Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:12 pm  

Surely if we got the rules changed for all the clubs, without needing it ourselves, that's got to be a good thing?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:17 pm  

inside_man wrote:

Probably because they'd just lost a player to Union, it was an issue that needed dealing with anyway, and it's not special dispensation at all, it's applied to all clubs who have players that represent England at international level.

It is a special dispensation as Wigan had it shoehorned through to suit them at a time they wanted it. They wanted it, not to keep Tomkins, but to sign the 5 players they've subsequently signed. It's also a bit of a concern than none of Wigan's signings for next season are eligible for England.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:29 pm  

We lost something like 6 players end of last season. Using that money on the cap for Sam Tomkins new deal means we would be 6 players down. We could of just said bye Sam go to union and then England would be a lot worse off.

The extra money that has been dispensated will all be going to Tomkins and the rest of the signings will fit under the cap as normal.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:30 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

It is a special dispensation as Wigan had it shoehorned through to suit them at a time they wanted it. They wanted it, not to keep Tomkins, but to sign the 5 players they've subsequently signed. It's also a bit of a concern than none of Wigan's signings for next season are eligible for England.

Im sure Lauaki can switch to England if he wants.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:33 pm  

Wigan just re-signed Josh Charnley on an improved contract.
Which country does he play for if its not England?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:36 pm  

I hate to side with the old enemy, but Wigan have lost Jomkins, Hoffman, Deacon, Cross, Coley & Pryce from their playing roster.

Do you think that the signings of Dudson, Flower, a guy called Rhodri and some unemployed teenage kiwi who's never played first grade will be taking up as much salary as the guys that have left?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:03 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

It is a special dispensation as Wigan had it shoehorned through to suit them at a time they wanted it. They wanted it, not to keep Tomkins, but to sign the 5 players they've subsequently signed. It's also a bit of a concern than none of Wigan's signings for next season are eligible for England.

Out of interest Saddened, if you are now classing Welsh players as being overseas signings (basically), who did that Legendary player who retired recently and now has a statue at your new stadium play for? Is he home grown?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:03 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I hate to side with the old enemy, but Wigan have lost Jomkins, Hoffman, Deacon, Cross, Coley & Pryce from their playing roster.

Do you think that the signings of Dudson, Flower, a guy called Rhodri and some unemployed teenage kiwi who's never played first grade will be taking up as much salary as the guys that have left?

Plus Lauaki, and Tomkins' doubled salary.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:27 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I hate to side with the old enemy, but Wigan have lost Jomkins, Hoffman, Deacon, Cross, Coley & Pryce from their playing roster.

+ O'Carroll. Who I imagine Dudson is a straight replacement for.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:35 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I hate to side with the old enemy, but Wigan have lost Jomkins, Hoffman, Deacon, Cross, Coley & Pryce from their playing roster.

In which case they should have plenty of cap space to accommodate any increase in Tomkins salary.

Do you think that the signings of Dudson, Flower, a guy called Rhodri and some unemployed teenage kiwi who's never played first grade will be taking up as much salary as the guys that have left?

That's not the issue. The issue is that these were signed AFTER the dispensation was granted thus indicating that they did not need the special dispensation in the first place!