IF the allegations are proven, the maximum points deduction is 20 points. However, this is based on the assumption that the live cap would make breaches immediately obvious.
However, is it 20 points per breach, and therefore 40 points in this case as the cap was breached in two seasons?
Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see if when any points deduction is made. My guess it that whatever the total, a proportion will be applied to the first phase of the season and then some applied to the super eights second phase.
It's certainly going to be interesting to see how the RFL deal with it, IF it is proven.

If the club is found guilty and a points deduction were made in the manner you describe then wouldn't that be the RFL changing the rules of the competition AFTER the competition had started? Where would the Justice be in that?

You get the feeling this issue was kind of forgotten when the discussions about the restructuring happened, don't you?!
If all the points were deducted from the first phase it would remove the deterrent of probable relegation as the club would be on a level playing field in the middle 8s, thus the punishment is effectively only results in a bad season.
The problem is (as always) that the RFL tend to make it up as they go along. Points deductions have not been made under the current format yet so there is no precedent.

Does anyone know how long this process is likely to take? It is obviously unsettling to the club, it's players and, most of all it's supporters. Clearly unfair if the club is found not guilty, like it has been with the Locke, Puletua and other cases. Just bought and paid for my excursion to Perpignan in April. Was that a waste of money?

Ok, so here's the way I see things. Regardless of whether we are guilty or not, this whole thing HAS to be sorted out before the play offs . All teams need to know for certain which comp they are playing in. If we were deducted points , and then won them back later on by appeal , the whole comp would be in jeapordy. If MK then decided to use expensive Lawyers/Barristers etc and take it to the high court citing restriction of trade or some other legal jargon, would the RFL be willing to call his bluff and risk very hefty legal and compensation bills. I think the RFL could be tied up in knots for a very long time . They could end up wishing they had never opened this can of worms..Phil Clarke made a very good point when he said that whoever was supposed to be monitoring the salary cap on an ongoing basis, must have been asleep at the wheel...Could he in turn be open to being sued for negligence?

What is poor (but sadly lately not surprising) is the lack of acknowledgement from the club of this, no mention of the official site, even if it is just to say the club are aware but will make no further comment.

I don't want the Doc to over indulge later in a bottle of pop and start ranting about it but I'd feel easier if the club in at least some small way they are dealing with it.

Phil Clarke is a dipstick.
The thing about this allegation is that Salford were using a SEPERATE company to make payments to players so that it was hidden from the RFL and therefore couldn't be noticed! The RFL simply cannot audit the financial information of independent companies so it would have been impossible for them to spot.
Without the Tony Puletua tribunal they would likely still be none the wiser. The smoking gun was the employment tribunal where it emerged Puletua had two contracts.

Here comes the the sheriff of Nottingham again.

Or should it be friar -uck.
Oops sticky keypad.
Have you got any legal advice for us regarding Salford councils decision to ban swearing in parts of Salford.
Being the expert you are I'm sure the good people of Salford would welcome your mostly well occasionally oh ok rarely accurate observations.

What have you been looking at to get a sticky keypad, then?
I have no advice for the people of Salford.
I simply post my thoughts, usually pretty mildly, on an Internet forum. Generally, I'm pretty balanced in what I write and just write what I think. I think most of my contributions are sensible and others are more than welcome to have a different opinion.
PS - I think it I'll be hard to define the term 'foul and abusive language' in a legal sense, and therefore hard to prosecute anyone. Does the language have to be foul AND abusive, or just one of these. I doubt there will be any prosecutions at all.

Almost word for word from the MEN.

The sticker key pad was the very nice Eccles cake I was eating.

Ps love the high esteem you have of yourself shame I and POSSIBLY others can't share it

And the MEN are right (it's as if they consulted a legal firm about the proposals).

Ironic you and the MEN are on the same page

In these parts some look on it as something you cut into little squares and put on a nail for when you wipe your ---- (redacted for legals benefit)

But a very appropriate link

Quote: Michigan red "I don't want the Doc to over indulge later in a bottle of pop and start ranting about it but I'd feel easier if the club in at least some small way they are dealing with it.'" Knock yourself out :- https://twitter.com/drmarwanK/status/706241402481602561

Quote: Michigan red "I don't want the Doc to over indulge later in a bottle of pop and start ranting about it but I'd feel easier if the club in at least some small way they are dealing with it.'" Knock yourself out :- https://twitter.com/drmarwanK/status/706241402481602561