's work whilst themselves failing to deliver.

Now that's not to say the people being criticised don't deserve calling to account - but it helps if the person doing the calling has established their credibility first.

Faing to deliver?  Who won the grand final last season?

[briggyq]

9 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Obviously there was a hope there was money out of the Sydney trip, but I thought the club said they did not get any (extra?) profit.

As you say I think it's fair enough to take games on the road. If there is s downside, well it's likely to be marginal. But I do not see why anyone should excessively criticise it.

I think  Lenegan said the profit wasn't anywhere near what had been projected, i doubt the club made a loss, but there's almost zero commercial longevity from it, all it seemed to have done was make fans stay away from the DW last season,the Millwall jolly up was another ill thought out jamboree that must have cost far more than it made haven't seen many other SL clubs trying to take games on the road, if you keep taking fans for granted then sooner or later they won't be there to take advantage of.

[M j M]

17 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Faing to deliver?  Who won the grand final last season? 

That's irrelevant TBH. He's been extremely vocal in critising how the RFL run things despite him and his own club having a poor administrative and financial record in lots of ways.

[Rupert Prince]

11 minutes ago, briggyq said:

I think  Lenegan said the profit wasn't anywhere near what had been projected, i doubt the club made a loss, but there's almost zero commercial longevity from it, all it seemed to have done was make fans stay away from the DW last season,the Millwall jolly up was another ill thought out jamboree that must have cost far more than it made haven't seen many other SL clubs trying to take games on the road, if you keep taking fans for granted then sooner or later they won't be there to take advantage of.

Like I said I would not excessively criticise it.  Hull had to agree, and presumably it suited Catalan at Millwall.

On balance I would say it was a fair enough effort, but not really sucessful.  The principle is something the game could look at, but frankly from a more longer term and viable outlook.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

With all the interest in Widnes' plight over the last few days it seems to have been missed that Wigan's appeal against their points deduction will take place next Tuesday, 5th March. https://www.rugby-league.com/superleague/article/54431/rfl-statement--wigan-warriors

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

With all the interest in Widnes' plight over the last few days it seems to have been missed that Wigan's appeal against their points deduction will take place next Tuesday, 5th March. https://www.rugby-league.com/superleague/article/54431/rfl-statement--wigan-warriors

glad this will get resolved pretty quickly.

[Gooleboy]

On 2/4/2019 at 11:38 PM, M j M said:

That's irrelevant TBH. He's been extremely vocal in critising how the RFL run things despite him and his own club having a poor administrative and financial record in lots of ways.

What benefit have Wigan got long term from switching games to Millwall and Australia? 

[bobbruce]

6 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

What benefit have Wigan got long term from switching games to Millwall and Australia? 

They were paid a lot of money to play in Aus. I thought the Millwall game was one they had to move for ground works. 

[Cheshire Setter]

Back on topic, if Wigan successfully appeal the penalty will it not set a precedent? 

You can't really prove it was an oversight or mistake, but if it goes unpunished will we see clubs deriberatley being liberal with the finer details knowing they can fudge things to their advantage?

If there are no incentives to stick within the cap, get rid of it altogether.   As an analogy, would we find it acceptable for a CEO to blame miscalculation of tax payments on a junior member of his accounting staff, and then be let off having to pay what he owes?

[Padge]

22 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Back on topic, if Wigan successfully appeal the penalty will it not set a precedent? 

You can't really prove it was an oversight or mistake, but if it goes unpunished will we see clubs deriberatley being liberal with the finer details knowing they can fudge things to their advantage?

If there are no incentives to stick within the cap, get rid of it altogether.   As an analogy, would we find it acceptable for a CEO to blame miscalculation of tax payments on a junior member of his accounting staff, and then be let off having to pay what he owes?

How can winning an appeal set a precedent, you obviously do not understand due process.

 

[Cheshire Setter]

8 minutes ago, Padge said:

How can winning an appeal set a precedent, you obviously do not understand due process.

 

Because the appeal isn’t that they’ve been accused of doing something they haven’t - it’s that the breach was an admin oversight.   Lenegan has said that hasn’t he?

Therefore winning that appeal means that admin oversights (whether accidental or fudged) can be appealed.   If that’s the case let’s get rid of the cap.   Also, if we are going to argue that the penalty should be a fine and not a points deduction then again there is no incentive - if a club can afford to pay more than the allotted salary cap then it can afford a measly fine and will just accept that fine as the cost of doing business.

