Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:38 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Wigan didn't need the cap exemption in order to keep Sam Tomkins. They should have been forced to cut their cloth accordingly and save in other areas, such as not having 8 NRL players in the starting 13 for example.

Wigan applied for the exemption purely so they could spend more money. They've never been comfortable with a level playing field.

We have saved in other areas. Look at the players who have left and the ones that have come in. The ones that left would of been payed much more as a collective than the ones that have come in.

8 NRL in the starting 13? Thats not true either unless you are picking the team for us?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:54 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

They didn't need dispensation to mantain a squad of around the same size as last year, but they needed to improve the contract of one of (if not the) RLs premier stars.

Given the guys leaving, they could have given all of that cap space to tomkins, but that would leave them with 5 bodies short of a squad needed to play a SL season. Not even Sam Tomkins can do the job of 5 men (James Roby maybe).

As if Wigan were never going to replace bodies.

I don't know what you're all crying about. Even if they sign this centre, they look a weaker squad than last year, unless you think paying Sam more will make him automatically play better.

Exactly, it's not as if we planned to sign Sam and then when we got the exemption we went out and found 5 players.

These players will have been lined up for ages, knowing that we needed replacements for people leaving, just because they were announced after Tomkins pay rise doesn't mean they actually came as a second thought. They were in the pipeline long before the payrise.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:00 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Given the guys leaving, they could have given all of that cap space to tomkins, but that would leave them with 5 bodies short of a squad needed to play a SL season.

If it did leave them five bodies short (which is highly debatable) then it's up to them to manage the cap better and promote from within.

I don't know what you're all crying about.

My argument is that given the fact that many players are leaving AND that they have signed players AFTER the dispensation proves, beyond reasonable and logical doubt, that Wigan did not actually need any special dispensation at all and merely used the excuse that Tomkins *may* go to union as a stick to beat the RFL into submission over a cap increase.

Even if they sign this centre

He won't be coming over for brass washers that's for sure - thus proving they did not need the "extra" cap space

they look a weaker squad than last year,

That's irrelevant.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:04 pm  

inside_man wrote:

Exactly, it's not as if we planned to sign Sam and then when we got the exemption we went out and found 5 players.

These players will have been lined up for ages, knowing that we needed replacements for people leaving, just because they were announced after Tomkins pay rise doesn't mean they actually came as a second thought. They were in the pipeline long before the payrise.

In which case, why not announce them *before* the Tomkins ruling?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:13 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

They didn't need dispensation to mantain a squad of around the same size as last year, but they needed to improve the contract of one of (if not the) RLs premier stars.

Given the guys leaving, they could have given all of that cap space to tomkins, but that would leave them with 5 bodies short of a squad needed to play a SL season. Not even Sam Tomkins can do the job of 5 men (James Roby maybe).

As if Wigan were never going to replace bodies.

I don't know what you're all crying about. Even if they sign this centre, they look a weaker squad than last year, unless you think paying Sam more will make him automatically play better.

Exactly.

If the rules weren't changed Wigan would have had 2 x options

1/ Give ST the money, and then play with a ridiculously low Squad (Been there done that, not a great idea) as they are tied into existing contracts. Let other youngsters leave to experience their system of bringing youth through that if it was any good they wouldn't need the young Wigan lads in the first place!

2/ Not give him the money and then use ST's existing money to reinvest in other signings to replace him and see ST join Union along with his Brother which benefits nobody in RL than the Narrow Minded Wigan hating Brigade!

Does anyone for 1 minute not think that Wigan had most of these signings lined up most of last year (I knew about 3 of them back in August!) but needed to wait on the agreements of the new rules that if I'm not mistaken probably 90% of people on here have been calling for the last 3/4 years? If the rules hadn't been agreed we would have either not signed these new players or Sam would have gone.
Quite simple really.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:17 pm  

Badwanger wrote:

In which case, why not announce them *before* the Tomkins ruling?

Because maybe they wouldn't have signed them and still given ST the pay increase.

They waited until they knew which option they had and then acted!

If theyd have signed these 5 players (I take it certain posters are delibarately choosing not to highlight the players leaving as to make it look like Wigan have signed 5 extra players from last year!) and then the rules hadn't been brought in and lost ST to Union then I'm sure you would have been saying how stupid Wigan were in signing them without securing their prize asset.
As it is they've done a shrewd bit of business and you don't like it.

It's the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone I'm going to sqweem and sqweem and sqweem!

Your not fooling anyone

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:30 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Exactly.

If the rules weren't changed Wigan would have had 2 x options

1/ Give ST the money, and then play with a ridiculously low Squad (Been there done that, not a great idea) as they are tied into existing contracts. Let other youngsters leave to experience their system of bringing youth through that if it was any good they wouldn't need the young Wigan lads in the first place!

That is *exactly* what should have happened but I'd argue that it would allow even more Wigan youngsters to come to the fore rather than leave.

2/ Not give him the money and then use ST's existing money to reinvest in other signings to replace him and see ST join Union along with his Brother which benefits nobody in RL than the Narrow Minded Wigan hating Brigade!

Firstly, I'm glad ST is staying in RL - thought I need to make that clear.

Secondly, given the amount of players leaving and the difference in the quality of those player coming in, I fail to see why Wigan needed this dispensation in the first place - surely even the most ardent of Wigan fan can see that?

Does anyone for 1 minute not think that Wigan had most of these signings lined up most of last year (I knew about 3 of them back in August!)

I'm not saying that for one minute but that Wigan have been utterly cynical and fed the RFL a line and they have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

The fact Wigan are STILL being linked with yet another player - who let's face it, if true, won't be being paid peanuts - just further emphasis the fact that Wigan have played the RFL for fools on this one.

but needed to wait on the agreements of the new rules that if I'm not mistaken probably 90% of people on here have been calling for the last 3/4 years?

I'm not debating the merits/flaws of the ruling, I'm debating whether it was necessary at all given the comparison of Ins and Outs of the Wigan squad this coming year and the fact that Wigan are still in talks with other players who may, or not, have been approached by them before the ST ruling.

If the rules hadn't been agreed we would have either not signed these new players or Sam would have gone. Quite simple really.

I'm not convinced it's as clear cut as you are trying to make out.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:41 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Because maybe they wouldn't have signed them and still given ST the pay increase.

They waited until they knew which option they had and then acted!

Are you naive enough to believe that these players were told "we can only sign you if we get special dispensation for ST from the RFL"?

If theyd have signed these 5 players (I take it certain posters are delibarately choosing not to highlight the players leaving as to make it look like Wigan have signed 5 extra players from last year!) and then the rules hadn't been brought in and lost ST to Union then I'm sure you would have been saying how stupid Wigan were in signing them without securing their prize asset.

Au contraire. The fact players are leaving just further highlights what a farce this is.

As it is they've done a shrewd bit of business and you don't like it.

You call it "a shrewd bit of business" - I prefer to call it "pulling the wool".

It's the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone I'm going to sqweem and sqweem and sqweem!

Your not fooling anyone

I don't intend to fool anyone. I'm merely pointing out that, once again, Wigan have took the RFL and the rest of SL for mugs.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:45 pm  

so people are saying to maintain homegrown english talent, you should be forced to cripple the rest of your squad

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:48 pm  

Maybe it's time someone pointed out that the signings Wigan have made were not AFTER the dispensation was given.

They signed months ago, they were only ANNOUNCED recently. The exceptions are the two young Welsh players Lloyd and Pugsley but as they aren't one of the top 25 earners they don't count on the cap anyway.

As it stands Gelling hasn't signed, so no signings that would impact the cap have been made after the announcement of any dispensation.