Seems reasonable.

Exactly - as it stands it is a rule change [ispecifically[/i to allow Wigan to cheat and gain an unfair advantage once again. Even if the rule [iis[/i applied globally and other clubs do eventually also benefit from it, there are only 3 or 4 clubs in the entire league in a strong enough financial position to be able to use it, as for every other club that is losing tonnes of money each and every year the old cap is too high for them to be able to afford already. Every non-"Big 4" club will now be faced with the prospect of either eternal mid-table mediocrity, or bankrupting themselves trying to keep up, exactly as per the '80s/'90s Wigan "glory years". It can serve no purpose but to give an unfair advantage to an elite few clubs and utterly annihilates the whole point of having a cap in the first place.

The simple fact is British RL can simply not compete with RU or the NRL for wages. Not by a long, long way. This move will do and can do nothing to change that until another 10 million a year in sponsorship magically appears for the league from somewhere. We all have to face up to the simple financial facts - British RL will only survive in the longer term at an inexorably lower talent level than it does currently and there's bugger all that any non-billionaire can do about it. Tomkins will still end up in RU or the NRL in a few seasons' time. All this does is make an already preposterous, random and deeply unfair league much, much less fair still.

Some of Ian Leneghan's comments this week suggest Wigan are in the process of having the salary cap scrapped altogether, or are threatening to do so. His comment about it being his belief that he can offer any player a better deal than any club in either code is particularly mysterious as some players in French RU have been given deals worth a third of the SL salary cap. Especially as Tomkins has taken this allowance already.

If the salary cap is scrapped then British RL is dead. Simple. I for one will not enter another RL ground if it ever happens - I don't see what would be the point, frankly. If Wigan or anyone else are that determined to make a mockery of the sport and cheat and buy their way to meaningless trophy wins in this way then let them sod off to RU and do it there and leave those of us who actually love the sport instead to continue enjoying it. B******s....

Good Lord.
There is nothing to suggest that the salary cap is being scrapped (other than a wind up post from Saddened - and not even one of his better ones).
There are some amendments being made to the regulations that's all - this is not unusual. The rules have been amended and tinkered with many, many times since the inception of the Salary Cap.

The public communication hasn't been great. Perhaps if everyone just waits and has a read of the amended regulations when they're published it will turn out that the sky isn't about to fall in.

According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu

According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu

Quote ="Dux"According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu'" Which completely contradicts what was published the day before: Quote ="The Telegraph"Lenagan revealed Wigan have taken advantage of amendments to the Super League salary cap to help keep Sam Tomkins in the game. The Rugby Football League are sticking with a £1.7million ceiling but clubs are to be given permission to make allowances for long-serving, marquee and home-grown players in an effort to prevent a drain of talent to Australia and the 15-man code.'" Which leads me to suspect that if the RFL and Wigan don't properly clarify what they've done, Wigan are being allowed to breach the cap to keep Sam in the sport. Another point which contradicts it just being them using the allowance for O'Loughlin is Leneghan's comments that Wigan can beat any offer any League or Union team can make to a player.

Quote ="Dux"According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu'" Which completely contradicts what was published the day before: Quote ="The Telegraph"Lenagan revealed Wigan have taken advantage of amendments to the Super League salary cap to help keep Sam Tomkins in the game. The Rugby Football League are sticking with a £1.7million ceiling but clubs are to be given permission to make allowances for long-serving, marquee and home-grown players in an effort to prevent a drain of talent to Australia and the 15-man code.'" Which leads me to suspect that if the RFL and Wigan don't properly clarify what they've done, Wigan are being allowed to breach the cap to keep Sam in the sport. Another point which contradicts it just being them using the allowance for O'Loughlin is Leneghan's comments that Wigan can beat any offer any League or Union team can make to a player.

My suspicion is that this is poor journalism creating something out of nothing.

Either way silence from the RFL. Not a clarification for everyone. Nor a denial of any rules change just silence.

Is the media face of the RFL taking a collective holiday during the four nations.

We moan at a lack of publicity but this is something to keep rugby league on the pages yet no comment at all.

Poor journalism by the Telegraph? Potentially, but given how big a deal a cap ammendment would be, surely there should be clarification somewhere.

How would you explain Leneghan's comments about Wigan being able to offer a better deal than any league or union club? Or about the reports from Wigan of Sam being the highest paid league player in the world. It doesn't add up.

