Jump to content

Wigan win back deducted two points as punishment for breaching cap adjusted


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, dkw said:

Would you please elaborate on that, because its sounds like absolute nonsense to me.

As I said, I was making a supposition. The costs of players in year 1 were still there in year 2 and they were contractually obliged to pay them, so it follows that it was likely that they were inevitably going to break the cap in year 2.   Its not an excuse, if this was the case. It was that it was inevitable given the short time frame. It was unlikely that they could possibly cut their  payments in that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

One thing I am slightly confused about is that they stated that the original tribunal was an independent tribunal as well as the appeal hearing.

Right you are - I thought it was an RFL punishment.  The system must be that its an independent tribunal and you have a right of appeal to another tribunal.  I thought it was RFL then tribunal.  My mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, my missus said:

Oh please god let wigan win the league by two points.

Not sure God needs to intervene; do you mean Rob?

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

1 - Wrong. This only came up as part of the RFL audit.

2 - How do you know that? Had they declared this £14k overspend, as they should have done, maybe they would have had to have released a player. 

Maybe, they didn't declare it because they didn't want to release a player? That would be cheating.

As it’s a live cap they would’ve been stopped from signing the player that took them over the cap. I wonder who was their last signing that year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

As it’s a live cap they would’ve been stopped from signing the player that took them over the cap. I wonder who was their last signing that year. 

But as we have been reading recently, when players have long term injuries they go off the Cap. Also it may be that players go on DR... do they go off the Cap. And when players reach a certain  age, do the go on to the cap?  If you bring in a player from a certain grade,  do they go on the Cap or not? If so for how long?

It is not so straight forward as you suggest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rupert Prince said:

But as we have been reading recently, when players have long term injuries they go off the Cap. Also it may be that players go on DR... do they go off the Cap. And when players reach a certain  age, do the go on to the cap?  If you bring in a player from a certain grade,  do they go on the Cap or not? If so for how long?

It is not so straight forward as you suggest. 

Yes it is as if those possibilities were available to Wigan to reduce their cap spend they would’ve used it and avoided the whole thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Well, no, the point doesn't stand, as your point was nonsense and inaccurate.

I have no issues with the 2 points being returned, they were two independent panels, and they have made their decision. I'm glad it is out of the way early on.

Even the above post finishes on a nonsense point, most, if not all points deductions have taken place in a season not relating to when the breach was made.

 

 

Stop moaning then.

A decision being made two seasons later to deduct points was laughable.

- Clear admin error which Wigan were honest about 

- No intention to ‘cheat the cap’ as the discrepancies were caused by an admin error with the fact we had to register so many young players who weren’t expected to play that season.

- Clearly harsher than previous punishements for similar offences

- A shambles to take a previous ownership into account over 10 years ago

 

The RFL or any fans arguing the dedication should have stood really don’t have any leg to stand on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Yes it is as if those possibilities were available to Wigan to reduce their cap spend they would’ve used it and avoided the whole thing. 

Yes indeed. I merely am suggesting that the possibilities are still complex even with a live Cap... even if the RLF were willing to take the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rupert Prince said:

Yes indeed. I merely am suggesting that the possibilities are still complex even with a live Cap... even if the RLF were willing to take the time.

They do take the time you register your payments and they tell you what you have left to spend. The only way to break the cap is by not declaring a payment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Cdd said:

Stop moaning then.

A decision being made two seasons later to deduct points was laughable.

- Clear admin error which Wigan were honest about 

- No intention to ‘cheat the cap’ as the discrepancies were caused by an admin error with the fact we had to register so many young players who weren’t expected to play that season.

- Clearly harsher than previous punishements for similar offences

- A shambles to take a previous ownership into account over 10 years ago

 

The RFL or any fans arguing the dedication should have stood really don’t have any leg to stand on.

 

 

Wigan were honest once they were audited.

It is standard to be punished in years after the event.

