TP only signed two-year contract (2014 and 2015) as I understand it, the additional £40k side payment was made by EuroMachTech to TP in 2014 and this whole fiasco only surfaced when the 2015 payment wasn't made. It will be interesting how it's viewed, as the RFL statement indicates breaches in both 2014 and 2015 but as well know no payment was made in 2015.

Haha....so Wigan being found guilty for breach of the cap was "against the spirit of the cap", after asking 9 players to defer wages on the promise of better contracts the following year so they could bring in more players, if that wasn't blatent and deceitful I'm at a loss.

So the only reason we've been caught breaching the salary cap is because we stopped breaching the salary cap? This sport, this club...

This whole saga could end up with the scrapping of the salary cap as being unenforceable if Salford get away with it, which is what MK wanted in the first place. Could this be his way of forcing the issue.?

Correct! Had we paid TP his £40k side-payment in 2015, we would not be having this discussion and nobody (except MK and TP) would be any wiser.

The rules at the time failed to cover deferred payments. They didnt break the rules because the rules didnt exist. Blatent and deceitful? Absolutely. Wilfully breaking the rules? Nope. The problem Salford have, compared to the Wigan case, is that the brown paper bag method (which is essentially what Salford have employed) is explicitly stated in the rules as a breach.



The RFL can account the "missing" 40k on this years cap, but without a TP contract to associate that with, I can't see how they can - unless the EuroMachTech contract was longer, but I doubt anyone outside the involved parties will know that. The only other way its possible to count under this years rules is if theres evidence that this practice is still ongoing.

12 points is better than 20!

First the additional income should be declared. It appears it was not. Then the RFL can ascertain what work was done / the going rate for such work / the player's qualifications for doing that work etc.

There may well be appeals. However I am sure the Salford legal team will also familiarise themselves with the rule changes since 2007. This way they will not naively conclude a penalty above 4 points is automatically incorrect. Furthermore the legal team will appreciate the nature of the breakage - if it exists - has been done against a different type of salary cap and appears to cross 2 seasons.

Very interesting times.

oldhamred wrote:
The issue isn't the other £40'000, but where it comes from. Allegedly in this case it's from another company owned by MK, which isn't allowed as it would render the salary cap meaningless.
That's the point.. Is the player not allowed to earn any extra money from any company owned or partly owned by the Chairman of the club or any of his family or relatives, or any director or any relative of a board etc .


First the additional income should be declared. It appears it was not. Then the RFL can ascertain what work was done / the going rate for such work / the player's qualifications for doing that work etc.




But if the extra payment was made to a separate company owned solely by TP, then as has been stated the RFL have no business looking into its books..

Correct, the rule is pretty much unenforceable unless the player is willing to go public on the payment; however, it is very clearly against the salary cap rules. Other clubs may be doing it, but they are probably more careful in ensuring that the co-conspirator stays on side.

The basic rule of breaking the rules in this situation is "don't upset your co-conspirators"

oldhamred wrote:
But if the extra payment was made to a separate company owned solely by TP, then as has been stated the RFL have no business looking into its books..



Correct, the rule is pretty much unenforceable unless the player is willing to go public on the payment; however, it is very clearly against the salary cap rules. Other clubs may be doing it, but they are probably more careful in ensuring that the co-conspirator stays on side.

The basic rule of breaking the rules in this situation is "don't upset your co-conspirators"
Forever in Rented Accomodation


So if that's the case, and TP is the only who has come forward ( maybe Locke as well) then we are only talking about £100000 or so over the cap divided by 2 seasons which if you take Wigans case as a precedent , it should only be around 4 points deduction if found guilty.Then again ,if he wasn't even made the payments he was claiming, where's the crime? I'm confused!

Yes.

If you need discussion or further explanation, well here are pages and pages of discussion as on viewtopic.php?f=2&t=592653 and www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php ... alary-cap/ as well as elsewhere: PAGES AND PAGES May you live in interesting times ... sheesh P.S the last thread seems less like a lynch mob than the other two

If you need discussion or further explanation, well here are pages and pages of discussion as on viewtopic.php?f=2&t=592653 and www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php ... alary-cap/ as well as elsewhere: PAGES AND PAGES May you live in interesting times ... sheesh P.S the last thread seems less like a lynch mob than the other two

It wasn't deceitful. Wigan were open about what they did but it was found that as it was done to defeat the cap, it was against the spirit of the cap. This, however, is out and out deceit, and the RFL may well insist on MK being honest about all of his dealings with players. Can't they prevent bar a club owner from being one?

The biggest risk is that the only points wiped clean are "accrued points", and if you get hit with a big whacking deduction the RFL may say that negatives carry forward. If not, I'd just focus on the cup. A Wembley win and a cruise through the middle eights wouldn't be a bad season.

The biggest risk you have is that some big players left Salford under a cloud and they may happy to talk.