Matt King on GMR last night...

"We don't know what other players earn".

So how do posters on RLFans know?

Slight difference in the outcome & scale of Storm's misdemeanours as compared to Wigan's. NRL have historically been harsher on transgressions in the cap, probably due to the size of the sport over there & the fact that it is bigger than the clubs they are punishing. Like it or not had Wigan been deducted enough points to see them relegated the other year it would have been a massive own goal by SL/RFL to demote the biggest club in the country - would be akin to the Premiership demoting Manchester Utd for owing a few quid...

Cheating the word is, not owing a few quid.

No, Utd owing a few quid (takes tongue out of cheek). I dislike it as much as you do, but you can't escape that for Wigan to have been demoted for breach of cap would be like Utd being deducted points effectively relegating them... British sports administrations have no bottle when it comes to matters like that. Even in Storm's case they haven't been demoted despite the level of sanctions. The only country I can think of who have the bottle to demote teams for cheating would be Italy in the case of Juve - and that's just a whole other can of worms....

What rule (that was in place at that) time did Wigan break?

What do you think would have happened had the RFL tried to do what the ARL have done to Melbourne?

I cant see anyone making that obvious link.

Weren't you found guilty of breaking the salary cap then? And as already stated, the RFL/SL would have seen demoting Wigan as a massive own goal & not had the bottle to do it. Whether that is right or wrong is a moot point.

Had the RFL done what the ARL has done, it would have been dragged through the Courts and would still be going on now. To demote Wigan and leave Cas where they were would have been a disaster for RL. In any case it was also discovered that Cas had broken the Cap the year they got promoted. I don't think that we've heard the last of this in Aus. There's been rumblings about other Clubs for some time and Melbourne will almost certainly appeal.

No we found guilty of "breaking the spirit" of the salary cap.

Here's exactly what happened.
Wigan signed Stuart Fielden (the fee does not count on the cap figure) and the signing was ratified by the RFL after clubs questioned the signing with regards to the cap (Cas were one)

Wigan offered about four players extended contracts which would mean a lower salary until the end of the year and better terms for the remainder of their new contracts. This would keep Wigan spending for that season below the cap limit (£1.8 million?)
It was a practice that was common in Australia under their cap system.

As Teeside Wire has explained, had it gone to court then it would have been a long and expensive case for both parties.

I honestly believe that Wigan would have won that battle due to
1) Not being over the cap limit for that season
2) The precedent already have being set in Aus.

It could in reality have been the the beginning of the end for the salary cap, but we'll never know.

The RFL actually changed the rules to prevent deferred payments the year after

rlhttps://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jul/26/rugbyleague.sportrl

rlhttps://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12215_2623293,00.htmlrl

rlhttps://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/6896583.stmrl

rlhttps://www.therfl.co.uk/about/news_item.php?id

Any of these jog your memory? The last one being from the RFL - no mention of "spirit of salary cap", mainly just "breach of salary cap".

Still I guess at least you didn't cheat your way to trophies like Melbourne did so you can rest happy on that...

Rogues, to put it another way, Wigan were paying players on the 'never never,' or to put it another was 'Creative Accounting.' All water under the bridge now and totally irrelevent.

But still cheating.

From your BBC article

"The club's argument was based on the fact that nine of their players agreed to defer wages for last September, October and November in returned for improved contracts in 2007.

However, the panel said that was against the spirit of the salary cap."

But all that happens then is that others have to defer in 2008.....and so on. It would never have worked.

Back on topic.

Does anyone else think it's strange that the CEO of the newly formed Melbourne Rugby Union Club is the former CEO of the Melbourne Storm?