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?

Off the mark there, if you go through my posts I’m a big fan of Lenagan and constantly defend what he does for the club.

I have assumed we only have one marquee because Sam’s position was not directly replaced. Jukesays made a point that any Wigan trained player on over £75k could be marquee which I then disagreed with.

With reasonable logic, I have assumed we don’t have a second marquee. With reasonable logic, Jukesays has assumed we do. Unless someone has inside information, we’re all just making assumptions.

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.