I see what your saying but Without going into too much detail people are looking at this from the wrong angle.

It would make no sense to not spend Sams 75k slot - in effect it's just a figure that we wouldn't be using.

Ultimately if Farrell for example is on 200k then the first 75k of his wages would count and the rest wouldn't - The 125k remainder that he used the previous year would then be allocated somewhere else i.e. for Sams replacement Hardaker for example (And if he's on more than Farrell was the previous year we'll have less to spend than the previous year on the cap).

What happens over 75k or 150k for non trained players is irrelevant
The club will allocate the 2 "Marquee" spots to the 2 x highest paid players who can gain relief down to 75k or 150k leaving more in the "Pot" for the others.

So although no-one may have been named - they will have just chosen whoever to best fit the salary cap rules (Doesn't mean anything changes etc.).

If next year we sign a Big name who is on more money than Farrell (Lets say 260k) but because the first 150k only is exempt etc. then Farrell will stay on Marquee

With regard to the bit I underlined, like what I suggested it is only an assumption. The club haven't said someone has taken the vacated marquee spot but they have also not said that no one has taken it either. You quite logically assume that they will use it for the top earner. This could be the case but it isn't necessarily the case.

Given that we also sold Bateman and Sutton at the end of last season we probably wouldn't have needed to use the marquee slot to be able to fit Hardaker, Bullock and Sammut in. With the plan prior to the start of this season having been to just get through this stop gap season before a long term permanent coach came in, then holding back the slot for a player to be brought in in 2020 rather than letting the stop gap coach (as Lam was and perhaps still is) pick someone for it could be more plausible.

In terms of whether or not the second slot is in use this year you may be right or I may be right but both of us are making an assumption.

If they haven't then it doesn't matter as whatever we are paying out is under the cap - But if they wanted to bring someone in all they would need to do his name that person (i.e. Farrell in this scenario) as Marquee and anything over 75k would come off the cap and be available.

What they will have are players that will qualify for Marquee rule if and when they choose to use it.

Any Wigan trained player on over £75k will immediately be the second marquee? I don’t think that’s correct.

5.14b of the Salary Cap Regulations states “A Marquee Player is a player whose Salary Cap Value would be (but for for provisions of this Clause 5.14) £175,000 or more”

I remember reading an article specifically stating Hardaker is not a marquee player. Though I do understand what you mean in that another player already at the club on more than £175k could now be marquee.

Kind of & Yes I didn't word it correctly
The player has to be on over 175k to begin with - but then anything over 75k won't count against cap

What I am saying is that people who say we don't have a 2nd Marquee are not correct as any player that was on over 175k would automatically have dispensation that would qualify for Marquee dispensation if required.

So for example - We all accept George is Marquee no1
So his 250k (I'm guessing) only 75k counts against the cap

Now if were saying we haven't got a 2nd Marquee - That means we don't have any Wigan trained players on over 175k - or non trained players on over 175k
I can't believe that's true?

So if we didn't allocate another Marquee and we were up to the cap then we couldn't bring anyone in - But just by say allocating a Farrell (I think it's fair to assume he would be on more than 175k - I hazard 200k for example) we could then use the 125k that becomes exempt to bring someone in "If Needed".
It creates cap space if needed to bring someone in.
Why would we not do that, All we need to do is name "Someone" and whichever player is on the most over his allotted dispensation would have that amount taken off the cap and we'd be under by that much freeing up availability if we need it?

Spot on pal but then how can people slag Lenagan for campaigning for 2 Marquee players per game then not using them if its true?

I accepted that I'd worded it slightly wrong - The player would have to be on over 175k first - Then only the first 75k would count.

Just for clarity - I'm not saying we have "Declared" a 2nd Marquee or not

What I am saying is that we DEFINATELY have more than 1 player (George) on over 175k (I think that's a fair assumption?)
So if that is true then whoever those players are would qualify for Marquee Rule Dispensation if required.

If we don't declare one then fine - But we still have players that are on enough money to be declared as one if required.

But not sue why we wouldn't do that to the RFL and take advantage of having (In the Farrell scenario I quoted earlier) 125k wiped off our Salary cap value that we could use if required (doesn't make sense that we hamstring ourselves to not be able to use that money by just not declaring someone in case we ever need it).

Totally understand where you’re coming from. As per my first response, happy to admit I hadn’t looked at it in that way. But that has nothing to do with an anti-Lenagan agenda as I’m not part of that club, nowhere near. (Not you who suggested that, I know.)

