Disgraceful
We lost by an even closer margin against hull so we should get them back.
Plus 2 points for undue stress over the whole issue.

Our last offence was 12 years ago. If it was last year i'd agree. Come to think of it, if it was in the last 5 years I'd agree. 12 years is a long time.

The salary cap indicate the MAXIMUM spend and is not some approximate figure.
I believe that Wigan's accountants are clever enough to know where the line is and equally bright enough to know if they've exceeded it or tried to cheat the system.
It's not like they havent done such things in the past, is it ?

If there should be no penalty, then fair enough but, how much is little enough to escape punishment.

The worst aspect of all this is not the deduction or, the "refund" of the 2 points, it was the new supremo coming out and saying that it was wrong, before any appeal had even been lodged.
He should have allowed due process to take place and THEN passed comment.

Under a different owner etc.

Regardless whether or not Wigan deserved a points deduction, a 2 point deduction is just laughabl and very easy to claw back in the first place

Brilliant reading

Hahahahaha

The issue here could so easily be prevented. As is often the case in the world of the RFL, they have created a mess by not having a clear and well-known system for dealing with salary cap breaches. As a result, when it happens there will always be those who are annoyed because they perceive a sanction to be too harsh, and those who are annoyed because they perceive it to be lenient. It then all happens again when there's an appeal.
This could be so easily sorted out by publishing a clear and open policy that outlines the sanctions for breaching the cap. Everyone will then know what the punishment will be before breaching the rules. There can't be any kind of appeal/moaning if everyone knows the punishment in advance. It doesn't really matter what the sanctions are, but on reflection I'd go with:

First offence:
A fine of value of the breach for anything up to for 10k. Then two points for each 10k over the cap starting at 10k (ie going over the cap by 10-20k would be a 2 point deduction; 20-30k would be a 4 point deduction; 30-40k would be a 6 point deduction etc etc etc).

Second offence in a 5 year period:
A fine of 10k plus a 2 point deduction for every 10k over the cap (ie going over the cap by 1-10k would be a 2 point deduction; 10-20k would be a 4 point deduction; 20-30k would be a 6 point deduction; 30-40k would be an 8 point deduction etc etc etc)

Third offence in a 5 year period: A fine of 10k and two additional points for each band outlined above (ie going over the cap by 1-10k would be a 4 point deduction; 10-20k would be a 6 point deduction; 20-30k would be a 8 point deduction; 30-40k would be an 10 point deduction etc etc etc)

And so on, adding 2 points for each band for every repeated offence.
If this was published in advance, there couldn't be the kind of debate and hassle we have every time a club breaches the cap. It's just so basically simple - set out the sanctions in advance and everyone knows where they stand.

Why have rules

It is suspended until 2020, so if they offend again this season it will come to light in 2022.........

Why have rules

Two points did seem too harsh for what sounded like an administrative error. It is much different to where clubs deliberately try to circumvent the rules, like the did in 2006, where they asked Fielden and others to take a reduced amount that year but increase next year, by deferring payments. That is deliberately intended to get round the rule. Someone not filling out a spreadsheet properly is a different thing, with no advantage gained. Fine the club, no problem, but points, for that? Not fair on the players who bust a gut but then miss out on finals, when their play deserves it (okay, maybe not this year) because some back-roomer made a slip-up? Not for me.

The punishment has to fit the crime.

Who do you think you are talking sense on here? Shame on you