[quote="pmarrow":36av84hz]After all the crap we publically got for not spending the last few years, I find it funny that Beaumount has sympaphy for Salford. Regardless of what we turfed up we didnt spend what we didnt have, well not to the degree Salford have. More proof that DB is still very very bitter man. Wonder if Salford fans wish they had took our approach instead of risking the club to just make the 6.[/quote:36av84hz] To be fair if it’s the same article I’ve just read he disguised sympathy but actually seemed to stick the boot in, saying that it’s detracted from their Jet2 deal and same stuff he used to spout about us being relegated saying it would be better for them in the long run like Rovers and Wakefield.

[quote="DSJ1983":tdenntsz]Have they actually broken any rules though? As far as I’m aware (up to know anyways) they haven’t missed payments to players or other clubs, not failed to fulfil any fixtures or obligations anything like that. All we really know is that they asked for an advance of the TV money and the RFL granted it but put them in special measures whatever that means.[/quote:tdenntsz] responses to clubs going into administration or going under have always been… I suppose ‘ad hoc’ might be fair way of putting it? But, as you say, it didn’t come to that. Special measures is/was fair enough. There’s maybe an issue around whether Salford were just optimistic in forecasting their revenue and were genuinely wrong-footed or if they weren’t as transparent as they should have been with IMG. If the latter, there’s maybe a case for an IMG penalty next time… but potential new owners will be well positioned to request a clean slate, as without them things get messy for the 2025 season.

[quote="DSJ1983":2zw15pc7]Have they actually broken any rules though? As far as I’m aware (up to know anyways) they haven’t missed payments to players or other clubs, not failed to fulfil any fixtures or obligations anything like that. All we really know is that they asked for an advance of the TV money and the RFL granted it but put them in special measures whatever that means.[/quote:2zw15pc7] As you say, as things stand it would seem that Salford are not in breach of anything specific (fixtures, salaries, obligations) which may make it difficult to bring any specific charges against them. We have had situations in the past where clubs were docked points for salary cap breaches, ourselves included, but those situations where clearly defined cases which doesn't seem to be the case here. I personally believe they should be docked 2 or 4 SL points, but unless there is specific reference within the SL governance rules this may be difficult. You can't make a rule then apply it retrospectively, although this being RL you never know on that score!

[quote="Mild Rover":29pnfeif][quote="DSJ1983":29pnfeif]Have they actually broken any rules though? As far as I’m aware (up to know anyways) they haven’t missed payments to players or other clubs, not failed to fulfil any fixtures or obligations anything like that. All we really know is that they asked for an advance of the TV money and the RFL granted it but put them in special measures whatever that means.[/quote:29pnfeif] responses to clubs going into administration or going under have always been… I suppose ‘ad hoc’ might be fair way of putting it? But, as you say, it didn’t come to that. Special measures is/was fair enough. There’s maybe an issue around whether Salford were just optimistic in forecasting their revenue and were genuinely wrong-footed or if they weren’t as transparent as they should have been with IMG. If the latter, there’s maybe a case for an IMG penalty next time… but potential new owners will be well positioned to request a clean slate, as without them things get messy for the 2025 season.[/quote:29pnfeif] In many ways that's akin to sweeping it under the carpet and not governing a sport correctly. For me special measures isn't and wouldn't be a sufficient punishment. The so called special measures so far have affectively been suspended due to no action being taken other than more meetings etc. Asking for an advance is one thing but it certainly seems to have been more than that and has put the up coming season in to the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. With less than a month to go before the season starts it's still up in the air in regards to Salford. I hope Salford do survive but there has to be lessons learned, action taken and consequences for Salford, RFL and IMG, if not what's the point in any of the rules etc the clubs have to follow?

In the article it specifically says “overseas investment” similar to London so it appears as though NRL is taking over Super League by stealth.

[quote="Chris71":35wbyg12]In many ways that's akin to sweeping it under the carpet and not governing a sport correctly. For me special measures isn't and wouldn't be a sufficient punishment. The so called special measures so far have affectively been suspended due to no action being taken other than more meetings etc. Asking for an advance is one thing but it certainly seems to have been more than that and has put the up coming season in to the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. With less than a month to go before the season starts it's still up in the air in regards to Salford. I hope Salford do survive but there has to be lessons learned, action taken and consequences for Salford, RFL and IMG, if not what's the point in any of the rules etc the clubs have to follow?[/quote:35wbyg12] The problem is that just about any action that could be taken could be deemed as unfair or could create other problems. Or both. I’m not even sure what the lessons we learn from this are, never mind the actions that should be taken. Several current and former clubs in SL have had much worse financial crises than this one at Salford - with wildly varying consequences. Based on what we know, what would you recommend should be done in terms of punishment?