[quote="micktheleyther":171k7usr]I've got a bit of history in employment law, but it's been a while so I'm only 80% sure on what I'm saying here. I believe the RFL have jurisdiction over players salaries. However, players are only players in the eyes of the salary cap regulations once they play a competitive game for the club. Until then they're just employees of the club. The RFL can refuse to register players if it would make the club break the salary cap rules. I believe that if Salford chose to sit players to avoid registering them, then the player could, in theory, claim breach of contract as it could be demonstrated that they were signed to be part of the playing squad and that failing to register them is detrimental to their careers. I think it would be up to players to pursue that line themselves with the club and at employment tribunal if necessary. If Salford were unable to make payroll at any point they would automatically find themselves in breach of contract and players would become free agents. This should all be taken with a pinch of salt as I don't have detailed information on the regulations involved, but it is unlikely that the RFL have it within their remit to withhold the right of Salford to employ people in non-playing situations, which is what it would be if they don't register the players. That being said, it could well be within the remit of the RFL to suggest that if Salford honour the contracts of players without registering them then they have not in fact reduced their costs in any meaningful way and their sustainability cap could be further reduced to compensate for that. All in all, it's very complicated for Salford if the takeover doesn't happen soon and they have the sustainability cap lifted. There could be areas that would have to be clarified by tribunal or in the courts. They're also going against the spirit of what the RFL have asked of them.[/quote:171k7usr] Mick, in addition to all you have just posted there is the issue of the players themselves. They are the collateral damage in all of this. The longer Salford's situation drags on without a successful outcome at the end of it then the more the players are prejudiced with limited choice for those who have to be sold as to where they go and with moves having to take place at, potentially, very short notice with the obvious impact upon them and their families of sudden upheaval caused by last minute transfers.

[quote="Bent&Bongser":33498xxb]Great posts, both Mick & Jack. A question in innocence (in fact two): if a player has appeared in a competitive fixture during the term of his present contract, does that mean that he is counted on quota? If so, could The Devils dodge that by asking everyone to sign fresh contracts (on the same rub) or would the contracts be deemed contiguous by the authorities?[/quote:33498xxb] I'm not sure on either of those questions. What I do know is that the government is involved with quota players through the visa system, which will always make things more rigid. The only way I've heard of getting quota players off the books is by loaning them out to another clubs,

[quote="Bent&Bongser":6ytbiewt]Great posts, both Mick & Jack. A question in innocence (in fact two): if a player has appeared in a competitive fixture during the term of his present contract, does that mean that he is counted on quota? If so, could The Devils dodge that by asking everyone to sign fresh contracts (on the same rub) or would the contracts be deemed contiguous by the authorities?[/quote:6ytbiewt] My very unqualified answers are yes, they would count on the quota. This is why the Cup game is a crucial deadline for Salford. Secondly, yes. Certainly a contract of employment can be changed (I suppose this would amount to all intents and purposes as a fresh contract) but only with the agreement of both employee and employer.

Thanks for the reply Mick. Bongser realises now that he muddied the water on the question by misusing the word quota whereby he meant cap. In this light, please reply again as your knowledge in this area is intriguing (and would make B seem "dead clever" when opining in The Egerton (Salford) tomorrow night!)

Thanks also, Jack. Please see the above apologia.

[quote="Bent&Bongser":2efpb7ia]Thanks for the reply Mick. Bongser realises now that he muddied the water on the question by misusing the word quota whereby he meant cap. In this light, please reply again as your knowledge in this area is intriguing (and would make B seem "dead clever" when opining in The Egerton (Salford) tomorrow night!)[/quote:2efpb7ia] Good luck at The Egerton tomorrow night. Could Jack offer a very concerned suggestion for Bongser. Please take (and wear) a very hard hat and expect incoming missiles! Yes, to question 1 in respect of the salary cap. If you are suggesting (as a very cunning plan of Baldrickian proportions) for players to sign an exactly the same contract but dated after their appearance in the competitive game then I think that there would probably be a very strong argument that if there were no material differences between the 2 contracts (old and new) and that they were effectively the same contract and were simply continuous. Or, are you suggesting - for pub argument purposes - that Salford could potentially get around their predicament by agreeing with most of their players to accept substantially reduced salaries in 'new' contracts so as to all fit within the salary cap figure then yes, I suppose they could. It would be a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas but theoretically they might be able to achieve this. The players would have all the risk attached to doing this even if, for example, the club were unofficially and non-contractually saying to each player that they would make up any shortfall in salary with improved contracts after the take-over.