Agreed, and if it all goes according to plan I think that Salford will be in a good position and the area around the ground will significantly benefit too.

Yes glad it's sorted. So do the RFL now rescind the £1.2M cap they applied and get the £500K advance returned?

Salford played this well in their interests and the RFL let them get away with it causing uncertainty and destabilisation up to 2 days of their first fixture.

So, in a nutshell, in mid-January (i.e., more than three weeks ago), Salford were issued with the reduced sustainability cap and ordered to sell players "without delay" by the Rugby Football League. Salford chose not to do that, but to instead wait for the takeover to be completed, and the RFL basically just climbed down and let them do that. As you say, Salford have played it perfectly, as things have turned out, and for them (and the league as a whole) it seems to be a case of "all's well that ends well". But the RFL's handling of the whole affair has been a mess from start to finish, and doesn't reflect well on them at all. As for your point about the £1.2m cap being rescinded and the £500k advance returned - yes, we have to assume that's what will now happen.

The 1.2 restrictions apply only for this weeks cup game they will be at full cap for 1st league game.

All turned out well in the end I guess. I doubt Salford will need to return the advance, they just won’t get it again when the rest of the clubs do.

Could the RFL have legally been able to enforce the sale of players? I guess the sustainability cap would have forced Salfords hand eventually, but they rode it out and it paid dividends for them.

Just need Cas to get their takeover and stadium plans sorted and the clubs look in a half decent state hopefully - though still heavily dependent on owner finance of course.

I’m glad they’re available to batter Saints next week.

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... -st-helens

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... -st-helens

Salford certainly deserve to be punished, but sadly that will do nothing to redress the damage that has already been done to the integrity of the competition. Rowley behaved like a petulant child with his ridiculous team selection and the nonsensical reasons he gave for it, and Salford basically chose to screw over the rest of the league just to make a daft point. Rowley has always come across as a prickly character, and you can now even lose the 'ly character' part from that description, it seems.

They & he have not done themselves any favours. I have moved them up the list of my least favourite teams (that will teach 'em).

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63 ... ebruary-17

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63 ... ebruary-17

Never liked Rowley, pity he wasn’t out there with a Salford shirt on facing the saints forwards, I’d would have paid to watch that

A slam dunk of a case - bringing the game into disrepute via the national broadcaster and 400K+ viewers*.

*[urlhttps://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/bbc-viewing-figures-for-controversial-salford-red-devils-defeat-revealed#:~:text=St%20Helens%20v%20Salford%20on%20BBC%202%20on%20Saturday.&text=2.7%25%20audience%20share.,413%2C000%20peak.&text=The%20game%20picked%20up%20an,times%20the%20peak%20was%20recorded.[/url