surely thats got to be wrong or i am reading it wrong.
Wages already paid have to count.
Plus the severance package.
It would just be the future wages that did not then count on the cap ~ seeing as they would not be paid.

If that were not the case you could pay as much as you want then "negotiate" a severance package of ten bob to go on the cap!

If you pay a player off the money paid to him in compensation is spread out over the remainder of his contract for salary cap purposes. Smith is only signed to the end of the season so for him that means any pay off would count all this season.

As to players being entitled to the remainder of his contract that isn't necessarily the case. They get whatever the compensation is and that will depend on contractual terms and/or whatever is agreed between both parties.

With Barrett what he wanted was paying 2/3 of his total contract with us. So lets say he was due to earn £600K but got £100K in year one, £200K in year two and £300K in year three, what he wanted was it spreading equally over the three years meaning £200K a year so as compensation he wanted the £100K missing from year one.

As Barrett left in the 2008 salary cap year then his compensation would be have been divided pro-rata between 2008 and 2009. The salary cap year runs from January so if he left at the end of October it would be 2 months worth of wages in 2008 and 12 months in 2009 i,e. £100K divided by 14 per month would be his liability to us. I think that is correct or it could be £100K divided by 12 with the 2008 liability being 2 months of worth of that and the 2009 the full 12 months I am not sure, but whatever, it is definitely correct the pay off counts over the duration of his contract term not all in one season.

Dave

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Vievers the defensive coach, so it should be him helping Smith and telling him where to stand

No they don't. You can read the rules yourself at the RFL web site.

Gleeson's liabilty to Wire for example this year is zero.



Wigan's liability for him is 12 x his monthly wage.

It is quite clever when you think about it because if Wire sign a replacement his liability on Wire's cap is 12 x his monthly wage not the 8 month worth of wages left for this season. So if they sign a player and agree to pay him the same as Gleeson their salary cap liability remains exactly the same. They cannot go out and sign another player with the 4 months worth of wages that will not be paid to the new player this season.

If they do not sign a replacement then OK their salary cap liability is lower but they are a man down so it means nothing in practical terms



No you can't because the cap is "live". As silly example illustrates this. Had Wire paid Gleeson £160K a month thus using up the entire cap the RFL would have said at the start of the salary cap season that was not allowed. So a clubs salary cap liability is calculated when any changes are made. So paying a player a million quid a year and then paying him off with £5 does not mean his liability was £5. He would never have been allowed to earn the £1m in the first place.

Dave

Im still trying to fugure out what that tattoo is on his arm, Kat Von D would be proud.

So, if I'm following you correctly, we have to take all Gleeson's annual salary on our cap, but we lose all of Mathers'? If so, how have we fitted Gleeson in? He must be on more than double Mathers.

You won't hear this so often but here goes! DaveO is spot on with this one!



We've been having a PM salary cap debate for the last week or so and it's exactly how DaveO put it!

I think in Layman's terms the best way to put it is that at any one time you are not allowed to have a Wage structure that has you above 1.6m at any one time.

Example

If Wire were up to the Max on the Salary Cap & Gleeson was 120k a Year (10K a month) then they cannot replace him with a player (Or multiple of players) that earn above 10k a month!

You can't say Gleeson was owed 80k for the rest of that year and then Pay someone 20k a month for the next 4 months as for that 4 month period He would be earning 20k a month putting the club 10k Over the Salray cap for that Month!

If Wigan had 30k left on the cap and Mathers was on 60k a year that means we have 90K left on the cap.
Wigan could not then Pay Martin Gleeson more than 7.5K per month for the remainder of this year (90k divided by 12 months).

Even though Wigan were under the cap by 30k for the 1st 3 months of the year that money is now dead money as Gleeson's wages for the remainder of the year utilise Mathers/30k spare and this backdated over the 1st 3 months of the year.

Confused?

Come for a pint in the Anvil about 6 and I will explain However after 6 or 7 pints it could get even worse!

We take on 12 x Gleesons monthly wage whatever that is. That is 12 x his monthly wage is added to our salary cap liability. We lose all of Mathers and Wire take on 12 x Mathers monthly wage.

It doesn't matter which way the system works regarding the question of how we fit Gleeson in because if it were only 8 months wages not 12 on our cap you would assume that would exceed it given we only had £20K to spare plus what was left after losing Mathers wages.

I am also pretty sure that Mathers was released not transferred so that means there could have been a pay off to him in theory from Wigan which would count on the cap.

So yes it is a mystery how we got Gleeson under the cap either way.

One possibility is of course we paid Mathers quite a lot of dosh!

Dave.

12 x his salary @ warrington or his salary at wigan?

lets not forget, its not impossible that hes on less money than he was

12 x his monthly wages At Wigan

so, theoretically, we could be paying him £20k for the rest of the year and then upping his wages to compensate for the next 3 years? or is that against the spirit of the cap?

I was under the impression Vievers was simply the assistant coach, if he is the defensive coach he needs sacking asap, and it also raises a question of what exactly does Noble do if it is the case? Is he solely responsible for our free flowing attacking play?

We could be (But that would be 20k divided by 12 monthly payments equalling £1666 a month)

What you have to get into your head to understand it (Thanks DaveO), is that the Amount is a Constant 1.6m!

