www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/35723674 Wonder if the spirit has been broken again

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/35723674 Wonder if the spirit has been broken again

It's been coming for some time though, hasn't it? With mad Marwan's posturing & bluster and not just with Puletua's signing, I think we've all been scratching heads wondering how they were legal.

Still: innocent 'til proven etc....

Will certainly be interesting to see the outcome

Thing is though - what does it actually matter under this current structure?



The worst punishment is -20 points.



They still get to play in SL for the first 22 games.



OK, so they have to play their last 7 games against smaller opposition, but then come straight back to where they were.



It's not like getting relegated under the old rules, where it affected you for at least a year and caused your best players to leave for other SuperLeague clubs.



It's now basically a slap on the wrist and a less-than-2-month punishment, that doesn't cost you anything because y u now have better players to keep you at the top of the middle 8's and put you right back in SuperLeague after 7 weeks.



Is it just me that thinks that this is something worth doing for a year or 2 for the smaller clubs who can afford it, to get themselves up to where they want/need to be?

Like Leigh (for the sake of an example)

You [ido [/iget the feeling they forgot to change the rules on this in the restructuring conversations, don't you?

I think we're in danger of being a bit too restrictive. It's not like he's managed to bring in a team full of internationals and hammered all the poorer clubs as a result, which is basically the reason the cap was brought in as far as I understand it. They finished 11th out of 14 in 2014 and 4 points off the million pound game last season

I thought it was a live cap, to ensure that situations like this don't occur from previous seasons, otherwise potentially, medals have to be given back and record books re-written??



Must be something dodgy to get round the live cap eg. payments to relatives, or offshore payments??

This has all stemmed from Tony Puletua's tribunal, where he admitted to having two separate employment contracts. One with the club, and another paid via a different company that was owned by Marwan. If only one of those contracts is registered with the RFL, then they would be oblivious to the extra salary he was receiving so the 'live cap' wouldn't pick it up.

It's so difficult to criticise a club for showing ambition and spending money their owner has got but they know the rules.



It's clearly been coming because I can't see how you can keep getting players off your books at the drop of a hat without tripping yourselves up at some point. When Lenagan first took over here to took years to reshape the squad. We had players we desperately wanted shut of but we just had to let them run down their deals. It was the same with Saints with the likes of Lance Hohiha. If we had to do that why can Salford bin off 15 players every year? Makes no sense.

No, but Bradford were relegated during one of the seasons Salford are alledged to have breached the cap. What is more, they were relegated in a season where they were given a points deduction AND had their salary cap reduced. During this time, if Salford were deliberately circumventing the cap by making secret payments to players, it brings into question the morality and fairness of Bradford's relegation and Salford's retention of SL status, does it not?

Maybe, but there's a limit on retrospective punishments. The RFL can only limp-wristedly chuck a damp cloth at Salford for what's now (allegedly) uncovered. Reinstating Bulls is just not possible (what about London?). Their only recourse would be to join with Broncos & make a civil claim against Salford for loss of revenue. Which would probably not get out of the lawyers' offices.

No chance, neither Bradford or London could afford to take it to court I wouldn't imagine.

They should have just paid relatives big money to work in the club shop

Wondered how Leeds keep all their players.

Oh look RL Fans resident legal expert NottinghamTiger popping up on a "Salford Salary Cap Breach" thread! Who'd have thought it?!







Also quite amusing at the outrage from Wigan fans... Pot....Kettle....Black!





If found guilty Salford should be punished and rightly so.... if this is all regarding Puletua it's even more farcical as I can't recall him playing at all last season and seemed to spend most of his time doing community related work within the club. As a Salford fan all I'd ask is for a fair hearing but after 2007 I fear not as we're not (and never will be) considered a big club. Far easier to lose little old Salford than potentially banish the world's biggest RL club to obscurity eh?



Btw, I'm not a Koukash lover.... I do agree with him on some things but he's also not covered himself in glory on numerous occasions. He's actually trying to move the game forward but doesn't always do things the right way.

Hardly. Just bemusement and possibly a smidge of schadenfreude. I think you'll find (if you take a minute to actually read the comments in this thread) that the primary opinion is that you're badly run & Marwan is largely only reaping what he's sowed.

Marwan is on record as effectively saying he'd defy the cap.

When Wigan were done it was because we were told we broke the "spirit" of the cap by getting some players e.g. Harrison Hansen to defer some of their wages to the following season(s) on the promise of an improved deal so Wigan didn't actually pay players more than the salary cap allowed.



