[quote="Chris71":35wbyg12]In many ways that's akin to sweeping it under the carpet and not governing a sport correctly. For me special measures isn't and wouldn't be a sufficient punishment. The so called special measures so far have affectively been suspended due to no action being taken other than more meetings etc. Asking for an advance is one thing but it certainly seems to have been more than that and has put the up coming season in to the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. With less than a month to go before the season starts it's still up in the air in regards to Salford. I hope Salford do survive but there has to be lessons learned, action taken and consequences for Salford, RFL and IMG, if not what's the point in any of the rules etc the clubs have to follow?[/quote:35wbyg12] The problem is that just about any action that could be taken could be deemed as unfair or could create other problems. Or both. I’m not even sure what the lessons we learn from this are, never mind the actions that should be taken. Several current and former clubs in SL have had much worse financial crises than this one at Salford - with wildly varying consequences. Based on what we know, what would you recommend should be done in terms of punishment?

[quote="Chris71":1xju3v8u]In many ways that's akin to sweeping it under the carpet and not governing a sport correctly. For me special measures isn't and wouldn't be a sufficient punishment. The so called special measures so far have affectively been suspended due to no action being taken other than more meetings etc. Asking for an advance is one thing but it certainly seems to have been more than that and has put the up coming season in to the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. With less than a month to go before the season starts it's still up in the air in regards to Salford. I hope Salford do survive but there has to be lessons learned, action taken and consequences for Salford, RFL and IMG, if not what's the point in any of the rules etc the clubs have to follow?[/quote:1xju3v8u] I can see what your saying with the start of the season in the air but until they break some kind of pre defined rule or go into administration I don’t see how they can be punished, as far as I know there’s no financial sustainability rules like in football, it’s hard to see what they’ve done wrong, assuming they can now pay the advance back and fulfil their obligations to the league. Maybe part of the agreement of them going into ‘special measures’ was to carry some kind of punishment but I doubt it. Obviously lessons need to be learned but the only thing they can really do is introduce financial sustainability rules, trouble is every SL club would need to be punished because it appears nobody is running a sustainable business at the moment.

[quote="Mild Rover":2dbjxc4v]The problem is that just about any action that could be taken could be deemed as unfair or could create other problems. Or both. I’m not even sure what the lessons we learn from this are, never mind the actions that should be taken. Several current and former clubs in SL have had much worse financial crises than this one at Salford - with wildly varying consequences. Based on what we know, what would you recommend should be done in terms of punishment?[/quote:2dbjxc4v] I know it’s a difficult one and let’s be honest they way things operate in this sport we will never the full details. I do think a minor pts deduction and possibly even some form of suspended fine for the 2025 season. The sport really isn’t in a great position and this current situation paints the sport in pretty poor light. For this to come out so soon after the IMG gradings were announced I don’t think is a coincidence. For me the whole IMG grading system has proven to flawed somewhat if this can be allowed to happen. Some form of financial sustainability needs to a part of a clubs responsibility as part of being in the SL. I guess that would just open up a can of worms but shows how poorly the sport is both governed and managed by the RFL and the Clubs themselves.

Ironically the last time Salford were deducted points was the year they relegated us in the million pound game, i know you guys took great pleasure in that (and rightly so as we would have done the same to you in that situation) but as we are talking of fairness, they were in a much higher league position, so therefore a much better team than us at the time, but the deduction brought them down to the playoffs, so by default we had to play a better team rather than a team around our level and as such were punished for Salford's discrepancy. Hindsight and all that says it did us the world of good but the system well and truly screwed us at the time.

I'm quite happy to miss out on Cross, as it wouldn't strengthen us greatly, but if there was a firesale clubs like Leigh, Cas, Leeds and Rovers would sign the better Salford players and be much stronger.

[quote="Armavinit":gow5jrht]In the article it specifically says “overseas investment” similar to London so it appears as though NRL is taking over Super League by stealth.[/quote:gow5jrht] I can't see to be honest otherwise the Red Devils and London Broncos would be owed by NRL clubs by now, but i won't dismiss that one or both clubs could be taken over by Australian consortiums with perhaps present or past NRL connections but no NRL clubs.

I think as others have said, ultimately have Salford actually broken any rules? If the answer is yes then they need to be punished. If the answer is no, can you punish a club for being on the brink? I think at the time it was announced Salford were being placed under "special measures" it was described as them being in administration without actually being in administration. So would administration penalties (a points deduction for example) apply or not? The truth is with the RFL anything can (and will) happen so who knows! As for what can be learnt from the situation, I think the key questions to ask Salford are what did they do to get into this situation and what could they have done differently. I say all this not as a reason to punish them but so that it can act as a cautionary tale to others so we don't see other clubs end up in similar circumstances. This isn't just for other clubs to learn from but the RFL and IMG as well because questions rightfully need to be asked of them regarding how they failed to spot just how bad things were getting for Salford before now.