You can't pay the squad an equivalant of 1million for the 1st half of the year in their wages as this would equate to paying them 2 million at any one point in that first 6 months!

You can't total the players whole wages for the year and say you were under 1.6 million either as at one point in that year you could have had 3/4/5 extra players in your team at that point and when you take that month's salry and x by 12 it would be over 1.6million at that point.
It wouldn't matter that 3 months down the line you were under by the equivalent amount, you were still over the 1.6million earlier in theseason.

i work in accounts and im not even going to try and get my head around it. why the hell the RFL cant just check the total amount paid to players over the course of a 12 month period and then check whether its over the £1.6M is beyond me!

bloody rfl, pi$$ up and brewery spring to mind

May be wrong but i think it is to ensure the cap is live and we do not see a situation where Wigan were punished retrospectivley after any real damage has been done.

im sure it is but whats the point? all the live cap does it copy the NRL. if a team is over the cap at the end of the year, strip them of all points, fine them and have done with it

I'm speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the transfer fee was actually a payoff to Mathers but was being paid to him under warrington salary cap as they may have more room to play with

has anyone got any idea who the other two clubs in super league are that the tax man is chasing. i know warrington have been named but who are the other two. with all the rumours regarding saints tax dodging over the years my bet would be them but just wondered if anyone had heard owt.

We were mentioned in the guardian article and i've heard Hull fc mentioned aswell,but until anything is confirmed by either the clubs,the rfl or HMRC we'll just have to wait and see.

Wigan are coming together as a team now, a few adjustments and we'd be right up there.

Richards (NEW A TRUE FB, don't care what anyone says but Pat will do for now)
Roberts Gleeson Carmont Ainscough
Tomkins (NEW 7)
ENFORCER/CAPT NEW PROP Tommy NEW IMPACT PROP
Hock Lockers
J Tomkins
-------------------
Feka, Riddell Prescott Farrell

SELL

Bailey
Smith
Phelps
Fielden (when poss)
Coley
Hansen
O Carroll

Goulding-Loan
Flanny-Loan
Mossop-Loan.

I can justify this entire moment.

Nuff Said

id like to see

1 pat richards
2 karl pryce
3 martin gleeson
4 george carmont
5 shaun ainscough
6 sam tomkins
7 matty orford
8 luke baily
9 tommy
10 feka
11 gareth hock
12 sean oloughlin
13 joel tomkins

14 lee mossop
15 mark riddell
16 harrison hanson
17 stu fielden

I said after the game last night that theres a good side at Wigan just waiting to burst out. I'm not 100% confident it will ever happen under Noble because the players we have aren't suited to playing safety first, up the middle rugby.

On the playing front we need an organising number 7 and a top quality prop to get us bang up there.

For next season i'd like too see them brought in with Smith, Coley and Bailey leaving.

The season after Fielden is off contract and then we really will look strong if we use this cap space in the correct way.

I think last night showed the need for the two types of players you mention.

Tommy was excellent again last night in the loose play. He has a knack of bouncing/stepping/ ducking off players and tackles then accelerating away into open space. His kicking was also good in spurts as well but I still don’t think it’s consistently good enough for him to be our first go to option on the last tackle. Tommy is defo playing his way into a new deal and I really wanna hear some news about him signing soon.

But we are still missing a HB(6 or 7) who can unlock a defence with a neat miss pass wide or short pop pass to a forward running on an angle. We also need a HB who can get the ball out when it’s on to our excellent centres and give them space and time to work their magic. Our HB were good last night but I never thought they were going to unlock the Saints defence with a killer ball. We also put ourselves under pressure by bombing kicks straight to the Saints back three towards the end of the game meaning they made easy yards.

Fielden was again poor last night and although Coley played well we are still crying out for a rough prop who will not only make the hards yards but he’ll steady the ship and win the arm wrestle for us. Imagine what Feka could do for Leeds if he came on after Peacock and Leuleui had softened teams up for him. A house prop would add so much to our game and bring the likes of Prescott and Feka up to another level

After all the signings made since IL bought the club we still need at least one prop now and another if/when Coley goes.
Last night only Feka & Fielden broke tackles. Coley & Prescott didn't break a tackle all night. Neither do they run with the power and aggression needed from today's prop forward.
The problem has been there before and since IL arrived and is still there now. At his first FF IL said "Why do we need props we've got eight".
He knows now why we need them and have for some years.
Until we get two far more powerful props than we have now into our front row the longer it's going to be before we can compete with the best.
What we also need desperately is a top class experienced play maker half back. We continually have teams on their try line and unless it's a kick struggle to break them down.

My ideal squad would be - Richards, Roberts, Gleeson, Carmont, Ainscough, New half back and Sam T. Fielden, Riddell, New Prop, Hock, Joel T, O'Loughlin, Feka, New Prop, Tommy (as a 9) Hansen.

Sam T is struggling at times to make play but it's difficult for him as most weeks he's playing behind a beaten pack. Put a new playmaker HB with Sam T behind a pack that can win most of not all games and the whole team could step up a gear and step up their performances. The wins would certainly follow!