www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/35723674 Wonder if the spirit has been broken again

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/35723674 Wonder if the spirit has been broken again

It's been coming for some time though, hasn't it? With mad Marwan's posturing & bluster and not just with Puletua's signing, I think we've all been scratching heads wondering how they were legal.
Still: innocent 'til proven etc....

Will certainly be interesting to see the outcome

Thing is though - what does it actually matter under this current structure?

The worst punishment is -20 points.

They still get to play in SL for the first 22 games.

OK, so they have to play their last 7 games against smaller opposition, but then come straight back to where they were.

It's not like getting relegated under the old rules, where it affected you for at least a year and caused your best players to leave for other SuperLeague clubs.

It's now basically a slap on the wrist and a less-than-2-month punishment, that doesn't cost you anything because y u now have better players to keep you at the top of the middle 8's and put you right back in SuperLeague after 7 weeks.

Is it just me that thinks that this is something worth doing for a year or 2 for the smaller clubs who can afford it, to get themselves up to where they want/need to be?

Like Leigh (for the sake of an example)

You [ido [/iget the feeling they forgot to change the rules on this in the restructuring conversations, don't you?

I think we're in danger of being a bit too restrictive. It's not like he's managed to bring in a team full of internationals and hammered all the poorer clubs as a result, which is basically the reason the cap was brought in as far as I understand it. They finished 11th out of 14 in 2014 and 4 points off the million pound game last season

I thought it was a live cap, to ensure that situations like this don't occur from previous seasons, otherwise potentially, medals have to be given back and record books re-written??

Must be something dodgy to get round the live cap eg. payments to relatives, or offshore payments??

This has all stemmed from Tony Puletua's tribunal, where he admitted to having two separate employment contracts. One with the club, and another paid via a different company that was owned by Marwan. If only one of those contracts is registered with the RFL, then they would be oblivious to the extra salary he was receiving so the 'live cap' wouldn't pick it up.

It's so difficult to criticise a club for showing ambition and spending money their owner has got but they know the rules.

It's clearly been coming because I can't see how you can keep getting players off your books at the drop of a hat without tripping yourselves up at some point. When Lenagan first took over here to took years to reshape the squad. We had players we desperately wanted shut of but we just had to let them run down their deals. It was the same with Saints with the likes of Lance Hohiha. If we had to do that why can Salford bin off 15 players every year? Makes no sense.

No, but Bradford were relegated during one of the seasons Salford are alledged to have breached the cap. What is more, they were relegated in a season where they were given a points deduction AND had their salary cap reduced. During this time, if Salford were deliberately circumventing the cap by making secret payments to players, it brings into question the morality and fairness of Bradford's relegation and Salford's retention of SL status, does it not?

Maybe, but there's a limit on retrospective punishments. The RFL can only limp-wristedly chuck a damp cloth at Salford for what's now (allegedly) uncovered. Reinstating Bulls is just not possible (what about London?). Their only recourse would be to join with Broncos & make a civil claim against Salford for loss of revenue. Which would probably not get out of the lawyers' offices.