that's exactly what I read Mick - hence I'm assuming they've been fined further

because they've now been found guilty of breaching THREE rules (5k for each one maybe?)

Yes - seen that. I think its a bit unclear at the moment.

if on the review they've been found guilty of a further offence - this would explain the points deduction AND a further fine.

I don't think they would just review the outcome based on the same verdict - this would make their disciplinary procedures look farcical

The opinion of a wide range of observers from fans, TV pundits on Boots N All and SL Backchat, the media and even Tony Smith is that Salford City Reds got off lightly with a £10,000 fine. The general opinion was that this decision was initially the wrong one and Salford should have not been awarded any points at all. The game was null and void – no one got the points and no one got fined. It was a mistake that had to be punished and this was the right way of doing it.
It was quite obvious that when the club appealed against this decision the RFL would back-track on its initial decision and go with the general feeling within the game. Basically Salford should have accepted the initial decision and thought themselves lucky to have got off lightly.
The decision to appeal was the wrong one and I wonder what made the club think it would win.
The RFL also have to be taken to task on why they got it wrong in the first place.

Think Koukash thinks he is that big I am, and Red Hall where maybe flexing their muscle and putting him back in his place.

Makes no difference to Salford anyway they most likely will be in the bottom 2 come the end of season.

Maybe Salford aren't classed as iconic?

Still abit sore arnt you

The increased sanction is the points deduction. A points deduction is worse than a fine.

The fine has been halved to £5k but they've got the higher penalty of a points deduction as a result.

Dr Kool plays the victimisation card here:- www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8776800/ "I may be wrong, but previously the only time a club has been deducted points was for breaching the salary cap. I feel we are being victimised. A mistake was made in the heat of the moment, with only a few minutes to go in the match." Hasn't the Dr recently condoned breaching the cap in his quest for glory ?

Dr Kool plays the victimisation card here:- www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8776800/ "I may be wrong, but previously the only time a club has been deducted points was for breaching the salary cap. I feel we are being victimised. A mistake was made in the heat of the moment, with only a few minutes to go in the match." Hasn't the Dr recently condoned breaching the cap in his quest for glory ?

He is, teams have been deducted points for other reasons, Wakey/Bradford and Crusaders all docked points for going in to admin

surprising that he's wrong considering his extensive knowledge of the sport...

He will be getting schooled in the ways of RL by Noby, first they play a player who was supposed to be on the bench, then they send an extra man on for thirty seconds, what doesn't sound a long time but when their line is being battered for the last minutes of the game an extra man fills a few big gaps, both players were involved in tackles, so if they played with 13 who knows it might have been a different result.

If the higher sanction is a points deduction I'm sure Cas would have raver lost 2 points instead of 40 grand for the verbal a player supposedly got.