And please don’t think this another anti-Wigan rant.   It’s not, it’s about having a standard and sticking to it.   This isn’t the first offence committed and the penalty should be there to mitigate repeated indiscretions.

As I said earlier either have a cap or don’t, but it’s supposed to there to level the playing field - if you allow clubs who can afford it to be liberal with the cap what’s the point in the first place?   Believe me, my own club would benefit more than any from no cap, but the rules are the rules until they change.

 

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Because the appeal isn’t that they’ve been accused of doing something they haven’t - it’s that the breach was an admin oversight.   Lenegan has said that hasn’t he?

Therefore winning that appeal means that admin oversights (whether accidental or fudged) can be appealed.   If that’s the case let’s get rid of the cap.   Also, if we are going to argue that the penalty should be a fine and not a points deduction then again there is no incentive - if a club can afford to pay more than the allotted salary cap then it can afford a measly fine and will just accept that fine as the cost of doing business.

And please don’t think this another anti-Wigan rant.   It’s not, it’s about having a standard and sticking to it.   This isn’t the first offence committed and the penalty should be there to mitigate repeated indiscretions.

As I said earlier either have a cap or don’t, but it’s supposed to there to level the playing field - if you allow clubs who can afford it to be liberal with the cap what’s the point in the first place?   Believe me, my own club would benefit more than any from no cap, but the rules are the rules until they change.

 

The appeal is based on the RFL not following their own administrative rules.

[Cheshire Setter]

14 minutes ago, Padge said:

The appeal is based on the RFL not following their own administrative rules.

Okay, well I’m just basing my argument on Ian Lenegan’s very own words:

======

Wigan have released a statement citing the breach was due to an administrative error - pointing-out they were less than one per cent over the cap, but chairman Ian Lenagan as accepted 'full responsibility' and apologised 'unreservedly'.

Lenagan, commented: “Throughout this process, Wigan has been fully cooperative and transparent with no suggestion of concealment or deception and acceptance formally of the breach. This is not an integrity or dishonesty issue, purely an administrative error by a new financial team in an exceptionally busy and disruptive circumstance”.

 

“This breach clearly did not affect the competitive balance of the competition in 2017 yet the immediate deduction of two-points does affect the competitive balance of the competition in 2019.

=======

He claims full responsibility and admits the club went over the cap.   His argument is that they are less than one percent over the cap and the penalty isn’t reflective of the indiscretion.    He fails to mention the club’s previous indiscretions on the cap.

I can totally understand why other clubs and fans of the sport would be up in arms over this appeal...   it smacks of a chairman of a more affluent club thinking he deserves special treatment.

What exactly is his argument with the RFLs admin process?   Are they solely responsible for preventing a club’s admin errors?

[Padge]

29 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Okay, well I’m just basing my argument on Ian Lenegan’s very own words:

======

Wigan have released a statement citing the breach was due to an administrative error - pointing-out they were less than one per cent over the cap, but chairman Ian Lenagan as accepted 'full responsibility' and apologised 'unreservedly'.

Lenagan, commented: “Throughout this process, Wigan has been fully cooperative and transparent with no suggestion of concealment or deception and acceptance formally of the breach. This is not an integrity or dishonesty issue, purely an administrative error by a new financial team in an exceptionally busy and disruptive circumstance”.

 

“This breach clearly did not affect the competitive balance of the competition in 2017 yet the immediate deduction of two-points does affect the competitive balance of the competition in 2019.

=======

He claims full responsibility and admits the club went over the cap.   His argument is that they are less than one percent over the cap and the penalty isn’t reflective of the indiscretion.    He fails to mention the club’s previous indiscretions on the cap.

I can totally understand why other clubs and fans of the sport would be up in arms over this appeal...   it smacks of a chairman of a more affluent club thinking he deserves special treatment.

What exactly is his argument with the RFLs admin process?   Are they solely responsible for preventing a club’s admin errors?

You seem to have chosen to ignore this part of the same statement. How odd was that.

 

Wigan were not offered an Agreed Decision by the RFL, as expected in the rules, before the Tribunal was arranged. Had this been offered earlier in the process, as provided for in the RFL Rules & Regulations, Wigan would have had the opportunity to research precedents and would almost certainly have accepted an Agreed Decision involving no points deduction, as offered at the last minute at the door of the Tribunal but with a substantial fine and costs.


