[quote="Dave K.":5qyqjdnm]Someone had a good point on Twitter, of they are quota exemption brought in for Salford players there should be an exemption brought in for other signings. There are only 7 overseas players, so only a max of 7 clubs can benefit. To be fair, they should allow every club to sign an extra quota player.[/quote:5qyqjdnm] For me, this is one of the reasons why I feel they shouldn't be talking about exemptions at all at the moment. It's just a whole can of worms figuring out how to keep it fair for all clubs whilst also attempting to figure out a way to help out Salford. I know that each situation is different but the last time I believe there was exemptions was when Crusaders folded wasn't it? And those exemptions were to keep the suddenly uncontracted players employed. We're not in that position with Salford yet and hopefully we won't be. To keep it fair, the RFL should have been reaching out solely to the clubs with available cap and quota spaces and encouraging them to deal. The other clubs should have been kept out of it until the situation turned more dire as per the Crusaders situation. I believe I read the other day that the latest proposal is that the clubs with spaces will get first refusal for a couple of weeks before clubs needing exemptions can get involved but if players and agents are aware that other clubs can put bids in for them in a few weeks then they'll just delay negotiations until they can get the maximum amount of offers on the table. So clubs with spaces may end up with no one whilst clubs with no spaces end up with extra players. It's going to be completely unbalanced.

Salford look like they've got the investment they need

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... s-30839039

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... s-30839039

[quote="mwindass":2f6lua58]Salford look like they've got the investment they need[/quote:2f6lua58] Lets hope for the sake of all the Salford staff, fans and the game as a whole that this does indeed come through and in time. However moving forward I hope that Salford as a club for the good of the game will also face serious punishment for the situation if/when a takeover is completed.

[quote="mwindass":3twighm2]Salford look like they've got the investment they need[/quote:3twighm2] Good news

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="Chris71":ldy967mh]However moving forward I hope that Salford as a club for the good of the game will also face serious punishment for the situation if/when a takeover is completed.[/quote:ldy967mh] 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="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?

[quote="Chris71":1xju3v8u]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:1xju3v8u] I can see what your saying with the start of the season in the air but until they break some kind of pre defined rule or go into administration I don’t see how they can be punished, as far as I know there’s no financial sustainability rules like in football, it’s hard to see what they’ve done wrong, assuming they can now pay the advance back and fulfil their obligations to the league. Maybe part of the agreement of them going into ‘special measures’ was to carry some kind of punishment but I doubt it. Obviously lessons need to be learned but the only thing they can really do is introduce financial sustainability rules, trouble is every SL club would need to be punished because it appears nobody is running a sustainable business at the moment.

[quote="Mild Rover":2dbjxc4v]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?[/quote:2dbjxc4v] I know it’s a difficult one and let’s be honest they way things operate in this sport we will never the full details. I do think a minor pts deduction and possibly even some form of suspended fine for the 2025 season. The sport really isn’t in a great position and this current situation paints the sport in pretty poor light. For this to come out so soon after the IMG gradings were announced I don’t think is a coincidence. For me the whole IMG grading system has proven to flawed somewhat if this can be allowed to happen. Some form of financial sustainability needs to a part of a clubs responsibility as part of being in the SL. I guess that would just open up a can of worms but shows how poorly the sport is both governed and managed by the RFL and the Clubs themselves.