So someone from Bradford has dragged up an old case where Salford were already found not guilty in a court of law? Hardly HUGE. Hardly bringing the game into meltdown or rocking it to the core, as suggested on Twitter yesterday. Absolute bobbins.

Koukash returns fire at Green www.loverugbyleague.com/news_205 ... green.html

Koukash returns fire at Green www.loverugbyleague.com/news_205 ... green.html

Its whats come out from the case thats the issue. As quoted regarding Tony P he had a 2nd contract for around 40k paid by a company. If this is the case for all players and not declared on cap(if it was why the need). As an example of this. Say 25 players all paid 40k by a 2nd contract could be a breach of 1mill. Could also explain why players are chasing club for money.

Courts do not investigate Salary Cap issues. It could take the RFL a while with the myriad of MK companies that have been started up and dissolved in the past 2/3 years. I assume they will also have to speak to all the players, especially the ones who have moved to a lower salary despite being offered more to stay at their previous club.

The RFL must come out and say that everything is hunky dory and they have not found anything untoward or announce the conclusion to the investigation along with punishments before the new season starts.

i'd think that there are certain other clubs watching this rather nervously, there are a couple of current SL squads who must have creative accounts much along the same lines we apparently have.

I might be wrong but I've read numerous times that the salary cap is a gentlemans agreement at best and if challenged really wouldn't stand up in a court of law, guess this is something the RFL/SL would be most worried about.

The Salary Cap isnt "a gentlemans agreement" - its a terms and conditions to the application for a club to join a competition run by the RFL. In the exact same way you agreed to a set of rules when you registered an account on RLFANS, Salford agreed to follow a set of rules when they applied to the RFL to run a club in the SL for 2016.

Now, whether those rules are abiding the laws of the land is the real argument. Lawyers would love to take on the case because the "restraint of trade" argument can go round and round in circles for years and years and years (meaning their fees go up and up and up) - simple fact is it isnt, because any club can go out and pay £2m for GI if they wanted, they simply couldnt enter him into the competition. The RFL could impose any arbitrary rule on how clubs compose the squad they register to play in their competition.

Any claim against the RFL for their rules will be met with a simple answer "don't apply to compete in our competition then".

Isn't that the basis for any club being a member of the RFL. If you don't agree to abide by the ruling bodies' Operational Rules then you will not be accepted as a member, or you can be suspended from membership if already a member. I don't think this has anything to do with courts of law.

I was just talking generally in relation to the RFL and operational rules and not directly referring to your club.

As for your 'grasping at straws', Marwan has stated he has been co-operating with the RFLs investigation since October, so that would suggest that A) there is an investigation and B) it is not yet concluded. There is also no rumour or hearsay re Puletuas employment by 2 MK companies. If there is no issue for the RFL then that is what they will announce. No one knows what has gone on other than what was made public in Puletuas hearing, and it clearly has raised questions regarding the business side of things.

If nothing is forthcoming from the RFL then unfortunately because of the information that is in the public domain some people will speculate etc etc

[url=http://postimage.org/[/url
[url=http://postimage.org/photo sharing websites[/url

I'd have thought some consideration as to the standing of the elite competition within the sport would be taken in to consideration in any restraint of trade scenario. eg. if there's no other comp for them to play in. I'm no expert on the topic so stand to be corrected.

Anyway, we should have been given a dispensation from the cap for the number of fsckwits we have swept up from the sport and babysat over recent years. In fact I am surprised we're not eligible for some sort of Care in the Community type grant.