Then increase the fine? £250k fine with £100k suspended. If it happens again then the £100k suspended will be added on to the next one. He doesn't have money to burn like he thinks he does, and rich people hate throwing away that amount of money.

If you want that argument to stand up, you would have to scrap relegation altogether.

A points deduction with the current system, just means they are more likely to finish in the middle 8's, at which point they will start on level points with clubs who haven't tried to cheat the system, which is unfair on them.

The current squad may not have benefited from any "extra" payments but, some of those involved previously would be well aware that they were not being paid in a "proper" manner.

Clearly, anyone who thinks they are suffering as a result of this should take out their anger with the club owner and any other parties that were involved in the mele.

The salary cap is LIVE and the RFL do monitor it closely. But Salford hid payments and didn't declare them on the cap. Breaking the cap was a deliberate act by Salford, and there was a deliberate attempt to cover them up. The worrying thing is if puletua hadn't come clean due to his dispute over payments none of this would have been found out. It's tough on the current Salford players- some of whom were complicit but not all. But he person to blame is Koukash.

It's a live cap, but when the owner buys his players 100k cars at Christmas, there has to be repercussions.

Good for us anyway, so thanks.

Cheating the cap gives unfair competitive advantage - so competition points are deemed to be an appropriate penalty; it's very clear in the rules and every club owner will be aware of it.

But the difference in central funding between SL and the championship is more than £250k. So you're not punishing them as if they cheat and avoid relegation, they are financially in a much stronger position than if they played by the rules and got relegated.

That's nothing to do with this. If it was one of the charges then I suspect it was one of the not guilty judgements. You can pay out as much as you want in man off the match and player of the season awards under the cap rules

Correct, it relates to contracts of Tony Puletua and Theo Fages. Nothing to do with Koukash loaning Evalds the use of his Maserati for 12 months.

Well that's just ridiculous then. No excuse to get caught breaking the cap if you can just do this.

Will Bradford or London now persue their own court proceedings against Salford for compensation? ,in a similar way to Sheffield united did against West Ham.

Not sure the Bulls have the cash to do so, and possibly London not the inclination.

Were Bradford not pushing the issue earlier on, maybe they have a plan.

Even if Salford had the 6 points deducted from the end of the 2014 season, Bradford and London would have still been relegated.

That's assuming that Salford only gained a 6 point advantage by having players in their team who - if they had stuck to the cap- may not have been there.

I'm dealing with facts, you're talking hypothetically. But I can tell you now a 56 year old Tony Puletua didn't gain us an advantage of more than 6 points.

I wonder if all those fans moaning that the points deduction is unfairly high were moaning that the deductions handed out to Bradford and Wigan weren't high enough.

Maybe if you had paid Puletua properly and through the correct channels, you may have had to do without one of your other "stars" so, the real answer is that NOBODY knows how Salford would have faired if they had stuck to the rules.

You even played a game against Cas with an extra man on the field, it was anarchy of the highest order #whogivesadamn

Very probably.

At least your club got to spend the Sky money taken away from Bradford and distributed amongst other clubs as punishment for having no money on cheating the system and making sure though.

And if your fellow fans could save us from the "everyone hates us, they always have the knives out" nonsense. Absolutely nobody at all in the history of your club has ever given one single toss about you, including the population of Salford.

The moral high ground from of all people a Bradford fan how ironic - Remind us how many times have your club been deducted points ?

Thanks for the practical example. There's no moral high ground there. I'm just suggesting you all drop the victim act. Your punishment is less than a third of the maximum allowed.

For the record.

Bradford: 1900-01, 1901-02, 2006, 2012, 2014

Salford: 1897-98, 1901-02, 2013, 2016

So one more than you. Possibly the same if you lose the appeal.

Who are you arguing with? Not one Salford fan on this thread since the punishment was announced has suggested the punishment was unfair.
According to Magic SuperBeetle this was the maximum punishment because of when the offences occurred. He is generally really strong around rules like this. I'm no expert but you might want to check what the maximum punishment was before you make statements

On this thread, no. But all over FB, and in several places on your forum. I'm choosing to say it here because I don't want to wade onto club forums starting arguments about it. I don't want to start arguments here about it either. Fortunately, since one only need read the words being said to see that it is happening, there's not much chance of that kind of argument breaking out.

Fair enough but there's plenty saying it's deserved on social media and on forums too

It’s been reported that Salford are to appeal the deduction. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36139621 If the maximum sanction has been implemented, then they have nothing to lose however, I wonder if there could be a sting in the tail by provoking the governing body? As it stands they still have an outside chance of making the top eight, but a further deduction would be a bridge too far. At least they will be smarter in the future at hiding additional payments & honouring contracts with players that have them over a barrel.

It’s been reported that Salford are to appeal the deduction. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36139621 If the maximum sanction has been implemented, then they have nothing to lose however, I wonder if there could be a sting in the tail by provoking the governing body? As it stands they still have an outside chance of making the top eight, but a further deduction would be a bridge too far. At least they will be smarter in the future at hiding additional payments & honouring contracts with players that have them over a barrel.

I take it was a slip up on your part where you miss the 2007 points deduction for not learning any lessons from the year before and errrr cheating the cap again and only getting the same 2 point deduction as the season before.



2006 - Bradford - Salary Cap Breach - 2 points
2007 - Bradford - Salary Cap Breach - 2 points

Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"It’s been reported that Salford are to appeal the deduction. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36139621 If the maximum sanction has been implemented, then they have nothing to lose however, I wonder if there could be a sting in the tail by provoking the governing body? As it stands they still have an outside chance of making the top eight, but a further deduction would be a bridge too far. At least they will be smarter in the future at hiding additional payments & honouring contracts with players that have them over a barrel.'" An appeal should never ever have the effect of increasing beyond the maximum punishment that has in this case already being doled out. I can see this going to arbitration which if Salford were successful would smash the RFL to bits. Let's be quite frank, all the top end clubs have being 'at it' in one form or another for years in an attempt to circumvent the SC limit.

Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"It’s been reported that Salford are to appeal the deduction. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/36139621 If the maximum sanction has been implemented, then they have nothing to lose however, I wonder if there could be a sting in the tail by provoking the governing body? As it stands they still have an outside chance of making the top eight, but a further deduction would be a bridge too far. At least they will be smarter in the future at hiding additional payments & honouring contracts with players that have them over a barrel.'" An appeal should never ever have the effect of increasing beyond the maximum punishment that has in this case already being doled out. I can see this going to arbitration which if Salford were successful would smash the RFL to bits. Let's be quite frank, all the top end clubs have being 'at it' in one form or another for years in an attempt to circumvent the SC limit.