Regarding the RFL statement. Please note this 14 days for the RFL to let Salford see what evidence they have is the legal minimum. They could let Salford have all the documents they wish to rely on in a tribunal earlier if they wanted to especially with it being a historic matter.

So if say a player like Chase, HH, TP or someone else did attend and admit they colluded (they must surely have realised it wasn't legit if true) they must surely be subject to a hefty fine or ban?

It does after all take too two tango

I doubt the players involved would get a ban, or fine as the RFL would have to interview them without prejudice in order to gain enough evidence to charge to Salford. Where they could come foul though is if it turns out more than one player has received "side-payments" and they haven't paid tax on them, HMRC could be very interest.

And if the Doc alleges that the RFL are targeting Salford is at liberty as the owner and chairmen of a club is he able to call for a vote of no confidence?

I think if I'm honest he brings much of this upon himself with some of his shall we say more inebriated comments and bravado he shows, though some cases are clearly weighted against Salford compared to other current SL teams.

Just also read that he can't use his usual legal team as they are the same ones the RFL use, do hope afterwards that he finds a new legal team as surely there is a massive conflict of interest.

I think the only onus on the player is regarding tax. The salary cap is restricted to the amount the club can pay to the staff and not to an individual player otherwise they would fall foul of legislation regarding restraint of trade. A player can rightly claim that they have no clue as to who is getting paid what with regards to the SC. They could only have been said to collude with breaking the cap if their salary (however paid) is higher than the clubs salary cap.

The RFL will present its case, the club will have the opportunity to respond and it is then up to an Independent Tribunal to decide as to where a breach has occurred and what the subsequent punishment should be.”

That should read , if not where!

Erm ... Aren't they supposed to wait until after the hearing to decide if he is guilty or not!

If I was the doctor ,I would have my lawyer jumping straight on the RFL for that gaff...

The RFL will present its case, the club will have the opportunity to respond and it is then up to an Independent Tribunal to decide as to where a breach has occurred and what the subsequent punishment should be.”

That should be if, not where!


Erm ... Aren't they supposed to wait until after the hearing to decide if he is guilty or not!

If I was the doctor ,I would have my lawyer jumping straight on the RFL for that gaff...

The RFL will present its case, the club will have the opportunity to respond and it is then up to an Independent Tribunal to decide as to whether a breach has occured and what the subsequent punishment should be.

Doe's anyone know ???? who is on this Independent Tribunal, or what it is made up of???? ex players ????

Also ref the RFL and Marwan's legal team being one of the same ??? I think Marwan has more money than the RFL so could he not pull the legal team onto his side, also if the legal team is one of the same for both side's would you not think that Marwan would of been given a heads up if the RFL had something on Marwan.?????
Just my thought.

Marwan talking the high court if the tribunal rule against Salford,question is can the R.F.L. afford to do this.

Hahaha rlToo Laterl

I cannot understand why the Doc has to be so confrontational with the RLF. It really does you no favours.
If found guilty I can see us being dropped to a lower division
He needs to follow the lead of other chairmen and be friendly and obliging, he, and Salford would probably be treated the same as other clubs

Unfortunately not.
I'm not sure how Koukash "knows" the RFL haven't got any evidence when the RFL have not had to disclose this to the club yet. They might have a mountain of evidence, they might have none. Nobody knows yet, not even Koukash.
My only comment would be that some potential evidence is already in the public domain, in that Puletua had a contract with a company owned by Koukash. If the club had not disclosed this as part of the salary cap, it's pretty simple for the RFL to prove.
They MAY then have further evidence IF they have interviewed other players and found similar arrangements that have not been disclosed by the club.

I didn't consider that the car seemingly given to Niall Evalds was even under consideration, it seemed clear at the time that some payments are excluded from the cap such as man of the match prizes and player of the year prizes etc.

I'm not convinced Koukash is taking the right approach. He seems to almost deliberately antagonise those in positions of power. Threatening to escalate the conflict seems to be counter-productive. It is clear that if Salford want to take part in RFL competitions, they have to abide by RFL rules and regulations. If they want to play in a competition with no salary cap, there is no issue with them trying to persuade the other clubs to form a breakaway league under a different governing body.