I thought we did. Wasn't it 25 grand or something similar? Don't Saints get it for Lomax too?

Come to think of it, Saints get something for Jonny Lomax too dont they?

*posted this at the same time as the one above, Jinx!*

Let’s get all this muck raked over, for years the mystery alleged payments to Saints “Lomax”. Watkins Leeds, and others who belong to this protected secret species, who have dispensation because they are deemed susceptible to being signed by the NRL or the rugby union. I don’t care either way if these contract awards are right or wrong, but lets have some transparency who gets dispensation, and consequently more room on the cap.

Yes, but the Lomax and McMeekan agreements were different in that they were made public knowledge and the additional contract is directly between the player and the RFL. In Wigan’s case it seems that Williams has had some of his Wigan playing salary paid for by the RFL in a secret arrangement.
Some very important differences there.

That’s the odd thing though, in that there is no salary cap dispensation in Wigan’s case. The payment from the RFL has counted on Wigan’s salary cap.

Perhaps, but it’s still xxxxxxx£££ given to Wigan, while others are not subsidiaries, let’s have it out in the open Nottingham tiger

So basically you’re saying we’ve been mugged right off whilst others are getting these payments knocked off their cap allowance?

Seems as plausible as yet another non event thread about Wigan being cheats, started by somebody who hasn’t got a clue what the facts are (and nor have I).

Yawn

The thing is, the facts are now there in the public domain in terms of the Wigan issue. Anyone who doesn’t have suspicions when the document clearly states that the RFL have entered into a confidential agreement in regards to a paying part of a player’s salary, that wasn’t offered to other clubs, is naive in the extreme.
My understanding about the Lomax and McMeekan agreements is that this is done externally between the player and the RFL. So in a way, yes, it seems Wigan have got the rough end of that particular stick (why didn’t the RFL just agree a similar deal with Williams?).
Worth pointing out that the issue here is with the RFL, not Wigan. If the RFL are offering to give them money, they would be completely daft to turn it down.

Tell you what I’m saying NickyKiss, not Wigan bashing, but would like to know whom is privy to these central contracts, and exactly how it’s decided, transparency would be nice, because for example if George Williams is leaving, and the bond to keep him in super League has failed, do Wigan now pay this money back. Cloak and daggers as per usual.

The title should probably be changed then but without 'Wigan' in the title it's just not to drag in as many of the usual suspects!

I've so far seen Lomax, Watkins and McMeekan mentioned so we've potentially got four and who knows how many more there are. If they're on the list then I guess guys like McGillvary, Hill, Currie and others may be on there. Take Catalans away and London who have just come up and we might be left with a maximum of 2 or 3 clubs without these payments and if have they haven't produced anyone worthy of it then I'd probably concern myself more with why that is the case!

Why would union want to sign lomax? There are about 100 half backs better in union

Absolutely. The question isn’t the likes of McMeeken and Lomax though, who have an open and transparent contract with the RFL that was announced publicly. The question is how many other secret agreements have the RFL made with clubs to subside the playing contracts of players.
The reason it’s Wigan under discussion as they are the club who have now been named in a published document. To me it’s more about the sport’s governing body making secret arrangements with certain clubs to contribute to player wages.