I wonder if anyone's ever thought of paying a player extra via their wife/girlfriend/brother-in-law/mate and not telling the RFL about it? Maybe even through a different company?

nothing wrong with the good Dr arranging a weekly poker school with 4 different players each time and lo and behold his dummy unconnected stand in fall guy off the street loses £100k each time and the players win £25k each time....this of course happens at a private table in a bonafide casino.....

I'm in a bit of a grump today, so sorry to be a bit negative - it's a decent enough idea in many respects.

I just fear that with these incentive schemes, that:
1. There's always the potential to exploit the rules - eg cutting prices to silly levels to boost attendances. Or juggling the numbers to record a profit.
2. It ignores why clubs don't always do things with the wider interests of the game at heart. Clubs will always pursue their own self-interest - it is a competition after all. Good of the game stuff that is vulnerable to short-termism if the clubs hold the power and take the responsibility, should be run from the centre with central funding ring-fenced for that purpose. Rather than trying to manipulate clubs into desirable behaviour, which is so often a losing battle, provide funding to people whose sole job and focus is to deliver the desired outcomes.

There are lots of ways around breaking the salary cap, all it takes is financial instruments. (And a mate who works at a finance firm down in London!)

It wouldn't be hard to outsmart the rfl, and send money through 5 different nations to pay a player directly - BUT if you do it so much people get fishy, you then have kpmg on you, and no one (in rugby league at least) would pull the wool over them. And where it all falls down, so the trick is to do it enough to pull in the best, but not so much people get suspicious

You could do that. Or you could pay his mate £10k to fix your bog seat.

Looking at the rules a while back, I noticed that it explicitly says that you can't de-register players to beat the overseas quota and non-fed rules. Without a RFL discretionary exemption, naturally.
It doesn't say anything equivalent in the salary cap rules. It doesn't say you [ican[/i, but my impression is that it is maybe possible to [ucarousel fed-trained players[/u. It was [isuggested[/i that Hull KR might have to do that to meet the club-trained minimum at one point. So basically, injured and well-paid unused players wouldn't count - unless you want them to, so you can tell the fans the club is spending to the cap.

Castlefords opinion of the matter: www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... -1-6466783

Castlefords opinion of the matter: www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... -1-6466783

seems a fairly over-written statement.

Surely "we couldnt afford it so didnt want others to have it" would have acheived the same thing?

Bit like the Bullmania thread. "We've gone bust. Deduct the points. Let's move on".

Is someone getting your coat?

If it's a company not connected to the club then that would be fine. But the moment that company is contacted by the club/owner then it is connected to the club and that money would count on the cap.

The not telling the RFL bit gets very sticky from a fraud point of view, same as Melbourne with the dual contracts. I'm not sure many clubs would be willing to take that risk, especially with RL being a small world in which people talk.