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

rlrl
rlphoto sharing websitesrl

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.

We've certainly 'cared for the elderly' more than other clubs over the years. We should of had special funding from the RLPA because many players we've taken were finished before we signed them.

It's a RFL competition argument is very similar to the arguments that FIFA tried to use when they lost out to the Bosman ruling in football

Thought the Bosman ruling was to do with transfers and not salary limits

Could a player argue that the system is a restraint of trade? Surely it prevents them earning the highest possible salary?

According to wiki Puletua wasn't registered to play with Salford in 2015. This could explain why he didn't make a single appearance for Salford last year, especially considering the club went through an injury and suspension crisis and were forced to play a lot of inexperienced academy kids. Subsequently he went to Hull KR and played 13 games for them.

If true then surely a player doesn't count against the cap if he's not registered to play?

He was deregistered part way through the season (2014 or 2015) therefore, he wasn't released. He could have been registered again had you lost one of your quota players to injury and they in turn were deregistered.

You may not have broken the salary cap, the RFL could be investigating an attempt to hide part of a players salary, affecting several players

Why would Puletua have been deregistered part way through a season because of the quota? We didn't sign another overseas player after the 2015 season started. It certainly wasn't 2014 because I can recall when we signed Locke that Puletua played in the same team. I can't imagine the RFL allowing us to register Locke if we were over the quota. Just another thought, wasn't Puletua exempt from the quota anyway because of the number of years he's played over here?

The truth was always destined to come out, its definitely not an isolated incident with Salford but has gained more publicity with the way Marwan has gone about his business.

Most of the players will be reluctant to make a huge issue due to the Tax implications.