Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:58 am  

wiganermike wrote:

I think that people are assuming we only have George as marquee because we were told by the club that Sam T was our first marquee and that George was our second. When Sam T left they did not announce that any existing player (or the subsequently signed Hardaker, Bullock or Sammut) had replaced him as a marquee player. In the lack of any declaration on the club's part we can only assume that they have kept the marquee slot vacated by Sam unused.

It may be a vain hope but if by not using the £75k Sam T had cost (in terms of the cap) this season it allows us to bring in one marquee player costing £150k for next year once George leaves and his £75k becomes available, without needing to lose yet another player worth 75k+ next year to make space, then that may be the reason it is seemingly not being used this year.

I see what your saying but Without going into too much detail people are looking at this from the wrong angle.

It would make no sense to not spend Sams 75k slot - in effect it's just a figure that we wouldn't be using.

Ultimately if Farrell for example is on 200k then the first 75k of his wages would count and the rest wouldn't - The 125k remainder that he used the previous year would then be allocated somewhere else i.e. for Sams replacement Hardaker for example (And if he's on more than Farrell was the previous year we'll have less to spend than the previous year on the cap).

What happens over 75k or 150k for non trained players is irrelevant
The club will allocate the 2 "Marquee" spots to the 2 x highest paid players who can gain relief down to 75k or 150k leaving more in the "Pot" for the others.

So although no-one may have been named - they will have just chosen whoever to best fit the salary cap rules (Doesn't mean anything changes etc.).

If next year we sign a Big name who is on more money than Farrell (Lets say 260k) but because the first 150k only is exempt etc. then Farrell will stay on Marquee

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

I see what your saying but Without going into too much detail people are looking at this from the wrong angle.

It would make no sense to not spend Sams 75k slot - in effect it's just a figure that we wouldn't be using.

Ultimately if Farrell for example is on 200k then the first 75k of his wages would count and the rest wouldn't - The 125k remainder that he used the previous year would then be allocated somewhere else i.e. for Sams replacement Hardaker for example (And if he's on more than Farrell was the previous year we'll have less to spend than the previous year on the cap).

What happens over 75k or 150k for non trained players is irrelevant
The club will allocate the 2 "Marquee" spots to the 2 x highest paid players who can gain relief down to 75k or 150k leaving more in the "Pot" for the others.

So although no-one may have been named - they will have just chosen whoever to best fit the salary cap rules (Doesn't mean anything changes etc.).

If next year we sign a Big name who is on more money than Farrell (Lets say 260k) but because the first 150k only is exempt etc. then Farrell will stay on Marquee

With regard to the bit I underlined, like what I suggested it is only an assumption. The club haven't said someone has taken the vacated marquee spot but they have also not said that no one has taken it either. You quite logically assume that they will use it for the top earner. This could be the case but it isn't necessarily the case.

Given that we also sold Bateman and Sutton at the end of last season we probably wouldn't have needed to use the marquee slot to be able to fit Hardaker, Bullock and Sammut in. With the plan prior to the start of this season having been to just get through this stop gap season before a long term permanent coach came in, then holding back the slot for a player to be brought in in 2020 rather than letting the stop gap coach (as Lam was and perhaps still is) pick someone for it could be more plausible.

In terms of whether or not the second slot is in use this year you may be right or I may be right but both of us are making an assumption.

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:34 pm  

wiganermike wrote:

With regard to the bit I underlined, like what I suggested it is only an assumption. The club haven't said someone has taken the vacated marquee spot but they have also not said that no one has taken it either. You quite logically assume that they will use it for the top earner. This could be the case but it isn't necessarily the case.

Given that we also sold Bateman and Sutton at the end of last season we probably wouldn't have needed to use the marquee slot to be able to fit Hardaker, Bullock and Sammut in. With the plan prior to the start of this season having been to just get through this stop gap season before a long term permanent coach came in, then holding back the slot for a player to be brought in in 2020 rather than letting the stop gap coach (as Lam was and perhaps still is) pick someone for it could be more plausible.

In terms of whether or not the second slot is in use this year you may be right or I may be right but both of us are making an assumption.

If they haven't then it doesn't matter as whatever we are paying out is under the cap - But if they wanted to bring someone in all they would need to do his name that person (i.e. Farrell in this scenario) as Marquee and anything over 75k would come off the cap and be available.

What they will have are players that will qualify for Marquee rule if and when they choose to use it.

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:43 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

What makes you think we've only got one?
Any Wigan trained player on over 75k will immediately be worthy of a marquee spot
Farrell
Lockers
Gildart
Budgie
Etc
Whichever one of those earns the most will be the 2nd marquee behind with Williams
Unless one of the non trained players earns more over 150k than any of the above do over 75k
You k ow
Players like
Hardaker
Sarginson
Tommy
Greenwood
Etc

Any Wigan trained player on over £75k will immediately be the second marquee? I don’t think that’s correct.

