[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.

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!