Like many others, looking in we had Sam as a marquee player, he left and wasn’t “replaced”. Wigan allegedly offered the marquee spot to Bateman and obviously he didn’t take it. The assumption, maybe incorrectly, was therefore that the marquee spot still exists.

There’s also the fact we made an offer to Hastings which he described as serious, you’d have to assume he would have been marquee. When this offer was made, I believe we already had Gildart re-signed, Farrell in contract, Hardaker signed up, O’loughlin confirmed as going again etc. And there’s been no big signing since... if that follows? So if Farrell was made marquee, you would assume that would free up cap space, but apparently we have none...

My last question (and I say this out of curiosity and with no real idea of what players earn) is whether Farrell would be on £175k plus? Almost 1/10th of the standard cap seems a lot for a player who was not marquee when we had Sam/George as our marquee players. But if he is, what you’re saying makes sense in that we’d obviously utilise the marquee spot for him.

Players wages are a Hot topic and not something I would like to start playing Russian roulette with - Plus, I am one of the few who seems to understand that the whole salary cap management and how contracts work etc. is a lot more complicated than the average Joe on forums/facebook etc. wants to admit
i.e. the "Get rid of him" - "Just buy another player" - "He's injured so take him off the cap" etc. is a lot more complicated than that.

What I would say is that I do know what 2 players at Wigan are on - and so I Have a guess based on length of service/quality and contract timing (i.e. 1 Year ago Gildart would have been at the end of one contract so it would have been relatively undervalued at that point - Whereas his contract will have significantly increased so I work off what I think that may be) to give me an idea.

Squeezing players wages under the SC is an art form in itself hence why even if it is only for Cap purposes naming someone would give more wriggle room even if they don't use it.

In your scenarios below about Bateman & Hastings - if they were to have accepted Wigan's offer then whichever player would qualify under the biggest exemption would be given Marquee -

So if Hastings was offered 225k say then he would only get 75k dispensation and 150k would count
Whereas we could allocate it to Farrell (Guess) on 200k but 125k dispensation would apply and only 75k would count against the cap.

So even though Hastings would be on more money, Farrell would be named as Marquee?

Hope that makes sense?

I understand what you’re saying and like to believe I too understand the salary cap regulations quite well. Having been sad enough to read through them a number of times as well as the recent outcome of the sports resolutions tribunal.

But what makes little sense is Wigan’s claims regarding the lack of cap space...

Referring back to my Hastings example we would have needed at least £150k on the cap in the instance where Hastings would be treated as the marquee player. Hastings was not signed, we signed Sammut so would expect there to be some cap space remaining for at least the difference between £150k and what Sammut earns.

Alternatively, if an existing player earning more than £175k was already utilising that marquee spot we would have needed at least £225k cap space in your example. Again, the difference between that and what Sammut is on being left available.

However, I’ve read numerous articles and quotes saying that we’re spending up to the cap. So to me, something doesn’t add up.

Players would have to have been released?

Or If we offered Hastings 175k Exactly then by Moving Farrell into Sam's Marquee spot he would have counted exactly the same as Sam did on the cap i.e. 75k and Farrell's previous value of 200k would be released leaving that for Hastings

I may be wrong on this but I’m sure I read somewhere that the marquee allowance was to be used for the duration of a contract.

For example, we sign player x and declare him marquee. He then remains marquee until that contract is ended. I don’t think you can chop and change who is marquee mid contract.

Greenwood may well have been on an improved salary this year as well knowing that he was going to be the Bateman replacement (could be nonsense but wouldn't be the first time someone was signed mid-season on pennies to squeeze them in and then had their wage upped the following season) and several youngsters signed improved deals last year that would have taken effect this year. That probably covers off Sam and the 75k of his that counted.

Hardaker probably has taken Sutton's wage at the very least leaving Bateman's wage to cover Sammut and Bullock.

"Up to the cap" doesn't necessarily mean we have no money left, just that we don't have enough money left.

Correct
Without getting into Minute details though - Players sign new contracts ala George Williams

So there would be ways round this - if Farrell signed a "New Contract" that would entitle him to the 2nd spot (If that was the one that provided the best salary cap exemption for Wigan). Etc.




I don't think you can do this either anymore?
I think a Players wages have to have a realistic increment etc. in relation to their Major part of their contract
So don't think we could have paid him the equivalent of say 10k last year and then 200k this year for example.