Solomona was lured to RU for cash. A central payment from the RFL might have tempted him to stay - we will never know. I don't know why you think it was just contractual matter.

I personally don't have a problem with "topping up wages" to keep the best players in the game. We've all been moaning how crap SL has been, falling attendances, utter dross in terms of quality on the field etc. The fact is, the better players we want to keep in our game tend to play for the bigger clubs. I know people will scream favoritism, the big clubs are always getting a helping hand etc, but just to make a point, the bigger clubs who are benefiting from this, in the main, are the ones forking out £100k a year on a reserve grade to benefit developing players.

What i don't agree with is the secrecy. With the absolute circus with my club, what we need is transparency. I believe the RFL have addressed the issue of player drain with good intentions, but end up shooting themselves in the foot. Just be honest and transparent with people. You're always going to get people who disagree with you, but if you're honest and tell them what you're doing and why you're doing it, people will get on with it,

That I agree with.

We are back to why the "extra" payments are being made.
If we are going down the route of central contracts (as they have in Union or Cricket), these are given to players in the National team and as such, they have to be available to play in those games and give priority to Country over Club.
Certainly, in Cricket, the players are almost full time international players and play very little club cricket (unless there is a loss of form).
Even in Union, "National Service" impacts heavily on their availability for regular league games and the contracted players have to play for Country over Club.
The League situation is massively different.
The international program has little or no impact on the domestic games (unless a player is injured) so, why are certain players attracting a "top up" payment's and what do the clubs have to do to gain the extra cash.
We cant have a situation of arbitrary payments to some England players and not to others and should this go further down the shaft and be paid to Academy Internationals.
Logically, overseas players should be exempt from extra cash as they have already made the move from their native country.

The whole situation seems unclear and it shouldn't be.

Finally, if I was Shaun Wane or Tony Smith etc, I would be telling The RFL that all my players had been approached and request a top up for each of them but, this would give those clubs a substantial advantage over their rivals.

Corrupt is a pretty far fetched word to use.

They may not be very good but any ruling like this would be presented to all the clubs to vote just like the marquee and just like the league structure.
And I can't see them getting any personal gain out of it.

England RU played something like 13 games last season, that's a substantial commitment for players in the squad, especially as they have a domestic league, a domestic cup competition and a European competition. Under those circumstances central contracts make sense.

The problem with central contracts in RL is that in most years there will be 4 or 5 England internationals and it could end up disproportionately supporting a small number of clubs who are already the dominant ones in the league. I'd prefer it if each club could be offered a set amount against a nominated marquee player who is eligible for England.

It seems the RFL have learned nothing from the criticism they received after loaning Bradford £750,000 behind the backs of all the clubs.

My sympathy for the call that they're not fit for purpose continues to grow

Are you just rolling out the old "not fit for purpose" trope, or do you actually know what the RFL's actual stated purpose is, and you also have evidence where they are not meeting it ?

Aren't Parliament discussing this week whether or not to hold a vote of no confidence in the FA? Do you think they can hold one for the RFL?

Wow, take a look at our shrinking game and you tell me you've got confidence that it's leadership are fulfilling their role

I agree that the state of the game has changed, the expansion of the game outside the heartlands is here, albeit the heartlands themselves are struggling.

However its naive to simply use phases like "not fit for purpose" unless you know what their stated purpose is and can demonstrate how they haven't met that purpose.

I don't see how the game can punish a club like Salford for breaching the salary cap on one hand ... and provide the means for other clubs to (ostensibly) breach the salary cap with the other hand.

I am confused, concerned and disheartened

I'm confused more than anything. Who is the one player alleged to be? If this has happened without the agreement of the other clubs, personally if I were an owner I'd be suggesting that club isn't given a Super League licence until they pay the money back and reduce their cap to cover it.

If brought in as a policy, obviously they would have to spread it around. You can't give top ups to enable Warrington to keep 7 players, Wigan to keep 4 and not pay Wakefield anything because they don't spend over the cap anyway. That just isn't fair.