5.14b of the Salary Cap Regulations states “A Marquee Player is a player whose Salary Cap Value would be (but for for provisions of this Clause 5.14) £175,000 or more”

I remember reading an article specifically stating Hardaker is not a marquee player. Though I do understand what you mean in that another player already at the club on more than £175k could now be marquee.

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:43 pm  

WARRIOR5 wrote:

Any Wigan trained player on over £75k will immediately be the second marquee? I don’t think that’s correct.

5.14b of the Salary Cap Regulations states “A Marquee Player is a player whose Salary Cap Value would be (but for for provisions of this Clause 5.14) £175,000 or more”

I remember reading an article specifically stating Hardaker is not a marquee player. Though I do understand what you mean in that another player already at the club on more than £175k could now be marquee.

Kind of & Yes I didn't word it correctly
The player has to be on over 175k to begin with - but then anything over 75k won't count against cap

What I am saying is that people who say we don't have a 2nd Marquee are not correct as any player that was on over 175k would automatically have dispensation that would qualify for Marquee dispensation if required.

So for example - We all accept George is Marquee no1
So his 250k (I'm guessing) only 75k counts against the cap

Now if were saying we haven't got a 2nd Marquee - That means we don't have any Wigan trained players on over 175k - or non trained players on over 175k
I can't believe that's true?

So if we didn't allocate another Marquee and we were up to the cap then we couldn't bring anyone in - But just by say allocating a Farrell (I think it's fair to assume he would be on more than 175k - I hazard 200k for example) we could then use the 125k that becomes exempt to bring someone in "If Needed".
It creates cap space if needed to bring someone in.
Why would we not do that, All we need to do is name "Someone" and whichever player is on the most over his allotted dispensation would have that amount taken off the cap and we'd be under by that much freeing up availability if we need it?

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:58 am  

Jukesays wrote:

Kind of & Yes I didn't word it correctly
The player has to be on over 175k to begin with - but then anything over 75k won't count against cap

What I am saying is that people who say we don't have a 2nd Marquee are not correct as any player that was on over 175k would automatically have dispensation that would qualify for Marquee dispensation if required.

So for example - We all accept George is Marquee no1
So his 250k (I'm guessing) only 75k counts against the cap

Now if were saying we haven't got a 2nd Marquee - That means we don't have any Wigan trained players on over 175k - or non trained players on over 175k
I can't believe that's true?

So if we didn't allocate another Marquee and we were up to the cap then we couldn't bring anyone in - But just by say allocating a Farrell (I think it's fair to assume he would be on more than 175k - I hazard 200k for example) we could then use the 125k that becomes exempt to bring someone in "If Needed".
It creates cap space if needed to bring someone in.
Why would we not do that, All we need to do is name "Someone" and whichever player is on the most over his allotted dispensation would have that amount taken off the cap and we'd be under by that much freeing up availability if we need it?

Spot on pal but then how can people slag Lenagan for campaigning for 2 Marquee players per game then not using them if its true?

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:01 am  

bazdev wrote:

Spot on pal but then how can people slag Lenagan for campaigning for 2 Marquee players per game then not using them if its true?

Off the mark there, if you go through my posts I’m a big fan of Lenagan and constantly defend what he does for the club.

I have assumed we only have one marquee because Sam’s position was not directly replaced. Jukesays made a point that any Wigan trained player on over £75k could be marquee which I then disagreed with.

With reasonable logic, I have assumed we don’t have a second marquee. With reasonable logic, Jukesays has assumed we do. Unless someone has inside information, we’re all just making assumptions.

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:27 am  

WARRIOR5 wrote:

Off the mark there, if you go through my posts I’m a big fan of Lenagan and constantly defend what he does for the club.

I have assumed we only have one marquee because Sam’s position was not directly replaced. Jukesays made a point that any Wigan trained player on over £75k could be marquee which I then disagreed with.

With reasonable logic, I have assumed we don’t have a second marquee. With reasonable logic, Jukesays has assumed we do. Unless someone has inside information, we’re all just making assumptions.

I accepted that I'd worded it slightly wrong - The player would have to be on over 175k first - Then only the first 75k would count.

Just for clarity - I'm not saying we have "Declared" a 2nd Marquee or not

What I am saying is that we DEFINATELY have more than 1 player (George) on over 175k (I think that's a fair assumption?)
So if that is true then whoever those players are would qualify for Marquee Rule Dispensation if required.

If we don't declare one then fine - But we still have players that are on enough money to be declared as one if required.

