Has the club said hock is defo coming back?

Not as of yet, but we have made a deal that he cant sign for another SL club, apparently. Im not too sure on the details

I wouldn't give wilkin £5.60 a hour, he's e.

No, when asked at the fans forum in Febuary all IL said was he is keeping a keen eye on his progress

Im sure people will ask again in the next one (usually this month)



3 new players is what most are expecting TBH

Im not sure wigan can come out in public to say hock will be at wigan until his ban is up.

Yeah they can. Saracens announced they had signed Matt Stevens with a year left on his two year ban.

Half a year doesn't count on the cap. Wages are pro ratered over a year to stop teams bringing someone in and paying them 50grand for 3 playoff games.

you lot arnt been realistic with what players get paid! Nice of you to ignore where I under estimated!

Under estimated? seriously, we couldnt raise a side now, with what you think some of those players get paid. never mind with finch hoffman and lima

You could be right, but you'd think they would be able to tell us that

I saw him a few months ago and he looked like hes bulked up a fair amount, i wouldnt be suprised if Hock recieves a training schedule through the letterbox in a brown envolope every monday morning

against cap rules. Wigan have been in trouble for this before.

Double post

Quote ="shambawangy"You could be right, but you'd think they would be able to tell us that '" In theory, Wigan COULD announce they are signing Hock for mid-next season, just as Saracens did here with Matt Stevens. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... s-ban.html

Quote ="shambawangy"You could be right, but you'd think they would be able to tell us that '" In theory, Wigan COULD announce they are signing Hock for mid-next season, just as Saracens did here with Matt Stevens. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... s-ban.html

No we've not, and it isn't again the rules either I don't think. If its written into the original contract as a pay rise every year then its fine. We were asking current players to defer payments till the next season, which isn't actually against the rules of the cap but against the "spirit" of the cap.

No its not.

Retrospectively it was against the 'spirit'.

there's nothing stopping us signing a player and being up front:

Year 1 - £80k
Year 2 - £120k

Always said 3 players Hoffman, Lima and finch unless your including Hock as i'm certain he will be back also.

I think 3 players is realistic

I'm not sure on the brackets but I can agree with pay a structure like that. But uneven payments are against the rules now.

They aren't against it at all.

I'd be almost certain that Lee Smith has signed a significantly uneven (for this years playing) contract for yourselves, quite legitimate and good business sense.

The only thing that is against it is adjusting the structure after the player has signed his contract, which ironically wasn't written into the rules as prohibited when we did it - hence us getting charged with a 'spirit' rather than a breaking a rule.

Based on what? You pulling made up figures from your backside.

That's correct. I'm reliably informed that Gleeson (for one) is on an "increasing" contract on similar terms.

[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/melbourne-storm-salary-cap-rorting-bigger-than-first-thought/story-e6frg7mf-1225891511289Oh deary me[/url

Although with all the rule changes next year, they are going to be better off than they thought.

It makes as much sense as those folk who think you will sign Aussie/kiwi test players playing for less than 130k a season and you have only fielden on 150k plus

Try and do the same for Leeds then. It doesn't add up if you guess at it, but for us all we can see if Feka, Bailey, Deacon, Phelps, Pryce, Ainscough leaving with Fielden taking a large pay cut, surely al those players salaries would be enough for 3 of them.

So how did Leeds manage to accommodate Lee Smith under their salary cap this year?