Quote ="Dux"According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu'" If this is the case, you're right. It's a non story, other it being a hugely brave move by Wigan to commit so much of the cap on one player. A long term injury to him, and all of a sudden your thinned out squad minus it's marquee match winner looks somewhat brittle.

Quote ="Dux"According to Andy Wilson in his Guardian blog, there is no new 'Marquee' dispensation on the cap. Apparently Wigan have taken advantage of Sean O'Loughlin qualifying for the 10 year dispensation (and presumably the salary freed up by Joel's departure) to rustle up the cash for Sam. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... CMP=twt_gu'" If this is the case, you're right. It's a non story, other it being a hugely brave move by Wigan to commit so much of the cap on one player. A long term injury to him, and all of a sudden your thinned out squad minus it's marquee match winner looks somewhat brittle.

Maybe the RFL have told Wigan they can break the cap and they will turn blind eye.

That is certainly the suspicion. I don't see how they would get £100k cap room made available and Sam on the biggest deal for a RL player in the world. (£100k+ cap room available is a direct Leneghan quote).

How, it could just be Joels salary plus the £50K allowance from O'Loughlins (something I mentioned earlier in this discussion)

As I said, keep checking the RFL Operational Rules.

That's always a risk.
In the case of long term injury there's provision in the regulations for clubs to apply for dispensation to exceed the second tier liability thresholds - to pay players who play more first team games than originally estimated as a result of such an injury.

(second tier liability being salary cap speak for the maximum you can pay players who are outside the top 25 in terms of salary cap value).

[url=http://www.wigantoday.net/sport/wigan-warriors/lenagan_we_did_want_thomas_1_3950697Gareth Thomas?[/url




This clarification you repeatedly demand - what format would that need to take in order to allay these overwhelming suspicions of wrongdoing you're experiencing?

Whether the lower clubs can afford to take advantage of this amendment is irrelevant. Clubs should have the opportunity to hold on to the players that they have invested plenty of time and money in to. People are only moaning because it's a Wigan player. The salary cap hasnt changed for a few years and because of that Wigan have had to wave goodbye to Ashton and Saints did Eastmond. Joel's gone now as well and if Sam had followed it would have been a disaster to the sport as a whole.

Of course people are only bothered about a potential advantage given to one team because it's Wigan. I mean if it was Leeds nobody would care ... NOT. Get a grip and lose the Cherry and White chip on your shoulder. If whatever rule is applied to all teams equally then I'm sure most people will be fine with it.

Can you not read dude? Andy Wilson is saying there are no changes to the cap and that Wigan have had no help they weren't entitled to.

So either Wilson, or the journalist/s that made the original story about his contract renewal are lying about the deal.

I never went right through the posts just saw people moaning cos it was Wigan on the earlier pages. Only just seen what Andy Wilson's said. Not too sure tbh, if a marquee/homegrown ruling hasnt been brought in then one needs to.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/23920/sltv-sam-tomkins-to-stayBut the rules have been changed to facilitate what Wigan has just done.[/url

Andy Wilson didn't quite give the full story.

What troubles me is this 'allowances' bit the RFL refers to but, as usual, is not open about. We know about the allowances for long serving players - up to 50% off cap for the longest serving player. So if Tomkins' salary is now also 50% off cap that means Wigan will be in a position to sign up other players as well without feeling it under the cap. How many marquee players are allowed per team? And what is the 'allowance' value? And how will this affect teams unable even to reach the cap much less spend beyond it, even though they may have a wonderkid in their squad?

I thought the existing allowances were £50k, not 50%.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Either way, we don't know what this new allowance is or how many players it relates to and I can't see it being anything but a load of trouble.

We'll file it under 'Wigan - Miscellaneous salary cap cheating' until we get clarification of the mess. Surely to god someone at the RFL reads my posts on this forum and hopefully there will be an RFL press release to clarify. If anyone doubts my reach, you can read between the lines that Andy Wilson's blog is all about me.

If it's in the Telegraph you can bet it's written by a RU journo who knows next to nothing about RL. Like [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/8874740/Wigans-Joel-Tomkins-switchs-codes-to-join-Saracens.htmlthis guy[/url, who thinks 'Tomkins' is spelt with a p.