Headline in tomorrow's LE and apparently they have a big story to break...

Sounds interesting

Marc Green unhappy how RFL dealt with concern about possible SC infringement by Salford, specifically with Tony Puletua case. A letter got leaked to the paper. Apparently 2 other leading figures from SL clubs want to call in EGM into this matter.

"Bulls Boss Demands Answers From RFL" is the headline, according to a screenshot on Facebook that I have no idea how to post on here

Don't worry, we aren't in trouble.

The story is Marc Green has written to the RFL about supposed irregularities about the transfer of Puletua from Saints to Salford and apparently the RFL are dragging their feet. It's from council notes circulated to all clubs which have been leaked to League Express - not by Green though who wouldn't speak to the paper.

EDIT - As someone just above said! Apologies, didn't see.

Well what's the point of having a cap if we don't have a governing body capable or willing to apply the rules consistently?

We don't have a governing body capable of doing anything properly.

Out of interest and nothing else' do you want a governing body that governs for the few or one that listens to all its member clubs and acts accordingly?

Thought I would go to Company Check. Quite a few MK companies some dissolved some active very few with any accounts info except SCR (2013) showing a net worth of -5.5 million quid. Who is Andrew Chalmers?

Details apparently came out of the recent Puletua court case, that show he has two contracts. One with Salford and one with another of Koukash's companies. So it looks to be the same dual contract trick that other clubs have been alleged to utilise and that Keith Senior was proven to have when he signed for Crusaders and wanted the RFL to take action there.

It's a practice that's been (allegedly) going on for a while at some clubs, it's just that now there's a degree of proof because of the Puletua case bringing it to light.

There is also the allegation that some players have signed for Salford for contracts worth significantly less than they were offered by other clubs, alluding that they are being paid significant sums "off the books" outside of the club.

I thought the rule mentioned players receiving monies from 'third parties' [ie, people not connected with the club and if otherwise it should fall under the cap? Money from sponsors or the chairman with his other hat on, should fall under the cap rules. The RFL wrote these rules they should stand by them.

Yup. And since that's been proven to be the case with Puletua, you can see why someone would jump to that conclusion for other players taking "pay cuts" to join Salford.

This has, 'allegedly', gone on since the cap was introduced, with antipodean players usually being implicated; aka the Singapore parachute - whereby players would supposedly find a wedge of moolahs waiting in an account at their stop over point on the way home. Not that it's ever been proved, but it does have the beauty of sounding very plausible and difficult to pin down. To be honest, I'm far from sure how this sort of thing would fit in with current money laundering rules, though being neither launderer nor accountant, I'm not the best to proffer an opinion.

There's also the question of hmrc getting involved if people are getting paid in brown envelopes

Lets play the "if" game. If they are found guilty, and if the RFL apply a punishment. Then, what happens. If the punishment is heavy then they finish bottom of SL and play in the Middle Eights. Probably where they would have finished anyway. Some punishment, (I don't think)................if, of course being a big word

I think Marc Green's point is probably that Salford allegedly committed these breaches last season. In a live salary cap environment, they should have got the punishment last season too. Which if it was a significant points deduction and depending on what time of the year it happened (for example, during the Middle 8s), it may have meant that Wakefield should have stayed up automatically, while Bradford played at home in the MPG against Halifax.

If that is what should have happened, that would explain why he would be angry with the RFL for not imposing the sanction at the time, and why he's complaining about it taking so long. I would expect the Halifax boys to be quite miffed too if it was the case.

But I'm very much theorising here.

Whatever's been going on the RFL need to pull their finger out and conclude the investigation.

RFL pull their finger out! you must be joking that bunch of muppets couldn't manage a train set if you asked them

This is next on the list after the RFL finish the investigation in to Huddersfield tapping Kopout up.

Well, if it comes out that Salford have set out to circumvent the cap then the RFL needs to take action and be seen to take action.

The Singapore thing was about tax avoidance, not salary cap, where the club would pay for the player's image rights to a company owned by the player but registered in their home country. They got their cash in a country with a more favourable tax system. It was HMRC who clamped down, not the RFL. It counted on the cap.

Marwan tweeted that it's up to the club how much they give the player of the season award. So I guess it goes like this: 'Player X: we'll give you £100K for playing, £50K for consultancy for my company, and you've also won the £20K player of the year for the next three years".

It is indeed up to you, Mr Koukash, how much you give the player of the season, just as it is up to us and the salary cap auditors as to whether we actually believe that's genuinely what the payment really was

I assumed the player of the season comment was in reference to people questioning him buying Niall Evalds a Maserati. One way of again getting around salary cap rules when you can "gift" a player a very expensive motor.

In the words of the thrush doctor, "it smells a bit fishy".