I agree with everything you have said there. Everyone knows we are in a mess and everyone knows why. I just find the clamour to start off the latest rumour alarming.

I was saying the same back in the days when people were desperately be the first to announce our next big signing though so maybe it's just me!

Oh come on EB, what's sauce for the goose ..........

If our owner in his infinite wisdom chooses to wash dirty linen in a constant stream of foul mouthed tweets you can hardly expect others to refrain from using the media?

My understanding of the situation at Salford (which you may choose to believe or not, but is the information I have been given and makes sense) is:
The contracts given to some players included very high bonuses for appearances and particularly large bonuses for being named "man if the match". At the time of signing the contracts, the MOM bonus was not counted on the Salary cap. So, when a player won a MOM award (chosen by the club themselves) the player received a large payment not counted on the salary cap.
As more signings have been made, it has become impossible for the club to stay within the cap if paying the appearance bonuses of all the high earning players in the squad (which do count on the cap). Therefore, to remain within the 'live' cap some players had to not be selected. The first of these was Puletua, followed by Locke. Both are now taking legal action as they claim that they were unfairly prevented from earning their appearance bonus through unfair exclusion from the team. It seems that Harris is willing to back this up and state that he was instructed not to select certain players. He is on sick leave as the club don't want to sack him as they might then face a case of unfair dismissal, as he could claim he has been dismissed for being a "witness" in the proceedings that Puletua and Locke are bringing.
Following the non-selection of Puletua and Locke to avoid paying appearance bonuses, Rangi Chase is now not selected for the same reason - his massive appearance bonus will take the club over the salary cap. There is also the risk of him being named as MoM and receiving even more money (although this wouldn't be counted on the cap).

You might be starting the middle 8's with a minus in the points column if this is true.

We should run a book on which version of the soap opera will turn out to be true.

This is the fifth different reason for perceived troubles I've heard. They can't all be right, although, they could all be wrong.

theredshed - We released Hock because he was a massive bell-end and Locke because he was an expensive water carrier. TP simply wasn't wanted by the coach I think they're more plausible reasons tbh. As for massive bonuses, I find it difficult to believe that the Club wouldn't factor-in the numbers. Even Salford are not that dumb. Surely? Especially seeing as there's lots of easy ways around the cap if Clubs are so inclined.

I can feel myself walking away from SL at the moment...

Not necessarily if the club have acted to prevent this. Don't forget Hock and Locke have gone so no big appearance money there.

Brilliant!! I give in....I'm with the Butcher the way I feel.

I concur with are kyd.

Count me in, I'm ready to f cuk rugby league off after 40 years.

I don't believe this for a moment - you can randomly nominate a player every week to get a payment that doesn't count on the cap? No way that can be true, otherwise clubs would just have a carousel of MOM awards across the squad to pay salaries in excess of the cap. Or pay someone nothing but award him MOM every week and he would be free on the cap!

Quote: FearTheVee "I don't believe this for a moment - you can randomly nominate a player every week to get a payment that doesn't count on the cap? No way that can be true, otherwise clubs would just have a carousel of MOM awards across the squad to pay salaries in excess of the cap. Or pay someone nothing but award him MOM every week and he would be free on the cap!'" Unfortunately, it is true. Directly from the RFL salary cap regulationsC. Items that may be excluded from the calculation of the Salary Cap Value of a Player E1 www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 .

Quote: FearTheVee "I don't believe this for a moment - you can randomly nominate a player every week to get a payment that doesn't count on the cap? No way that can be true, otherwise clubs would just have a carousel of MOM awards across the squad to pay salaries in excess of the cap. Or pay someone nothing but award him MOM every week and he would be free on the cap!'" Unfortunately, it is true. Directly from the RFL salary cap regulationsC. Items that may be excluded from the calculation of the Salary Cap Value of a Player E1 www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 .

On 24 June 2015 Junior S'au and Carl Forster were confirmed as having signed new 2 year contracts. This is after Kevin Locke left and whilst the Tony Puletua situation has been going on. So what exactly has changed other than the constant attacks from external forces. Let's wait and see how the team perform against Widnes.

It's good to see that Nottingham tiger has progressed from being an expert in visa and employment law to now also being an expert in salary cap issues at Salford.