That was not uncommon in the NRL at the time and was Mo Lindsay's defence at the charge, i.e. the NRL clubs did it and because we did the same we didn't actually shell out more than the cap allowed. Wigan didn't try to hide it and doing this [iwas not [/iagainst the rules at the time (it is now) hence the need to use the "in breach of the spirit" claptrap to nail Wigan given the hissy fit some clubs threw.







I believe the reason we got done was because we are such a big club and the knives were out so this works both ways. I don't think if Salford had done what Wigan did back then (not now of course) there would have been any issue at all. As I explained above Wigan did what they did above board. They didn't try and dream up jobs outside of the club to pay players twice i.e. do what has came out from the Puletua hearing. That looks like a deliberate and cynical attempt to break the cap but also to [icover it up and hide it from the RFL[/i. It's also quite clearly [ialready[/i against the rules (unlike when Wigan deferred wages).



Bradford were once found in breach of the cap because Iestyn Harris was found to be sponsored by a company that was a supplier to the club. It was a quite tenuous link if I recall correctly but RFL ruled the wages received took them over the cap as the money Harris received came from a company associated with the club so KouKash must have known this was against the rules. If he has broken the rules and tried to hide it that looks a lot more serious to me compared to what Wigan did so you can say Pot....Kettle....Black all you want, it isn't going to change anything.

If Salford have broken the rules then naturally they should (and will) be punished. What I'm saying is I think we need to have a good look at the rules going forward because they appear to be punishing owners who are signing good-not-great players and struggling to even build a mid-table team. I don't think they were concerned about a scenario like this when they brought in the cap. We shouldn't be discouraging wealthy people from buying struggling SL clubs in the future with a view to taking them to win trophies either. Unless Koukash has been extremely generous with his money I'm convinced that this shows the cap needs to be increased.

The Salary Cap hasn't kept pace with inflation. When they brought in a Salary Cap in RU they did so on the basis that they would raise it over time, which they did. That wasn't the intention in RL and reflects the lack of ambition of those running the game and an unwillingness to pay our talented athletes wages comparable to those in other sports.



The Salary Cap hasn't brought financial stability to the game. Lots of clubs have gone bust in the Salary Cap era; other clubs are struggling, for example even in their new stadium Saints continue to post big losses.



The Salary Cap is indefensible in its current form. It has unfairly reduced players' wages in real terms and hasn't stopped clubs overspending in other areas and getting into financial difficulties, while at the same time disincentivising clubs from increasing revenue and investment.



The Salary Cap has been very damaging to the sport. If we carry on like this I think we need to accept that there will be a further decline in the game, there's a real danger in the long term of English RL ending up more like French RL in status than the sport we have today.



It would be great if a club owner, perhaps in conjunction with the players' association, brought a legal action for restraint of trade. It's clear now that the SC is an unreasonable restraint of trade.



Clubs need to be subject to financial controls, but we need a much better system than the SC.



We've known this for a long time, though, so I doubt anything will change.

Just as Koucash seems to have learned how to build a team his past indiscretions seem to have caught up with him.



A mate of mine who did some work at Salford told me a year ago that they were in clear breach of the cap, so it seems to have been common knowledge. This raises the question of why the RFL have raised it now? My suspicion is that they were keen for Salford to get away with it.



I don't want to see the current players punished by a points deduction which kind of ruins the competition, but I suppose Salford, or more accurately, Koucash, need to be punished.

Is their new 'no frills' squad a case of him learning to build a team or because he knew what was coming and avoided the 'name' signings on big money like Chase and Hock. Was it also because bigger named players were realising not to touch Salford and Koukash with a barge pole after all the soap opera going ons and stories coming out of there regarding player fallouts and payments?

I think I was attempting to give him the benefit of any doubt but you are quite possibly right. I do think however, that the decision to get Tim Sheens on board was a master stroke.



They were unlucky against us and they performed well against Saints and Warrington so something seems to be working well. The very fact that Sheens agreed to go to Salford suggests that your point about not touching them with a 'barge pole' may be overstating things.



I think we all saw 'car crash' when they signed Chase and Hock. Tim Smith and Kevin Locke didn't work out either, despite obvious talent. They did manage to get Michael Dobson though who I rate highly and his partnership with Lui seems to be one of the better in Super League.



I'm old enough to remember fondly the days of Dai Watkins, Keith Fielding et al and I sincerely hope Salford don't implode.

There was a car crash with those two, as well.