Lets say im a SL team with 250 k left on the cap this year

As it stands what stopping me offering him a six year contract at 250k a season.

and having a word with the player ...

"Look Benji after 3 years well sack you unfairly and you can claim unfair dismissal and get paid the rest plus costs so you'll really be getting 500k a season"

Would the sacked years still count on the cap?

If you were being very cute you'd just back load the deal.

How many other SL clubs were after Fielden? Is his pension pot big enough to let him retire? How much does he enjoy playing the sport? Seems perfectly feasible Fielden is playing for £44K a year. Remember if you split the top 20 player salaries evenly at a club, it's £80K a year each. Now spread more of that to the big names and it's perfectly reasonable to see a rotational player with a poor injury record on £44K a year.

Yes, but in the course of dealing with it, when asked by the RFL investigator following Bradford's complaint against Huddersfield, sadly it is alleged the fact that a contract had been already agreed on 8 August was not disclosed.

Are you saying you think the RFL could reasonably ignore the evidence that has been reported?

Yes, I'd expect those would count against the cap. IIRC Wigan tried something like this a few years ago, providing contracts that still paid players after they had left the club, and had that part of the salary counted for the period the player was actually playing, not later.

kopzchak is on 60k a year

fielden is on 55k a year so not now on the big buck some people think.

whoever decided to give mason a 95k contract wants his head seeing too....no wonder the giants wanted out!

odonnell was released after 1 games this season and i believe he was on around 200k a year so that gives a big chunk of the salary cap up and also pays mason!

as does the fee we got for greg eden after he was sold pre season, think the club have prepared for this loss

If O'donnell played a game, his salary would count for SC purposes.

yes he played one. yeh would go towards the salary cap but at least his salary can go towards paying mason off, thats if we arent already insured for losses anyway

I thought thats what the 20k was for, my mistake.

I think the £20k was the "transfer fee", so that is unlikely to change now; however could be a case to answer for misconduct in lying to the RFL tribunal about when the deal was agreed.

Its like the Chris Huhne speeding offence. Its not the actual offence that is that bad, it is the lying about it afterwards that makes it much more serious.

I presume they lied to the tribunal to reduce the transfer fee that they were liable for, as the RFL would probably have taken a dimmer view of a club breaking the so called 'gentlemans agreement'.

No, you're right, the compo was decided on after the investigation, [itaking into account the known facts[/i.

The main point the Bulls seem to be making in the T&A report is that the Mason case evidence now suggests the RFL investigation was not told the fact that a contract had already been agreed on 8 August.

In general, do you think that the compensation to a club might be different if it was proved that a contracted player had in fact been tapped up? That said, I don't know how the figure was calculated, if not plucked out of the air, and anyway frankly don't expect the Bulls to get any more money out of this.

Regardless of that, though, do you think that, as a general point, if any club was found to have given false or misleading evidence to an RFL investigation, this would (and should) result in consequences for that club? I wasn't there, so am not saying Huddersfield did, but simply that there seem to be serious allegations and so fail to see how the RFL could possibly [inot [/iinvestigate them.

The RFL 'suggested' we pay £20,000 as compensation for breaking a 'gentlemans agreement' as they wouldn't let us register him before we had.....So we did, now it seems the fools who run our club are going to be in trouble again for lying the RFL about WHEN he signed the contract. Those responsible for this catalogue of errors seem to be free of blame from our Chairman though.