So far..MK claims to have seen no evidence so won't agree to a hearing. The RFL are trying to make an example of Salford. He only lent the Maserati to Evalds....wants the public and press allowed in to the hearing.

Welcome to the circus!

He has threatened to take it to the highest court in the land if there is a points deduction he has the means he says lmao.

RFL members agree to abide by rfl regulations as a condition of their membership.

Hinted that it was a mistake and not deliberate.

The old MarwanK is back

Whether agreed to or not, if a clause is unlawful it is unenforceable.

Isn't Salford's membership of SL/RFL suspended if he takes it to court? This would mean that even if he did win, their season would be over.

In theory yes. But in practice it would be a lot more complex than that. Not least because we are in the middle of a season.

There is also the question of who would be taking action against who

Well I guess the ball is in the RFL's court now.

Koukash proving he hasn't changed after all. Pathetic.

MK - "If they start deducting points from us, I'll press the red button and go for all-out war."

Sounding more like Dr Evil every day.

think he was sat down in a chair with a large white cat on his knee

obviously fearing he is gonna be upstaged by his mate at Leigh, Dr nob.ed is back!

poor things are just getting picked on by jealous people!

If a club does not agree to abide by the regulations all other clubs agree to abide by then no court on the planet can force a governing body to accept a club/body for membership. Just like a night club owner reserving the right to refuse admission if you wear a red tie, its not unlawful just a condition of membership.

It a condition of membership is unlawful it is unenforceable. Whether agreed to or not. If the Salary Cap is judged an unreasonable restraint of trade it would be unlawful for the clubs to abide by that condition and as such it would be unenforceable whether agreed to or not.

If a club refused to accept any penalty for breach of the rules that were set out (ie salary cap / additional payments by a third party)
could they be excluded from the competition ??

Surely by joining the competition, they are agreeing to work within certain parameters ?

Everyone should have the right to appeal but, in this case, the alleged additional payments to payments are clearly against the agreed rules and it appears the Dr K has decided to have a measuring contest with Red Hall.

There is no doubt that anyone with such wealth usually does well in court but, would any victory for deliberately flouting the rules be good for the game.

I'm not sure what form a club refusing to accept punishment would take?

That the rules were agreed to and that they form part of the conditions of membership aren't really in dispute. The dispute would be over the legality of the rules themselves. If they were judged and unreasonable restraint of trade then they would be unenforceable.

It does seem as I'd the Dr has broken these conditions, but if said conditions are unlawful, then you can't really punish someone for actively not breaking the law in the way you wanted them to

But, surely by taking part in the competition they agree to abide by the rules ?

Smokey you are wasting your time trying to explain to closed minds.

Think all football clubs accepted their governing bodies terms for retaining players at the end of their contracts then along came Mr Bosman.
The male members of a cricket club voted for decades to exclude females as full members it was then a condition that you accepted the conditions to become a member it was challenged in the courts and while the judge accepted it was a PRIVATE CLUB he allowed those opposed to challenge it.
It never got to a fullt legal challenge because the club realised it could loose so backed down.

I guess the moral is every rule is subject to challenge and if they are it's down to who has the most to loose if a challenge is made.

Indeed but if a rule is unlawful how can it be enforced? The law supersedes any RFL rules.

If you can't legally abide by a condition it can't be enforced. If the SC is judged and unreasonable restraint of trade then to enforce it would be unlawful.

how can it be a restraint of trade I think if it was that easy then the nrl clubs would have done it salford broke the rules of the comp and not just by giving someone a car they deliberated payed tp from another company and didnt declair it

Would it be unlawful to exclude a club from a competition ?

Each member club of the RFL is a signatory that they agree to abide by the Operational Rules, including this one :-

[iA1:3 Each Person Subject to the Operational Rules agrees that they waive irrevocably their right to any form of challenge, claim, complaint, appeal, review or recourse (including in relation to any dispute arising out of or in connection with the validity of any Operational Rule(s) or RFL Policies) to any state court or other judicial authority[/i

The laws of a sport have no bearing on the law of the land. Therefore the only way it could be challenged would be if it infringed on a persons right to earn. The Bosman ruling worked purely because it actually kept a player tied to a club even though he wasn't earning or under contract.
The salary cap doesn't stop a player earning as big a wage as he can get, it just restricts what a club can offer. The player can then either accept or reject that offer. No restrictions at all on the person.

1. The salary cap isn't unlawful. Anyone that thinks that is frankly a moron.

2. Let the idiot try take it to court, the RFL would then be allowed to straight up ban him and/or Salford from any RFL sanctioned competition.

The RFL should also strongly consider banning Koukash for continually bringing the game into disrepute, his numerous fines show he doesn't care about them.

NRL is Australia they have different laws.

depends on an awful lot. But to exclude Salford for not abiding by a condition that was judged to be unlawful wouldn't be a strong position to be in.