But not sue why we wouldn't do that to the RFL and take advantage of having (In the Farrell scenario I quoted earlier) 125k wiped off our Salary cap value that we could use if required (doesn't make sense that we hamstring ourselves to not be able to use that money by just not declaring someone in case we ever need it).

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:01 am  

Jukesays wrote:

I accepted that I'd worded it slightly wrong - The player would have to be on over 175k first - Then only the first 75k would count.

Just for clarity - I'm not saying we have "Declared" a 2nd Marquee or not

What I am saying is that we DEFINATELY have more than 1 player (George) on over 175k (I think that's a fair assumption?)
So if that is true then whoever those players are would qualify for Marquee Rule Dispensation if required.

If we don't declare one then fine - But we still have players that are on enough money to be declared as one if required.

But not sue why we wouldn't do that to the RFL and take advantage of having (In the Farrell scenario I quoted earlier) 125k wiped off our Salary cap value that we could use if required (doesn't make sense that we hamstring ourselves to not be able to use that money by just not declaring someone in case we ever need it).

Totally understand where you’re coming from. As per my first response, happy to admit I hadn’t looked at it in that way. But that has nothing to do with an anti-Lenagan agenda as I’m not part of that club, nowhere near. (Not you who suggested that, I know.)

Like many others, looking in we had Sam as a marquee player, he left and wasn’t “replaced”. Wigan allegedly offered the marquee spot to Bateman and obviously he didn’t take it. The assumption, maybe incorrectly, was therefore that the marquee spot still exists.

There’s also the fact we made an offer to Hastings which he described as serious, you’d have to assume he would have been marquee. When this offer was made, I believe we already had Gildart re-signed, Farrell in contract, Hardaker signed up, O’loughlin confirmed as going again etc. And there’s been no big signing since... if that follows? So if Farrell was made marquee, you would assume that would free up cap space, but apparently we have none...

My last question (and I say this out of curiosity and with no real idea of what players earn) is whether Farrell would be on £175k plus? Almost 1/10th of the standard cap seems a lot for a player who was not marquee when we had Sam/George as our marquee players. But if he is, what you’re saying makes sense in that we’d obviously utilise the marquee spot for him.

Re: Sack Adrian Lam - bring back Wane - all is forgiven : Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:08 pm  

WARRIOR5 wrote:

Totally understand where you’re coming from. As per my first response, happy to admit I hadn’t looked at it in that way. But that has nothing to do with an anti-Lenagan agenda as I’m not part of that club, nowhere near. (Not you who suggested that, I know.)

Like many others, looking in we had Sam as a marquee player, he left and wasn’t “replaced”. Wigan allegedly offered the marquee spot to Bateman and obviously he didn’t take it. The assumption, maybe incorrectly, was therefore that the marquee spot still exists.

There’s also the fact we made an offer to Hastings which he described as serious, you’d have to assume he would have been marquee. When this offer was made, I believe we already had Gildart re-signed, Farrell in contract, Hardaker signed up, O’loughlin confirmed as going again etc. And there’s been no big signing since... if that follows? So if Farrell was made marquee, you would assume that would free up cap space, but apparently we have none...

My last question (and I say this out of curiosity and with no real idea of what players earn) is whether Farrell would be on £175k plus? Almost 1/10th of the standard cap seems a lot for a player who was not marquee when we had Sam/George as our marquee players. But if he is, what you’re saying makes sense in that we’d obviously utilise the marquee spot for him.

Players wages are a Hot topic and not something I would like to start playing Russian roulette with - Plus, I am one of the few who seems to understand that the whole salary cap management and how contracts work etc. is a lot more complicated than the average Joe on forums/facebook etc. wants to admit
i.e. the "Get rid of him" - "Just buy another player" - "He's injured so take him off the cap" etc. is a lot more complicated than that.

What I would say is that I do know what 2 players at Wigan are on - and so I Have a guess based on length of service/quality and contract timing (i.e. 1 Year ago Gildart would have been at the end of one contract so it would have been relatively undervalued at that point - Whereas his contract will have significantly increased so I work off what I think that may be) to give me an idea.

Squeezing players wages under the SC is an art form in itself hence why even if it is only for Cap purposes naming someone would give more wriggle room even if they don't use it.

In your scenarios below about Bateman & Hastings - if they were to have accepted Wigan's offer then whichever player would qualify under the biggest exemption would be given Marquee -

So if Hastings was offered 225k say then he would only get 75k dispensation and 150k would count
Whereas we could allocate it to Farrell (Guess) on 200k but 125k dispensation would apply and only 75k would count against the cap.

So even though Hastings would be on more money, Farrell would be named as Marquee?

Hope that makes sense?