The Wigan case and this are totally different, Wigan bent the rules and got punished accordingly they chanced there arm and it failed,they never actually broke the cap as others have stated.

Salford delebratly paying a hidden contract to players knowingly and willingly cheating and paying over the cap it on par with Melbourne Storm.

Koukash has talked and bragged about how he is going to break the cap, if they get away with 10 point dock I,d consider them generous and lucky. But 20 point max should be enforced.

The R.F.L. just got lucky due to the Puletua case, how else could they have ever found out.

For all I know there could be a number of clubs doing the exact same thing, I bet Salford wished they had just settled out of court.

All this guff about previous indiscretions by other clubs is irrelevant, they changed the penalties a while back, didn’t they?

The R.F.L. won’t get another shot at this, so I expect a hefty point’s deduction whilst still keeping Koukash on-board.

Ten Point’s.

Well it would you smile, wouldn't it.
They didn't slightly overspend on he cap, due to not quite budgeting their attendances.
What they did was to drive a bus through the cap and deliberately and blatantly cheat, to avoid relegation.
It wasn't remotely subtle, more like a two finger gesture to the sport and the governing body

Can you spot the difference

Salford deliberately exceeded the cap with the use of additional contracts.
Wakefield, St Helens et al. accidentally exceeded the cap because of poor budgeting.
Wigan did not exceed the cap.

Whether it's a big cheat or little cheat, it's still a cheat. Think the clubs other than Wigan who cheated just didn't have the money or ambition to do a big cheat.

Wakey though did the worst morally wrong cheat last season.
Leigh should have come up, Wakey should gone down.

I'd be willing to bet my house that there are several clubs doing the exact same thing; the difference I guess is that they a) don't have an owner who gets drunk and mouths off about it on social media and b) they don't routinely get into disputes with players, thus removing their need to be complicit.

Breaching the cap is breaching the cap. You can't be a "little bit" pregnant.

Yeah the side who finished bottom of the middle 8s last season should definitely have been promoted

everyone knows one big club who do it, and have for years. indeed keith senior mentioned it in his book.
it doesn't help that said clubs west Yorkshire based players boast about it

Yeah, how did Wakefield cheat last season? Did they go bust? No. Did they spend over the cap? Not in a million years. How did we cheat?



Unless your on about us signing players and moving on players. In which case didn't Leigh and Bradford do the same? Did they cheat as well?

Yeah, how did Wakefield cheat last season? Did they go bust? No. Did they spend over the cap? Not in a million years. How did we cheat?



Unless your on about us signing players and moving on players. In which case didn't Leigh and Bradford do the same? Did they cheat as well?

Yes Wigan did exceed the cap. See Yossarian's post a few pages ago with this link:

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/j%20...%20ague.sport[/url

Read that report and tell me that what Salford are accused of was worse than that
Not defending my club cos I think they've been at best utterly inept and at worst, if proven, cheated and deserve punishment. But the idea it is worse than wigans isn't right in my view
As for the others, how do you prove that it was a genuine case of poor budgeting and not a deliberate over estimation of expected income?

I did say "morally cheat".
Going an entire season in the fashion Wakefield did was morally reprehensible. Wakey keeping their place in SL was akin to that bloke dressing up as a woman to escape the Titanic.
So no taking the high ground.

You could just imagine the judge asking the the other clubs did they have s3x and thereby became pregnant and them replying yes we did but it only lasted 2 minutes, whilst Wigan lasted 3 and half hours.

You are obviously not comfortable with Wigan’s antics a few seasons ago

But, why should Leigh have been promoted, when they neither, finished in the top 3 of “The Qualifiers” or made it to the MPG.
You should point the finger at the clowns that came up with the system and the RFL for implementing it.

Also, is there any difference in Wakefield (or anyone else) signing players to try and secure their SL status or, one of the top clubs bringing in a couple of overseas players to try and secure a league title.

As mentioned in my previous post, there is a world of difference in breaking the cap by a few grand, over the course of the season, due to getting lower attendances etc. than the antics of Wigan, who blatantly and deliberately brought in a superstar (Fielden) and also paid Radlinski posthumously or, a club that makes additional payments to players from a third party company as a way of getting round salary cap restrictions.

I hope that you can see the difference or perhaps you don’t want to ?