 

 

[Gooleboy]

3 hours ago, bobbruce said:

They were paid a lot of money to play in Aus. I thought the Millwall game was one they had to move for ground works. 

So nothing to do with development of the game then, just for financial gain? And what good did playing at Millwall do for that local area as regarding RL?

[Oliver Clothesoff]

They were out on the streets, Wigan Athletic wanted to relay the pitch (IIRC) that summer so booted out Wigan Warriors and they flowered up a game at Millwall as some sort of ground breaking, expansion plan when it was essentially not their own doing at all. 

Anyway, with the deduction. An admin error, though minor and understandable as humans are capable of errors, is still a breach of the rules whether 1% or 100% over the cap. 

I’d be shocked now to see them get the two points back, though if Robert Elstone has anything to do with it, they’ll get them back. 

[bobbruce]

37 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

So nothing to do with development of the game then, just for financial gain? And what good did playing at Millwall do for that local area as regarding RL?

No nothing to do with the development of the game and to be honest that’s not really Wigan’s job. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Padge said:

You seem to have chosen to ignore this part of the same statement. How odd was that.

 

Wigan were not offered an Agreed Decision by the RFL, as expected in the rules, before the Tribunal was arranged. Had this been offered earlier in the process, as provided for in the RFL Rules & Regulations, Wigan would have had the opportunity to research precedents and would almost certainly have accepted an Agreed Decision involving no points deduction, as offered at the last minute at the door of the Tribunal but with a substantial fine and costs.


 

 

This argument will be interesting, as the wording in that press release is very soft. 

'As expected in the rules' is an odd sentence that doesn't make sense.

'Had this been offered earlier in the process, as provided for in the RFL Rules & Regulations...' does not mean it has to happen.

Salford went through this same process and had their appeal dismissed so it will be interesting to see the outcome. Either way, it will be good to put it to bed rather than this drag on throughout the season.

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

They were out on the streets, Wigan Athletic wanted to relay the pitch (IIRC) that summer so booted out Wigan Warriors and they flowered up a game at Millwall as some sort of ground breaking, expansion plan when it was essentially not their own doing at all. 

Anyway, with the deduction. An admin error, though minor and understandable as humans are capable of errors, is still a breach of the rules whether 1% or 100% over the cap. 

I’d be shocked now to see them get the two points back, though if Robert Elstone has anything to do with it, they’ll get them back. 

A predictably ignorant comment.  An libellous as well.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 3/1/2019 at 12:47 PM, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

With all the interest in Widnes' plight over the last few days it seems to have been missed that Wigan's appeal against their points deduction will take place next Tuesday, 5th March. https://www.rugby-league.com/superleague/article/54431/rfl-statement--wigan-warriors

let's hope that sense prevails and a fair points deduction for deliberately cheating AGAIN, is applied.

Punishments are meant to be deterrents to doing the same crime again, just as penalising a player for a deliberate/reckless act of foul play and subsequently punishing them with a ban/fine, the same should be applied here.

Continual suggestions this was an "admin error" are ludicrous and delusional and take the rest of us including the sports admin for fools. The % amount is irrelevent, as I pointed out before, the sum could be the difference between having a player with experience on the pitch for x number of games and having a debutant kid from the youth system.

There's your advantage over other clubs who abide by the rules without making feeble excuses and having 'oversights' that you didn't declare and were found out!

[Oliver Clothesoff]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

A predictably ignorant comment.  An libellous as well.

I’ll bite. Enlighten me. What lies did the rectums spout to get away with the Tics relaying the pitch? Wedding?  

[Rupert Prince]

39 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

I’ll bite. Enlighten me. What lies did the rectums spout to get away with the Tics relaying the pitch? Wedding?  

Since you are talking in gibberish I'll ignore you.

[Padge]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

This argument will be interesting, as the wording in that press release is very soft. 

'As expected in the rules' is an odd sentence that doesn't make sense.

'Had this been offered earlier in the process, as provided for in the RFL Rules & Regulations...' does not mean it has to happen.

Salford went through this same process and had their appeal dismissed so it will be interesting to see the outcome. Either way, it will be good to put it to bed rather than this drag on throughout the season.

I haven't double checked this but as far as I am aware if the RFL want to offer "a deal" there is a point in the process where it should happen. The RFL offered the deal further down than line than was reasonable for them to consider their position. They therefore took the hit and then went to appeal.

The RFL cannot offer a last minute deal at the door of the tribunal verdict.