[quote="Funk-Doc":2j8r8zat]Ironically the last time Salford were deducted points was the year they relegated us in the million pound game, i know you guys took great pleasure in that (and rightly so as we would have done the same to you in that situation) but as we are talking of fairness, they were in a much higher league position, so therefore a much better team than us at the time, but the deduction brought them down to the playoffs, so by default we had to play a better team rather than a team around our level and as such were punished for Salford's discrepancy. Hindsight and all that says it did us the world of good but the system well and truly screwed us at the time.[/quote:2j8r8zat] In theory then Salford should have won all of their games and finished top of that middle 8's thing with Leigh and Huddersfield (?) playing the million pound game.

Toulouse released their squad numbers yesterday without a no.6, wonder if Abdul fancies another taste of the south of France

[quote="Steve0":1tjn2wcq]Toulouse released their squad numbers yesterday without a no.6, wonder if Abdul fancies another taste of the south of France[/quote:1tjn2wcq] Could travel with Joe Cator

Tiaki Chan not picked for Wigan's friendly today, and apparently only got about 10 minutes last week. If he's not in their plans for this year I'd look to try and get him in for the year. Doesn't take up a quota place and while he's still pretty raw, he's a good age and would offer more than Gardiner, Laidlaw, etc. Just not sure he'd come for a single year and not sure I would be ready to commit multiple years to him just yet.

[quote="Hasbag":21s8fbpz]Tiaki Chan not picked for Wigan's friendly today, and apparently only got about 10 minutes last week. If he's not in their plans for this year, I'd look to try and get him in for the year. Doesn't take up a quota place and he would offer more than Gardiner, Laidlaw, etc, and only young. Just not sure he'd come for a single year and not sure I would be ready to commit multiple years to him just yet.[/quote:21s8fbpz] I really liked Chan when he was here, always brought energy and aggression, not the biggest but still only very young with plenty of time to get even better.

Better suited to second row . Certainly a hand full but just not big enough for prop ...

I can't say I saw an awful lot from him last year tbh.

I'd pass on Chan, he's enthusiastic but that's about it. His agent played a blinder getting him a 3 year deal at Wigan

[quote="mwindass":up18msqj]I'd pass on Chan, he's enthusiastic but that's about it. His agent played a blinder getting him a 3 year deal at Wigan[/quote:up18msqj] To be honest I'm tempted to lean that way too, however we may be doing him a dis service given the way in which the team was run and trained last season. He could be a different player under the new set up and coaching of Cartwright who knows. That said for all the promise he showed prior to getting his deal at Wigan he's so far struggled to make their 17, again that could be a little harsh on him given the competition he faces in the Wigan squad. I do think he probably tried a little too hard to make an impact during his time at the club when it was a total shambles to be fair so wouldn't be against it if the club brought him back, though don't see it happening.

[quote="mwindass":2z211wj7]I'd pass on Chan, he's enthusiastic but that's about it. His agent played a blinder getting him a 3 year deal at Wigan[/quote:2z211wj7] We don’t need another small forward, we’ve got enough of them already

I’d have Cartwright, Lane, Holmes and Stavely all ahead of Chan at the moment so I don’t see much point bringing him in

I’d have Cartwright, Lane, Holmes and Stavely all ahead of Chan at the moment so I don’t see much point bringing him in

Chan at this time would be a total pointless signing, struggled to get in the side last year, think we have 4 better backrowers, then I'd rather play Jebson and a couple of other young backrowers.

Been told we have signed Hastings for 2026......so shall wait n see

[quote="number 6":3e4g25hx]Been told we have signed Hastings for 2026......so shall wait n see[/quote:3e4g25hx] As it stands for me it would seem odd to use our only likely quota spot (Depending on Cartwright Jrn contract situation) on another half when Sezer and Cust are both contracted but things can change rapidly at this club now so who knows, can’t be argued that he’s a good player at SL level.

[quote="number 6":1mye7du1]Been told we have signed Hastings for 2026......so shall wait n see[/quote:1mye7du1] I'd rather Will Pryce if we're after a half from the Knights.

Won’t Hastings be off quota due to playing for England?

[quote="Irregular Hoops":2lflrkv5]Won’t Hastings be off quota due to playing for England?[/quote:2lflrkv5] Don't think so, he'd have had to play some junior rugby over here like Lam