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?

The panel said the club's claimed actions as their defence was against the spirit of the salary cap - however you were found guilty of a breach of the salary cap. As you were the year before incidentally. And incidentally argued for a deferrment of the salary cap due to the contracts you had tied a number of players into (in the knowledge of the arrival of the salary cap system).

So in effect you had been cheating for a number of years hadn't you?

yet...

What if at the time Fielden was signed Wigan didn't have to defer payments on other contracts as the figures shown to the RFL indicated cap space was available. I seem to re-call there was discussions about this at the time. Only for subsequent "investigations/mis-haps" to reveal to the RFL that Wigan had been using similar procedures to Melbourne.

Would that change people's views on Wigan and their cheating. A intersteing discussion given how peeple are separating Wigan's and Melbourne's offences.

Can you apply rules retrospectively ?

A