Three notorious braindeads. I don't fancy their chances.

So because they are as you say 'braindeads' it makes it ok to possibly rip them off. What a stupid statement.

"Ha, you're braindead so Salford win", don't think it quite works like that. Incidentally has anyone heard from Mr Vickers since he left, bet he has some interesting tales to tell. Personally I don't care which way this goes, but for investigations to have been ongoing since October it would suggest there is lots to look at or the RFL are very slow (likely)

Conspiracy theory at its best. Koukash sells entire team to Leigh, Salford made to swap places with Leigh for coming season and the good doctor buys Leigh.

again, I am not sure of the specifics of this case but there is nothing inherently wrong from the players perspective in having 2 contracts. The player is not responsible for any salary cap reporting, so he isn't to know whether the club is or is not reporting his earnings correctly.

He could have 10 different contracts for different aspects of his earnings and the club still be compliant with the cap if they are reporting it all correctly.

Despite what your glorious leader says, the case was not thrown out of court and he is being economical with the truth somewhat. Puletua took both Salford Red Devils and Euromatech Ltd to the tribunal over non-payment of his second contract with Euromatech which was intrinsically linked to his playing contract at Salford. He signed for Salford on the basis of an £80k playing contract with the club and a separate £50k contract for "consultancy services" with Euromatech. The tribunal found the club not guilty of owing Puletua money but also found that Euromatech did and they were ordered to pay him, something which Dear Leader neglects to mention.

If all of that is true (do you have a source for the info?) then that doesn't look too good from Salford's perspective.

It'll be of some interest to see how this develops, and any further implications it might have.

It's not too unusual for senior players to get involved with the coaching of junior teams, or even the "reserve team" at their current club, so if they had received additional payments for these activities, would that too count towards the cap?

If there is a clear seperation of duties, and it could be proved that someone did indeed have a seperate, functional and valid, consultancy role, in addition to their playing contract, then why would it be counted towards to cap? Of course if its just a smokescreen, then fair enough, count if towards the cap, and investigate the potential rule breech.

There is no seperation, nor should there be. The reason why is abuse of the loophole - you'd end up in a situation whereby every single player had 2 defined, completely seperate "consultancy" roles in the club and paid £1 for his on field duties and £200k for working in the club shop once a year for an hour.

Rules with regards other functions at the club:

Not forgetting the missus working in the shop on £100K

Just drop a paper bag in the Virgin isles to be picked up on there route home

I think the Dr has been taking salary cap management lessons from uncle Mo