Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 12:12:35 GMT
Just seen that Wigan have been deducted 2 points for salary cap infringements. It seems a good investment when you are able to build on the infringement and win a cup or so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 12:20:35 GMT
The Beeb (so increasingly fake news) says that the payments were for flight allowance and payments to player agents, I wouldn't have thought these would have counted on the cap in the 1st place.
You do wonder how being over the cap by such a small amount (£14,700) comes to light 2 seasons later rather than during the supposedly live policing of the cap last season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rossy on Jan 30, 2019 12:46:52 GMT
Im sure this is the 3rd time they have done this in the super league. Surley it should be more than two points.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichred on Jan 30, 2019 12:48:50 GMT
Is that 3 times they have been done now ?
Salford got 6 points for salary cap infringements so what’s the difference ?
Wigan yet again getting preferential treatment
|
|
|
|
Post by woody74 on Jan 30, 2019 13:02:18 GMT
Yeah apparently it was due to "An administrative error" and they plan to appeal.
What's the odds the points get refunded? 🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 13:06:55 GMT
It does seem a pretty minor infraction for a relatively small amount and the delay was because it wasn’t set in stone that these payments actually amounted to a breach. I’d say due to past breaches, 2 points is fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitch on Jan 30, 2019 13:27:26 GMT
Great news. We’re off the bottom of the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Jan 30, 2019 14:21:53 GMT
I’d say due to past breaches, 2 points is fair. Er ........ |
|
|
|
Post by johnh1 on Jan 30, 2019 15:19:04 GMT
And if I remember correctly, our points were deducted towards the end of the season, which confined us to the middle 8 play offs. Wigan have a whole season to recover the points.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Jan 30, 2019 16:03:17 GMT
And if I remember correctly, our points were deducted towards the end of the season, which confined us to the middle 8 play offs. Wigan have a whole season to recover the points. What it is to have friends with power and influence! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 16:34:44 GMT
I’d say due to past breaches, 2 points is fair. Er ........ What I meant was - without previous breaches the fine would be more than enough punishment. But considering the previous a 2 point deduction is about right. Salford’s deduction was over the top and handled terribly though and I agree we were hard done by. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Jan 30, 2019 16:38:43 GMT
What I meant was - without previous breaches the fine would be more than enough punishment. But considering the previous a 2 point deduction is about right. Salford’s deduction was over the top and handled terribly though and I agree we were hard done by. Funny how independent tribunals come out with exactly the same kinds of punishment as the questionable ones, isn't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 16:42:41 GMT
I don’t know why everything has to be a conspiracy in Rugby League. Makes us look daft in my opinion but I seem to be in the minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by boggles61 on Jan 30, 2019 16:51:50 GMT
Don’t think it always has to be a conspiracy theory, however the RFL suffers from transparency and consistency, surely its easy to have defined punishments ? Take drugs offences and how there seen Hardaker and Walker same thing one gets his punishment backdated the other not then the length of punishment hence one can have a pre season the other not ? All hard drugs bans should be 2 years across the board and then more for repeat offenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rossy on Jan 30, 2019 17:20:10 GMT
When they broke the salary cap first time they had 4 points taken off them. so it must be on how much was spent surely. I can accept us losing 6 points for 3 offence but surely breaking the salary cap 3 times in ten years, this has to be looked at.
|
|
