Remind us how many winners of the super league has there been

if marwan has proof other clubs have done the same, why doesn't he out them!?

I would guess if any sanctions are taken on Salford he will not hold back naming names and clubs. The cap is the cap though and if he has used a system to breach the rules he will be made an example of. Point deduction will not work as all he will do is make sure he has a very good squad for middle 8's. I don't think they will just remove the cap without punishment. It must be tough been a Salford fan.

Agreed.

Just scrap the salary cap.

Replace it with a set scale of sanctions - points deductions, relegation etc for going into Adminisration or going bust - so everybody knows exactly where they stand from the off.

Many clubs employee players wives to both help the wife get a job (this is particularly helpful for overseas players) and for tax purposes for the player. It's still counted on the cap but it works out better for the player.

The only way the RFL got round to dealing with Barrow owner Des Johnston,was after Ned Catic left the club,returned to Australia and told his story to the RLE.
[url=http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/7165497/raiders-hit-with-rfl-chargesSky Report[/url

It does seem strange that the Bradford owner and 2 Super League clubs should be pressing for speedy resolution.

Are all 3 acting on press reports of the recent Puletua tribunal or do they have further information that they have presented to the RFL?

It seems a little conspiratorial to me.

Even if it is found to be true that Puletua had a second contract, I wonder whether Salford would still have actually broken the cap last season. With Locke & Hock leaving mid way through the season I'd imagine that there would have been a fair amount of money free. Would adding the alleged £40k send us over the cap?

That's of course not to say that other players don't / didn't have similiar contracts! I guess the easy out for the RFL is to say the spirit of the cap was broken and fine Salford along with a 2 - 4 point deduction?

It seems the RFL have been investigating for three months already. I wonder whether now that it's in the public domain, the RFL might speed up the process.

The problem for Salford being they, by the sounds of the story, didn't report the 2nd contract to the RFL for salary cap management. If they did then it wouldn't be an issue as they'd have to have been under the cap for the contract and players registration to be lodged.

If they didn't report it, then it doesn't really matter whether they were under the cap or not. They attempted to conceal off-salary cap payments to a player.
Not to mention the only real reason for arranging to have 2 contracts for players is to avoid the salary cap.

According to wiki Puletua wasn't registered to play with Salford in 2015. This could explain why he didn't make a single appearance for Salford last year, especially considering the club went through an injury and suspension crisis and were forced to play a lot of academy kids. Subsequently he went to Hull KR and played 13 games for them.

Are we admitting that the RFL are incapable of policing the salary cap



IF Salford, or ANY other club are abusing the system, they should be dealt with properly by the governing body.
Failure to do so, just encourages future abuse of any rules that are in place.

They should not be frightened of any club or individual and they have to be seen to be strong in these instances.

Are they strong though? Even if the rfl are pretty confident they will win, are they interested in a long expensive legal fight over an issue that doesn't actually affect the RFL?

Do the rfl and the game as a whole have an appetite to get in a complex legal wrangle to enforce it?

It's alright saying they shouldn't be frightened and should be seen to be strong, but Bradford were confident they would win the Harris case and sent out some strong messages. A couple of years and a few million later things weren't so rosy.

Wasn't he deregistered as you had to lose one off your quota to sign someone else and as he was injured, he was the one who made way. Not sure whether this was 2015 or 2014.

Yeah because with a salary cap just how many teams have won SL??

Maybe Salford need advice from Batley as to how to get let off breaching the Operational Rules (in Batley's case, fielding an ineligible player who scored the winning try in a match that led to Keighley and not Batley being relegated by one point in 2014).

Whilst only 4 clubs have won it, the competitiveness of the clubs is the closest it's been IMO.

If Leeds can win a treble in a Salary Cap season, imagine how dominant they'd be with no salary cap. I think a 4 club comp is optimistic, it'd likely just be Wigan & Leeds each year, baring the odd blip or some billionaire waltzing in and buying everything up.

The whole reason we have this Super 8's system is because we didn't have 14 competitive clubs. Imagine the league with no Salary Cap.


What get's me about this situation and some of the posts on here saying "RIP Salary Cap" etc, is that Koukash wanted this all along. He wanted rid of the Salary Cap in a bid to take short cuts and get quick success.

High profile controversy in the SC system which could ultimately bring the salary cap tumbling down after 20 years - who stands to win? Who gets what they wanted all along?

Losing the SC doesn't necessitate a free for all. Perhaps it's time we looked at a better way of achieving what we want to achieve.

The first step is actually deciding what it is that we want to achieve.

Only three clubs won the league title in the 10 years before the salary cap was brought in.

Wigan won it 8 times and used their spending power to monopolise the competition, buying up talent from other clubs.

I don't want to see a repeat of that.

What he said.

Are you saying that either a total disregard or a scrapping of the S.C. doesn’t affect the game?

I presume you are referring to the governing body when you talk of having no affect, but after all they are just the custodians & are ultimately answerable to the clubs. I don’t believe, if it went to a vote, the twelve clubs would vote in a scrapping of the cap.

If it turns out that a number of clubs are using underhand methods to circumvent the system, there’s no wonder the same clubs continue to be successful.

The irony of the whole situation though, is little old Salford becoming implicated, whilst achieving the square route of sod all.

the same 'old' teams winning the SL trophy etc seem to be the ones who have invested heavily in their academy/youth systems over the past years/decade


maybe your club should do that instead of going for the quick fix like warrington did a couple of years ago, at least they now realise you have to bring youth through which enables you to spend that little extra on quality players, something tha leeds, saints and wigan have had the luxury of doing over the past years

Well firstly only 7 would need to vote to scrap it. But yes, I'm not saying scrapping the cap won't effect the game I'm saying it doesn't actually affect the RFL themselves and questioning their stomach for the fight.

I'd also question a lot of the clubs stomach for it aswell. Wakefield for instance may want to keep the cap, are they comfortable to actually committing funds to fight for it if necessary?

At if Leeds win the title this season, we will have had 3 winners in 10 years, with Leeds winning 7 of those. Not an awful lot of difference.

True. And I'm pretty confident there will be different answers from different clubs too.

Rugby League has too much legislation, along with very weak enforcement. From the routinely ignored anti-tampering deadline, to the constant retreat of the fed-trained rule and the many loopholes in the salary cap. Not forgetting the comedy of the licensing criteria.

Even when a team is caught breaking the rules, the tariffs are next to meaningless. Wigan's flagrant disregard of the of the salary cap - 4 points, Leeds disguised player loans to Fev and Hunslet - £2000(!), and plenty of others. The RFL lacks independence and the will to really deal with breaches - their life would be made easier if they had fewer, simpler rules, yet they are forever adding complexity and changing direction.

I'm not by instinct a de-regulator. But if rules aren't respected and enforced, they're worse than useless. Wigan and Leeds free of the cap is a bit scary, but if there was the pay-off every club having greater freedom to run their affairs their own way, for better or worse, it might be worth it.