Wigan

Wigan

Post by Kevin Broc » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:14:50


Surprised this is over an hour old and not posted....

Wigan have been docked four points at a disciplinary hearing for breaching
the Super League salary cap in 2006.

An independent Rugby League tribunal found the Warriors guilty of exceeding
the salary cap by 222,314.

Wigan were ordered to pay costs and had four points deducted which means
they will drop from fourth to 10th in the table, five points off the drop
zone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/6896583.stm

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Gordon Murra » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:37:13


Quote:
> Surprised this is over an hour old and not posted....

> Wigan have been docked four points at a disciplinary hearing for breaching
> the Super League salary cap in 2006.

> An independent Rugby League tribunal found the Warriors guilty of
> exceeding the salary cap by 222,314.

> Wigan were ordered to pay costs and had four points deducted which means
> they will drop from fourth to 10th in the table, five points off the drop
> zone.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/6896583.stm

I suppose the real shock is it was ONLY 4 points

Wonder how Cas would have been treated if THEY had had the cash to
spend, to stay up, last year?

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by John Turne » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:34:05

"Gordon Murray"  wrote

Quote:
> I suppose the real shock is it was ONLY 4 points

> Wonder how Cas would have been treated if THEY had had the cash to
> spend, to stay up, last year?

I expected Wigan to be docked 6 points, so it looks like the club have
received 'favoured member' treatment yet again.  The RFL have a wonderful
knack of bringing our game into disrepute.

Mind you I had a KR fan in my shop today complaining that two of their
players got a one match ban for head-high tackles and yet St Helens' Kieron
Cunningham got away without a ban for a similar offence.

One rule for the rich clubs, and one for the rest?

John.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by JP » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:46:36


Quote:
> Surprised this is over an hour old and not posted....

> Wigan have been docked four points at a disciplinary hearing for breaching
> the Super League salary cap in 2006.

> An independent Rugby League tribunal found the Warriors guilty of exceeding
> the salary cap by 222,314.

> Wigan were ordered to pay costs and had four points deducted which means
> they will drop from fourth to 10th in the table, five points off the drop
> zone.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/6896583.stm

This was a clear and blatant calculated disregard for the rules of the
competition.
They should have been docked all their points.
It's another example of how spineless and morally bankcrupt some
sporting authorities really are.
They've  have done a West Ham and got away with it.
Wigan are the new West Ham/ Best Sham.

What deterrent is 4 points off for this season?
They should be immediately relegated, anything less is utter disgrace.

At least road cycling has finally got to grips with the cheats and are
trying to change the culture.
Rasmussen was sacked by his own team for lying.

The parallels to me are very clear, do nothing and your whole raison
d'etre will eventually evaporate.
Road Cycling will be faced with sponsors, media organisations pulling
out and the whole future put in doubt by these cheats.

Unfortunately the RFL have once again proved impudent.
This just damages the whole sport for short term  self interest.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by JP » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:56:45


Quote:
> "Gordon Murray"  wrote

> > I suppose the real shock is it was ONLY 4 points

> > Wonder how Cas would have been treated if THEY had had the cash to
> > spend, to stay up, last year?

> I expected Wigan to be docked 6 points, so it looks like the club have
> received 'favoured member' treatment yet again.  The RFL have a wonderful
> knack of bringing our game into disrepute.

> Mind you I had a KR fan in my shop today complaining that two of their
> players got a one match ban for head-high tackles and yet St Helens' Kieron
> Cunningham got away without a ban for a similar offence.

> One rule for the rich clubs, and one for the rest?

> John.

Are you saying that a disciplinary committe should totally ignore the
fact that in 400 games this was his first appearance before them?
It's nothing to do with the clubs they are from.
There are many precedents where players previous exemplary records
have got them a 'lighter sentence'

I don't think there's anyone in the game who thinks KC is a dirty
player,
execpt perhaps conspiratorial myopic Humbersiders.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Martin Heli » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:26:41

Wigan loose 4 points. What about the punishment reflecting the seriousness
of the crime? Laughable!

Martin

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by John Turne » Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:50:41

"JP"  wrote

Quote:
> Are you saying that a disciplinary committe should totally ignore the
> fact that in 400 games this was his first appearance before them?
> It's nothing to do with the clubs they are from.
> There are many precedents where players previous exemplary records
> have got them a 'lighter sentence'

I'm not saying I agree with the KR fan's comments, but the perception is
that the bigger clubs get more favourable treatment.  I don't think either
of the HKR players have a poor disciplinary record.

Quote:
> I don't think there's anyone in the game who thinks KC is a dirty
> player,
> execpt perhaps conspiratorial myopic Humbersiders.

Not think one mate - I despise HKR and thought it quite pleasing that they
will be without two key players for the clash with Salford.

John.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by JP » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:24:09


Quote:
> "JP"  wrote

> > Are you saying that a disciplinary committe should totally ignore the
> > fact that in 400 games this was his first appearance before them?
> > It's nothing to do with the clubs they are from.
> > There are many precedents where players previous exemplary records
> > have got them a 'lighter sentence'

> I'm not saying I agree with the KR fan's comments, but the perception is
> that the bigger clubs get more favourable treatment.  I don't think either
> of the HKR players have a poor disciplinary record.

> > I don't think there's anyone in the game who thinks KC is a dirty
> > player,
> > execpt perhaps conspiratorial myopic Humbersiders.

