Well instead of throwing Toulouse as an argument, why didn't you look at what I said about us signing Bibey and Paul. Do you not agree that we either thought we wasn't going down (silly arogant thinking) or again we signed with a bit of arogance towards the rules and C1 clubs if we got relegated instead of checking if we could.
But I have to say if RFL do go through transfers before we can sign them, then maybe we was given the all clear because they must have seen possibility of us going down. Maybe you can fill me in on this one as I don't know.
Totally agree about clubs should not be able to sign players before season has ended unless the player leaves straight away. I remember us playing Salford in 2005 and Wilshire playing with us he was playing for the apposing club season after. Crazy
Same with Sean Long and Hull FC

Nothing to do with the RFL , you could sign one player on the total Salary cap and have a team of amatuers playing with him

That bit did make me laugh. I could just imagine us using this as our opening statement in court.

Can you sue someone for 'being thick'?

Up until this year relegation has been in place in Super League, signing players is and has always been at the CLUBS risk not the RFL.

If Widnes chose to gamble on 3 year contracts for an entire squad they would have to deal with the consequences if they did get relegated the rules are there before the season starts, the clubs sign up to those rules so it is their own fault if they can’t abide by them.

I don’t think clubs should offer one year contracts, but what is to stop clubs writing in reduced wages / get out clauses dependent on relegation (they do this in almost every level of football) – if a player doesn’t want to sign one – are they the type of player you’d want as they are clearly only in it for the money?

Robbie Paul has already publicly stated he will honour his deal –to even say that suggests there had to have been some form of get out clause in his deal.

As for my own club, if Saints go bankrupt it would hurt me like hell but it would be their own doing and is again not the fault of the RFL, I wouldn’t want the RFL to change the rules to suit me, I’d rather Saints changed their structure internally and come back stronger on a solid footing in 3-6 years time if they don’t they can’t blame anyone else.

I personally don’t agree with the SC I would prefer clubs to manage their own finances and sign who they want but maintain a higher proportion of home grown talent in their squads so that clubs can’t buy all the best talent a la Wigan from 1985-1995 etc.. As it would encourage clubs to develop their academies while still allowing star signings.

What you are basically saying is that clubs should just break the SC and the RFL will have to be ok with it and give dispensation as it’s not the clubs fault. When in reality Leigh took a gamble that they would be safe and signed up players for 2010 sadly for you it has proved to be a mistake, taking loyalty aside why should the RFL bend their rules?

Did Dewsbury get beneficial treatment this year or Rochdale / Doncaster the year before? Does it mean Doncaster can sign who they like for 2010 up to 400K as they are in the same position as Leigh?

One option would be for RFL to step in and void your contracts, like they do with SL contracts on relegation, thus removing any liability on Leigh and allowing you to compete on a level playing field, if they went down your road then no team will ever make it up from CC1 as the club coming down can spend 3 times as much probably stay full time and I can’t see the CC1 clubs just accepting that.

SL and the championship are totally different competitions therefore the contracts are and have always been different , the RFL dont/didn't ' step in ' as you say

As for only playing for the money , do me a favour , they all play for the money , if one club were to insist upon clauses nobody would sign for them , that is the point , the RFL should have seen this coming

Just as they should have seen the original problem W1g4n had when they introduced the SC to SL , just as there should have been something in the operating rules when London Bronco's engineered an administration after 3/4 games of a season

Same scenario with Saints and the international bonus payments and W1g4n again with the 2006 salary cap fiddle

It is a loophole , the RFL are not good at spotting loopholes until somebody either finds and uses one or in this case it just happens as a series of events that they should have thought about when they set the rules

If they want to insist on clauses in contracts , fine , they do it from next year , if they want to insist on 1 year contracts , fine , next year , if they refuse us a dispensation , fine , we get sued by the players for breaking contracts so we sue the RFL for restriction of trade , as no doubt W1gan would have done years ago

The problem is the more rules they bring in the more complicated the sport becomes

As I posted earlier , when the invited Toulouse into the Championship they announced that they would have a salary cap dispensation because they had already signed 5 overseas players , and yet those players were only announced 3 months later

I agree that it is wrong and we should have to abide by the Championship 1 rules , but rules have to be bullet proof or they dont work , we have done nothing wrong , these contracts were signed long before we knew we were relegated

saints, wigan & a few others have broke the salery cap for years, the problem is they know how to & we dont. saints have broke the salary cap
from year 1, here is the ruling, (give or take a few points) if you brake the salary cap, but only by Xamount of ££, you only get a fine
(the following year), alla saints & other sl clubs, if you brake it by more ££ (you get a point deduction) alla wigan

Not any more , it is now a ' live ' cap , you state what you will be paying every month , if that is too much they can hit you with fines and penalty points there and then

That is why we have asked for dispensation , if they dont give it to us , we have a problem , however they will be leaving themselves open to legal action

The obvious solution is that all contracts should become null and void upon relegation.

That is what used to happen with SL contracts (when we had P&R) - players became free agents if a club was relegated, to protect the club from the financial consequences.

If the RFL introduced a similar rule for CC & CC1 then there wouldn't be a problem.

Or as mentioned don't let clubs sign players until season ends.
Or even better treat C & C1 as one competition with P&R and let all member clubs spend money they can afford would be better ruling. Get shut of the cap.

No problem , bring it in 2 years from now then we all know about it and can work with it

But you then have to consider what other problems that will give for clubs , what loopholes might appear and what punishments should be used if they are abused

So have a think on it and come back

Thats going to make it very attractive to good young players to stick with RL and not RU. A player needs security in his contract, thats why they sign three year deals.

what isn't good for us now, is that teams like saints & wigan
won't want their u21s players being loaned out to us to get 1st team
experience, because champ1 is not good quality experience for them.
no insult ment by this to champ1 teams. but realisticly its true,
the sl u21s games are better quality.

Probably didn't make my point very well - was getting at the fact that it's just another in the long line of inconsistencies that the RFL apply to SL and the CC's. Rules apply in one comp but not in another.

So we were agreeing , , bloody hell , it took me ages to type that reply