The Wigan situation related to existing contracts, not new ones. It wasn't so much that contracts were backloaded but instead, that payments were deferred so that monies due to be paid in one salary cap year were pushed back to a subsiquent year, with Wigan using the deferred amount to pay Fielden when they were up the creek. The wording used at the time, IIRC, was that this was against "the spirit of" the salary cap - Wigan weren't technically in breach of paying too much to players that year, but that was because they deferred some of their contracted liabilities that year.

The Wigan situation probably isn't comparable to what may happen with Sandow. A better comparison is perhaps Leeds' re-signing of Lee Smith a few years back where Smith (reportedly) was paid very little for his first season back. Following Smith signing, Leeds lost Scott Donald, Matt Diskin and Greg Eastwood (all big earners) and I dare say some of that cash was worked into Smith's second year contract.

I'm not aware of any rule change that prevents a club doing this with any player, as long as the club meets all relevant regulations on NMW and (in the case of overseas players requiring visas) minimum salary requirements.

As others have mentioned Wigan got done for changing existing contracts so they payed several players less for that year and then could accommodate Fielden and stay under the cap. At the time it wasn't against the rules which is why they were charged with breaching the spirit of the cap. The rules were then changed to stop it happening again. Technically it was probably a bit unfair and if they had challenged it in court I expect they'd have won. S*** happens.

Front or back loading contracts is common and permissible and fairly common practice in the NRL (or at least it used to be, it's been a while since I read it) as long as it was the original agreed contract, I'm not sure about here though.

I think it would be against the spirit of the cap,

however the club takes 2 huge risks. First is the fraud as has been mentioned above, but the second is the Marquee player who gets the big money in year one deciding not to both for years 2 and 3. Buying out their own contract and then moving someone else for another pay day.

not a chance anyone is going for fraud. You would basically be suing someone for not colluding with you to keep wages down. It would be like suing the guy you burgled a house with for not giving you your share of the loot.

First thing that would happen if we had a Melbourne-esq situation is that one of the players involved would be throwing a lawsuit at the RFL for restraint of trade.

They could have done that for years, they don't as it's completely voluntary as to whether you are a RL player or not. You can get money in other trades if you want.

The clubs chose to play in a league system that has it as part of the rules, there is nothing to stop them starting their own league elsewhere under their own rules about wages.

I don't think we are too far apart other than im pretty sure those 'other players' deferred that payment by signing new contracts which were lower, and then another one to begin the next season, were higher. Deferments are already dealt with under the regs as they count in the year they are accrued, not the year paid so it wouldn't really make a difference without that. However the RFL decided that because they would have been due moneys under their old contract, it was the re-working of that same money into a contract at a later date which was against the spirit of the cap.

With Smith at Leeds, i think they signed him to a short term contract, and then to a long term contract. So whilst in practice it may have worked out like that. Officially he signed say a 6month contract at x amount, and then a new 3 year (or whatever it was) at Y amount

its completely voluntary to do any job. If the voluntary/involuntary nature of it was a deciding factor, no restraint of trade action could every be brought ever. You cannot have an involuntary contract, it couldn't be enforced.

Also the RFL's rules are subservient to the law. The RFL cannot hold clubs to rules which are against the law.

If Sandow had left the Eels this year he would still have expected him to pay the bulk of his remaining salary for this season. I can fully understand why Parra told him to sling his hook, as they'd have lost a player, have no real replacement mid season when there's still some hope, and have to pay him as well. Garbutt to Leeds was the same except Bennett wasn't going to use him this year so it made no difference if he played Qld Cup or SL.

If I recall correctly Blake Solly or someone in a similar position stated that every player in the world has a price, and if a club sign a player the RFL are knowledgable enough to know their salary or an approximation of it.

I think it's pretty easy to do, plenty of Fantasy Games do it, I bet in reality they aren't far wrong.

This would then be cross checked against what each club submits.

It's not rocket science.

I would have thought if a club wanted to cheat it would be easier than the example here, all you need to do is pay a player 50k through the clubs books and pay the rest into an overseas account NOT from the clubs books. Probably being done currently.

Fiddling the salary cap is one thing, fiddling the tax man (which this would be) is going to result in prison.

As I have just said, the RFL, better than pretty much everyone else here, can probably guess pretty closely the weekly/monthly/yearly salary of every player in top grade, so with a live cap or similar, they could approximate the amount a player would demand.