Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:48 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Can anyone honestly see Wigan stopping at £100k?

If we put all club bias to one side, with Salary Cap changes needing to be ratified by the clubs as a whole (I think), why would the rest of the league vote to allow the Wigans, Wires and Saints of the sport to spend £2m for instance when there's already a massive chasm between us and the lesser teams?

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:23 am  

Rugby league fans in Anti Wigan thread shocker.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:42 am  

Cragganmore Kid wrote:

The timing is EXACTLY the issue.

Saints had failed to keep Graham despite offering as much as they could afford to; maybe another £100k would have made him think twice.

Maybe he'd have gone anyway, but to introduce a cap amendment which some clubs can benefit from immediately while others have already lost the opportunity to take advantage of it is highly unfair.

Then perhaps your chairman should have got of his arris and petitioned the RFL like Ian Lenegan had the foresight to do so.

Boo hoo hoo is all i ever hear from the likes of you

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:18 am  

FIOS

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:21 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Seems the reasons behind their desperation to have the cap increased are becoming clear now:

Is this right? So after all the moaning about the cap and keeping hold of Sam, it turns out they needed the increase to sign an NRL centre after all and not to keep Tomkins.

Get a grip, he is hardly going to send us over the cap limit, and Gelling is not even an NRL player.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:27 am  

nathancroucher wrote:

Get a grip, he is hardly going to send us over the cap limit, and Gelling is not even an NRL player.

Dont bite. Leave him to sit at home in his Saints tracksuit foaming at the mouth.

Re: Wigan abuse new cap rules already? : Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:36 am  

tugglesf78 wrote: Then perhaps your chairman should have got of his arris and petitioned the RFL like Ian Lenegan had the foresight to do so. Boo hoo hoo is all i ever hear from the likes of you He did. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/st ... -27677937/ Eamonn has seen the need for the the salary cap to be amended for many years, often speaking about it in the press. http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/sport ... s_1_731140 These things take time. In fact, if it hadn't been for the groundwork done by him in making sure this issue, and potential solutions were discussed and developed over many months, it's unlikely the amendment would have been agreed in time for Wigan to keep Tomkins (until the World Cup at least).

tugglesf78 wrote: Then perhaps your chairman should have got of his arris and petitioned the RFL like Ian Lenegan had the foresight to do so. Boo hoo hoo is all i ever hear from the likes of you He did. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/st ... -27677937/ Eamonn has seen the need for the the salary cap to be amended for many years, often speaking about it in the press. http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/sport ... s_1_731140 These things take time. In fact, if it hadn't been for the groundwork done by him in making sure this issue, and potential solutions were discussed and developed over many months, it's unlikely the amendment would have been agreed in time for Wigan to keep Tomkins (until the World Cup at least).