Wigan were offered the same as Saints, a fine and no points, despite your previous. Wigan declined the offer.

You aren't very good with the facts are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cdd said:

Stop moaning then.

A decision being made two seasons later to deduct points was laughable.

- Clear admin error which Wigan were honest about 

- No intention to ‘cheat the cap’ as the discrepancies were caused by an admin error with the fact we had to register so many young players who weren’t expected to play that season.

- Clearly harsher than previous punishements for similar offences

- A shambles to take a previous ownership into account over 10 years ago

 

The RFL or any fans arguing the dedication should have stood really don’t have any leg to stand on.

 

 

You're very aggressive for someone with 50-odd posts.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

Not sure God needs to intervene; do you mean Rob?

god or rob it doesn't matter either win the league by 2 points or avoid relegation by 2 points,oh the fun we will have?

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time(roger waters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Wigan were honest once they were audited.

It is standard to be punished in years after the event.

Wigan were offered the same as Saints, a fine and no points, despite your previous. Wigan declined the offer.

You aren't very good with the facts are you?

The attempt to patronise - a typical forum tactic of seasoned posters.

The FACT remains that no points deduction should have been made in the first place and an independent panel have backed me up on that and they probably have more facts than either of us. 

Plus, Wigan could only be honest once they were audited because they didn’t realise they have breached the cap initially.... because of an admin error. 

This seems to be really boiling your urine. There’s more to life you know (my attempt at the same tactic, how did I do?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

You're very aggressive for someone with 50-odd posts.

I have no idea how that post fits under the bracket of aggressive.

I also have no idea why the number of posts i’ve should matter either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Wigan were offered the same as Saints, a fine and no points, despite your previous. Wigan declined the offer.

You aren't very good with the facts are you?

If you're going to argue with someone about the facts you might as well mention all of them, no?

While Wigan were offered the same punishment as Saints, it was immediately before the tribunal, where Wigan had no opportunity to research the precedents so wouldn't know if the punishment was consistent. Wigan weren't offered an agree decision, which the RFL's rules state they should have been.

Had the RFL followed the correct process, Wigan would have been offered an Agreed Decision involving no points deduction, the precedents could have been researched and this mess could have been avoided.

Wigan messed up their salary cap calculations

The RFL messed up their own process of dealing with salary cap breaches

The first independent tribunal messed up by deciding a punishment that wasn't proportional to the offence and precedents already set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Wigan were offered no points deduction and a large fine.

At the wrong time in the process, which was a big part of their argument.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

If you're going to argue with someone about the facts you might as well mention all of them, no?

While Wigan were offered the same punishment as Saints, it was immediately before the tribunal, where Wigan had no opportunity to research the precedents so wouldn't know if the punishment was consistent. Wigan weren't offered an agree decision, which the RFL's rules state they should have been.

Had the RFL followed the correct process, Wigan would have been offered an Agreed Decision involving no points deduction, the precedents could have been researched and this mess could have been avoided.

Wigan messed up their salary cap calculations

The RFL messed up their own process of dealing with salary cap breaches

The first independent tribunal messed up by deciding a punishment that wasn't proportional to the offence and precedents already set.

No. Arguing facts doesn't mean I need to list every detail. Just like you haven't above.

I must admit, I would perhaps have expected a club to have researched previous breaches of the cap going into the first hearing, I think that may have been a good bit of groundwork to do. In just a few minutes online we can see that Saints got a £22k fine and no points for a minor breach.

As Wigan were two of those previous 10 or so SC breaches it would have made it relatively easy to research the others.

It's an interesting one, personally I'd be a bit peeved that my club keeps messing up in this area. 

As an aside, where did you read that Wigan SHOULD have been offered an agreed decision, as Wigan's press release suggests it is an option. Has the judgement been released yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Wigan were offered a fine and no points docked.

At the wrong time in the process, which was a big part of their argument.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.