No, they did:











Still not enough of a punishment to stop them from breaching the cap by a huge amount. They did appeal to stop the, harsher, 2007 punishments from being applied.

As would trying to force clubs to play players they dont want to

Something like:

wrong again,



They were punished as per the rules for a 6% breach of the cap. Now im sure even you can work out £220k isnt 6% of £1.7m. So they clearly werent punished for a break of £220k as if they were they would have been deducted 6 points rather than 4



this is because they werent punished for breaking the rules cap, but the spirit of the cap, and as such the proscribed punishment wasnt applied but a different punishment for a different offence





and again, you are incorrect, they didnt appeal anything. They correctly clarified that it would be nonsensical to apply 2007 punishments to a 2006 breach.

i wouldnt force anyone to do anything.



Simply strongly encourage them to, and reward them for when they do

Breaching the spirit of the cap is against the cap rules (or was against the 2006 rules, they were rewritten in 2007). They broke the cap, they were correctly punished for it.







They went to a tribunal to get a ruling against the RFL's decision to apply the 2007 punishments. Makes you wonder if they wouldn't have breached the cap if the 2007 punishments had been in place.

Oh, and [url=http://www.wiganwarriors.com/news_full.asp?newsid=3102from the horse's mouth[/url. They renegotiated the contracts of several players so they "did not therefore receive monies in 2006". Not so that they were not paid, or paid any less, for playing in 2006.

'the spirit of the cap' is so vague as to be unenforceable. Had Whelan wanted that punishment would have been laughed out of court. Instead he just left the game,

Because that decision was obviously wrong.

yes, they re-negotiated the contract so that they were paid less in 2006 and re-negotiated new contracts from 2007. Thanks for confirming what i said

other than it was used.