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.

The difference is the clubs in Superleague collectively make the rules not the RFL.

But it seems to be suggested that most if not all the clubs have stretched, twisted or broke their own rules at some point. Does that not imply a review of the salary cap and how it is implemented?

....is needed?

No it's fact.

Unlike the Bosman case, no single player can actively claim their rights have been breached (unlike the situation you describe that ultimately led to the Bosman rule). There are lots of examples for individuals having rights breached by over arching organisation agreements
(most recently a class action against 4 tech companies and a non competition agreement in Silicon Valley.) Both the Bosman rule and the mentioned example were also breaching rights of individuals outside of contract. The SC is strictly dealing with individuals IN contract, and you can sign away human rights in contract let alone allow the RFL to assign a number based on salary, appearance, bonuses, years of employment, previous employers etc and as a competition only allow a 25 man squad registered add up to so much.

Those alone make the "rfls comp, rfls rules" applicable here.

Facts are pesky things. Just saying something is fact doesn't actually make it so. You have to provide evidence or a fact ceases to be so.

I don't need to, some of your previous employees are providing them instead & for what it's worth I don't believe it is an isolated incident at Salford.

Don't you find it strange that the very first time a challenge was made by one member club the RFL climbed down and changed the very same rules that the other member clubs agreed

Firstly,the salary cap is definitely not a restraint of trade. If the player thinks he can earn more money plying his trade elsewhere, he can do so. As in any job, no club can make a player sign a contract. You cannot claim a restraint of trade on a restriction of earning potential when it's simply not true, in this case as the salary cap in Australia is higher, as it is in rugby union (which I'm pretty sure would be considered a similar job).
It seems Puletua had simultaneous contracts, which is not illegal and therefore Salford were cleared at ET. However, his other contract (issued by a MK company) did have to be paid in full, so the claim that Puletua's case was completely dismissed is misleading.
The main concern for Salford will be that having a "hidden" contract paying a player 40k through a company owned by MK is, to anyone with common sense, a breach of the salary cap. If this has been the scenario for other players, there could be a significant financial breach of the cap, for which the club would receive serious consequences.

Bet Derek Beaumonts squirming a bit, surely Leigh must be up to the same tactics