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.

The truth will never come out based on the fact most SL clubs have been doing this for years. The reason this surfaced was because of the court case but you cant tell me that many other clubs are bung free - its a standing joke.

Is that an assumption/hearsay or do you have the hard evidence to support this claim?

"According to wiki"
"could be"
"may not"
"I might be wrong"

Pulitzer prize winning stuff this , keep it up ...

as for the story from the Brighouse Trade Rag ,its not much better- let them disclose who actually leaked the letter from Green , if it wasn't Green , and who are these two ' Leading Figures 'from Superleague , lets not stop there , disclose the players agents who will have been party to ' contract negotiation's '

20 point deduction that's 10 wins, you won't win 10 games in 2 seasons.

FIFAs position was that because clubs played in THEIR COMPETITION they had the right to keep a players registration at the end of a contract. As the courts ruled it was unfair practice that allowed players to move.
Which is why I said the position that some take that it's the RFL right to set it's rules doesn't mean a court could decide it's unfair practice.