> Not think one mate - I despise HKR and thought it quite pleasing that they
> will be without two key players for the clash with Salford.

> John.

John,  I'd never have guessed you aren't a robin :)

Another illusion shattered.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by John Turne » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:52:11

"Martin Helie"  wrote

Quote:
> Wigan loose 4 points. What about the punishment reflecting the seriousness
> of the crime? Laughable!

Wigan escaped relegation last season by just three points, so clearly
succeded in cheating their way out of the drop.

No wonder fans of Castleford Tigers are ***y well annoyed - see

http://SportToday.org/

John,

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Alf Kin » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:54:12

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:52:11 +0100, "John Turner"

Quote:

>"Martin Helie"  wrote

>> Wigan loose 4 points. What about the punishment reflecting the seriousness
>> of the crime? Laughable!

>Wigan escaped relegation last season by just three points, so clearly
>succeded in cheating their way out of the drop.

>No wonder fans of Castleford Tigers are ***y well annoyed - see

>http://SportToday.org/

>John,

Yes I agree they did cheat their way out and should have been
punished, but to suggest that the RFL were complicit is quite
unreasonable. The punishment that they are allowed to impose is that
agreed between all of the clubs when the salary cap rules were
drafted. They couldn't simply decide to impose a stricter punishment
than allowed or they would simply have been laughed out of any court
in the land. Whether the punishment that they were allowed to impose
is sufficient is another matter, but one that has to be decided by the
SL clubs and not simply by the RFL.

The actual number of points imposed are calculated according to an
agreed formula which determines the percentage by which the cap was
exceeded, so once again they couldn't have simply said six - it had to
be four.

To add to this, the RFL were concerned last year when Wigan were in
the process of signing Fielden that they would exceed salary cap
limits and fiddle their way out of relegation. Maurice Lindsay was
asked to provide reassurances that this wasn't the case and these he
duly provided. I guess that he must have simply been mistaken!!

I'm not saying for one minute that justice has been served, but the
letter of the law that applied has been used. What happens next year
when they are discovered to have breached the cap again? They will be
fined a record number of points, but guess what? No relegation, that's
what. Uncle Mo isn't a successful rails bookie by accident you know!!
Alf King

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:37:29


Quote:

>> "Gordon Murray"  wrote

>> > I suppose the real shock is it was ONLY 4 points

>> > Wonder how Cas would have been treated if THEY had had the cash to
>> > spend, to stay up, last year?

>> I expected Wigan to be docked 6 points, so it looks like the club have
>> received 'favoured member' treatment yet again.  The RFL have a wonderful
>> knack of bringing our game into disrepute.

>> Mind you I had a KR fan in my shop today complaining that two of their
>> players got a one match ban for head-high tackles and yet St Helens'
>> Kieron
>> Cunningham got away without a ban for a similar offence.

>> One rule for the rich clubs, and one for the rest?

>> John.

> Are you saying that a disciplinary committe should totally ignore the
> fact that in 400 games this was his first appearance before them?
> It's nothing to do with the clubs they are from.
> There are many precedents where players previous exemplary records
> have got them a 'lighter sentence'

> I don't think there's anyone in the game who thinks KC is a dirty
> player,
> execpt perhaps conspiratorial myopic Humbersiders.

Maybe not but just a coincidence that the Cup Semi is this weekend?

Lloyd

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:43:06


Quote:
> "Martin Helie"  wrote

>> Wigan loose 4 points. What about the punishment reflecting the
>> seriousness of the crime? Laughable!

> Wigan escaped relegation last season by just three points, so clearly
> succeded in cheating their way out of the drop.

> No wonder fans of Castleford Tigers are ***y well annoyed - see

> http://SportToday.org/

I am certainly no Cas fan but I have to side with them on this. Utterly
shameful that Wigan have got away with blatant cheating so they could stay
up. 222k over the cap - that's not a minor arithmetical error - that's a
calculated and pre-meditated attempt to cheat the whole of Rugby League -
and it worked.

A disgrace to the game. Morally bankrupt!!

Lloyd

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by John Turne » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:02:40

"Lloyd Barkham"  wrote

Quote:
> I am certainly no Cas fan but I have to side with them on this. Utterly
> shameful that Wigan have got away with blatant cheating so they could stay
> up. 222k over the cap - that's not a minor arithmetical error - that's a
> calculated and pre-meditated attempt to cheat the whole of Rugby League -
> and it worked.

I'm still confused how a 220k overspend is calculated to be only a 6%
overspend on an upper salary cap of 1.7m???

You're an accountant Lloyd (from memory) so maybe you can explain?

John.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:56:32


Quote:

> "Lloyd Barkham"  wrote

>> I am certainly no Cas fan but I have to side with them on this. Utterly
>> shameful that Wigan have got away with blatant cheating so they could
>> stay up. 222k over the cap - that's not a minor arithmetical error -
>> that's a calculated and pre-meditated attempt to cheat the whole of Rugby
>> League - and it worked.

> I'm still confused how a 220k overspend is calculated to be only a 6%
> overspend on an upper salary cap of 1.7m???

> You're an accountant Lloyd (from memory) so maybe you can explain?

No idea. By my calculation that's 13% over the limit.

Lloyd

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by John Turne » Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:15:22

"Lloyd Barkham"  wrote

Quote:
> No idea. By my calculation that's 13% over the limit.

Yup, that's roughly what I worked out!

John.