I can't understand why the Salford fans are moaning and crying they are being picked on. Marwan knew there was a salary cap (although it appears not from day one!) and knows that all clubs are bound to abide with it or risk punishment. he's publicly stated he will break the cap, he's now found to have deliberately broken the cap by cheating- it clearly states in the rules that payments of this type must be declared as part of the cap. Salford aren't being picked on by the RFL, they are doing what they would do if they found any other club had done this. Other clubs have been dealt with under the rules as they stood at the time. When Wigan did what they did there were no rules to state that contracts couldn't be backloaded- there are now!!! That is why they weren't charged with breaking the cap but with breaking the "spirit" of the cap. It was like tax loopholes that people take advantage of - not against the rules but morally abhorrent.
As per the punishment - Salford were paying these players throughout the whole season and hence through both the regular and middle 8s. The punishment should reflect that.

Think this would be a good idea. It obviously depends on the severity of the breach (but it's looking like the most severe in the sport in this country for a while) if Salford start the middle 8s on zero, the new system is a farce and clubs might as well cheat as they don't have any punishment for the only meaningful part of the season.

How excruciating was it watching Hemmings and Clarke discuss this after the game on Friday?

Neither of them appear to have any idea about the events leading up to the charge. Hemmings was even asking why if the breaches are two years old they weren't picked up under the live cap so Salford could have been punished then.

Comes to something when supposed professional broadcasters about the sport haven't even bothered doing any basic research into the situation but still feel qualified to discuss it.

Was part of the RFL bye-laws, not sure if it still is. Salford would lose their RFL membership and therefore the ability to play in any RFL run competitions or receive any central funding IIRC if they sued the RFL.

Koukash is coming out of this looking like a spoiled child. You get the impression he's not used - in his business life at least - to hearing people tell him what he can and cannot do.

Absolutely. It was terrible. 2 people who are paid to understand the issues in our game don't even know the absolute basics of a big news story that had broken days beforehand and was reported by the organisation they work for.

Sadly it's not an isolated incident and exemplifies the shoddy and unprofessional nature of the Sky RL team at the moment.

There was a rule that you can't sue the RFL, Cas straight up told fans that at a meeting during the franchise era. I assume that rule is still in place, most leagues around the world have similar clauses.

No complaints from me, if Koukash was stupid enough to sanction paying Tony Puletua £120k for two-years with only £80k going on the cap and another £40k being paid via his other company (EuroMachTech and then refuse to pay the second years £40k meaning all this became public knowledge via a tribunal) then we deserve to be punished accordingly.

My only issue is the "punished accordingly" as when we accidentally fielded 14 players in 2013 we were given a £10k fine whereas previously St Helens had done the same and were only given £100 fine. Therefore, despite a precedent of previous point deductions against clubs who have been found guilty I am a little worried Salford's punishment will be far greater, for what reason I don't know.

It's hardly a precedent - the previous breaches were nothing like as egregious as this one is alleged to be; if indeed there is only one, which seems unlikely.

I don't understand. Wigan breached the cap by £222,000 in 2007, it was the biggest breach in Super League history. They were given a 4 points deduction, surely a precedent has been set. Salford are being charged with an alleged breach (or breaches) totalling (best case) £40k and (worst case) £80k. When I say best and worst case, I am unsure whether they can use 2015 against us as the whole reason behind Tony Puletua's very public fued and subsequent tribunal was due to non-payment.

Whether or not one seems unlikely or not, there is only evidence to suggest at this moment in time there is. Unless other players come forward with appropriate evidence, which I doubt as HMRC would jump straight on them, then we'll never know.

Wigan breached the cap with what they thought was a clever way around it, forestalling payments within a contract. They were also perfectly up front about what they had done. Also, none of the Wigan directors had stood up a couple of years earlier and boasted that they would break the salary cap.

What Salford have done is equivalent to Melbourne's cheating in the NRL. Had Puletua not taken the club to an employment tribunal, the payments from the third party would not have become a matter of public record. Given Koukash's previous statements on the matter, it's hard to argue that this wasn't a deliberate and calculated attempt to defraud the live cap by hiding third payments from a related company.

Comparing Wigan and Salford's (alleged) breaches of the cap is like comparing Greg Eden to Billy Slater. They're the same in some ways, but in other important ones they are massively different.

I didn't see the item so I can't comment on what was said but how much of the Salford story is publicly out there as stated fact?
i.e. there is a lot of talk about the contract situation, plenty of details about who these contracts were with, who was employed under them and the sort of money being paid but how much of this is in the public domain officially and how much is known 'through the grapevine'?
Broadcasters obviously have to be careful what they mention on air. I notice that that RFL statement itself doesn't provide much detail.

The part which irked me was Hemmings questioning why the RFL hadn't picked these breaches up in the seasons concerned, now they have a "live" salary cap. It's a major news story within the game and most fans have at least a basic grasp of what the allegations are, but neither he nor Clarke seemed to have bothered to do even the slightest bit of research. They didn't need to run a major forensic investigation on it, but it's pretty clear why they didn't come to light in the seasons concerned which made it a dumb question to ask.

No fair enough buddy, did the answer come out or was speculated about when the question was asked out of interest?

Just wondering whether they might have decided that a 'mock ignorance' question and answer session might have been a format to provide the info. Makes it a bit more interesting than just spouting info.
Like you said... one of the biggest stories in British RL for a long time so surprising that they wouldn't at least know the basics.

It's not really 80k as a "worst case" if it was, say, every player in the squad for 2 years...

As I've written elsewhere, Wigan got away with this because their lawyers successfully argued that because the offence had taken place at a time before the more severe penalties had been ratified, then they could only be penalised within the previous guidelines, where the points deductions were more modest. This is how they kept their points deduction down to four. Sadly for Salford, their offence, if proven, took place under the current rules ( 20 point maximum ) so the timing element does not apply in their case. Personally I think Wigan should have had a bigger penalty, but, rules is rules.