SL 2007. Richard Wright (Castleford Tigers then CEO) asks the RFL to look at "possible" salary cap breaches by Wigan Warriors. Namely the signing of Fielden, Radlinski and Dobson. The RFL (after faffing about for 6 months) finally dish out a punishment of a 4 point deduction. Too late for my club. www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/j ... ague.sport SL 2014 & 2015. Marc Green (Bradford Bulls) asks the RFL to look at "possible" salary cap breaches by Salford Red Devils. Namely the signing of Tony Puletua. The RFL ......... You see a pattern here ?

SL 2007. Richard Wright (Castleford Tigers then CEO) asks the RFL to look at "possible" salary cap breaches by Wigan Warriors. Namely the signing of Fielden, Radlinski and Dobson. The RFL (after faffing about for 6 months) finally dish out a punishment of a 4 point deduction. Too late for my club. www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/j ... ague.sport SL 2014 & 2015. Marc Green (Bradford Bulls) asks the RFL to look at "possible" salary cap breaches by Salford Red Devils. Namely the signing of Tony Puletua. The RFL ......... You see a pattern here ?

Well no because in 2006 we lost 2 points for a breach in 2005.

If your point is that points deductions should happen in the same season you still would've been relegated.

Which one of you is right ?


By Gareth Walker

12:01AM BST 27 Jul 2007





Castleford Tigers are consulting their legal advisors after describing Wigan's breach of last season's salary cap as "one of the biggest injustices in the history of the sport".


Wigan were docked four points and ordered to pay costs on Wednesday after an independent tribunal ruled that they exceeded the 2006 salary cap by £222,314. That season the Warriors finished three points above Castleford, who were relegated to National League One.


The Tigers publicly aired their concerns to the Rugby Football League about Wigan's spending midway through last year, when they recruited Great Britain prop Stuart Fielden and outbid Castleford for Australian halfback Michael Dobson.


"The loss to Castleford is impossible to quantify," Richard Wright, the Castleford chief executive, said. "Financially the loss of £800,000 from TV rights was only the starting point. Players had to leave the club and others had to accept pay cuts. Even worse is the effect on the club itself and our fans. Yet this injustice could have been avoided."


It seems that one of you has a selective memory ?

What's your point? Which part of my post was confusing?

If the maximum penalty for breaching the salary cap is 20 points, would that not mean Salford face a 40 point deduction if they breached the cap in two seasons as it might be considered two separate offences?

If I get caught speeding on a Monday, I can't just do the same on Tuesday and expect it to be treated as part of Monday's offence, even if I don't receive the paperwork from Monday's offence until Wednesday.

I would guess he means that the two points they were deducted in 2006 would have been deducted in 2005 instead, meaning they would have finished five points clear of Cas before any points deduction so the four points would have made no difference regarding Cas going down.

True, however it's the nature of the breach that's in question.

When Saints, Bradford and Halifax all breached in the same year, that was down to poorly worded rules regarding 3rd party payments and player image rights. Because the RFL were partly to blame for the breach due to poor wording of the rules the clubs ended up with just 2 point deductions.

If Salford have two sets of books and have therefore deliberately set out to not only breach the cap but to smash it into a million pieces, then the RFL have to hit them with the most severe penalty that they can. Also, Bradford and Halifax could take some form of legal action as had Salford been penalised during the season they committed the offences (2015) then Salford would have finished bottom of the middle 8's and the million pound game would have been at Odsal between the two of them. Go one further, if Salford were doing this back in 2014 then Bradford have even more reason to be aggrieved as they'd not have been relegated.

Still in that African River regards cheating I see.

I agree re the severity. This isn't like other cases in British RL and the only comparative example I can think of is the Melbourne case, which ended with large fines, large points deductions, club officials banned and some were even looking at criminal charges at one point.
I'm not sure re Bradford & Halifax taking legal advice. They'd have to prove the RFL were negligent in not uncovering the alleged deception before the end of the 2015 season. That would seem doubtful since all this came out with the Tony Puletua case.

If proved, this is THE most serious breach of operational rules as I can remember. I can't see what other case would warrant the maximum penalty so it has to be the full 20 points for me. As I've said previously, with the new system, give them a 15 point penalty for the regular season and a 5 point penalty in the 8's.

I know that it seems logical but, would the operational rules within SL allow for a deduction to be split 15 + 5.
If not, this in itself would be open to a legal challenge from Salford (or any other club found to be deliberately breaking the cap).