Dearie me. No wonder they are doing so well in the league. They've spent over what they should have.



So the team moaning about the licensing system most of all in recent months have in a short space of time almost gone under and have breached the salary cap to boot. Still, they're almost top of the league don't you know. (still haven't won anything though!)

Did you spend more on players then you were allowed too?

Not at the time , but 9 months later yes

SL only that one isn't it , if not , its not very ' live ' if it takes 9 months before somebody susses out your over it

I wish you'd learn to use the quote button properly.





I'll ask you again. Is there definitely a 50% rule still in place or not?



If so:

How can such thing be based on future expected/projected revenue when it, as far as I know, has always been based upon what was achieved in the previous financial year?



Something just doesn't add up here...

Those where my thoughts Pepe. I thought cap was based on previous years figures!

I thought it was too , but I had heard 40% of previous seasons turnover , with an extra 10% if you can satisfy the rfl , re fundin

So, basically, it's still Leigh's own fault, because they gambled that they would be able to make up the extra 10% and, I would assume, submitted some sort of documentary evidence to the RFL, and fell short.



That still boarders very much on cheating, imo. It is a ridiculous way to run a sport too. The RFL really need to change that rule. Unscrupulous clubs can clearly gamble on this, and put the more honest clubs at a major disadvantage.



No wonder Leigh are not contesting it.

Yes it is our fault , not disagreeing there , all part of our LSV nightmare as well , the SC is turnover relevant , we struggle to get turnover with no food,booze sales , and no advertising revenue , take the LSV s share out of our sales before we get them further cuts back , it is potentially realistic that say Batley have more turnover than us despite averaging half our attendances



I'd suggest the reason we aren't contesting it is that at the moment we'd rather have a points deduction than a fine

No, it's got all to do with the LSV. AT, and the rest of the Leigh board, knew full-well about the lack of other revenue streams the club would have even before they moved in there. Despite this, they still submitted evidence to the RFL that they would be able to make up the 10% shortfall. Clearly, as you admit, the lack of alternative income, via food and beer sales, &c, would actually have made this nigh on impossible to achieve. Then why, in Hell's name, tell the RFL that they could increase their income, when they clearly couldn't?



They were trying to get an advantage that they just didn't deserve or have any right to. I call that cheating.

You need to ring the club up, you have a mathematical acumen that Leigh Centurions do not.

Lobby........................