makes a change from the brown paper bag under the table

it will be seen as some as a 'bribe' but can it be prooved?

just another foolish tweet from the doctor who should have kept quiet, again

as the SC has been sold to us, it undoubtedly would.

for me that's it now, get rid of the cap, it's a farce, it's so easy to get around. Need to attract some Russian businessmen to take over a SL club, there must be some Russians who would love a bit of rugby league.

You really are in need of some 'stress relief.'

Do your littleman a favour littlerich. Nobody can be angry after launching some spaff...

Depends who it's from. If it's from Koukash, any of his companies, or any person or company associated with Salford then it counts on the cap. If not then it doesn't count.

Even if it counts on the cap, it might be more tax efficient for either the club or player to receive something like this rather than a higher wage or bonus. As I understand it something like this could be spread over the entirety of the player's contract.
I have utterly no idea how much a Maserati costs but let's say it's £100,000. If Evalds has (say) a 4 year contract then I think it could be spread £25k a year over the 4 years like a signing bonus.

If Koukash is saying it doesn't count then either:
1 - he's wrong
2 - the rules have changed, very quietly
3 - the rules have been ignored

On issues like this i much prefer the DRs approach of openness as opposed to the usual smoke & mirrors & knives in the back approach that we usually have to put up with in RL

There seems to be some very big assumptions on here on the evidence of a picture. Any one of the following could be true:

-the car has been bought for the player by Koukash, completely at random
-the car has been bought for the player by Koukash, as part of agreed contractual obligation.
-the car has been bought for the player by Koukash, without contract and a wink wink.
-the car has been bought by the club, and subsequently rented to player as part as contractual obligation.
-the car has been bought by Koukash, and subsequently rented to the player on the request of the player.
-the car was bought by Koukash and let the player borrow it for the weekend.

Each has different cap implications. The long and short of it is: the rfl can take offence to it if they really want to. Given the rumours that I've seen Salford aren't being granted the exemption to the 50% turnover rule this year, this could just be part of the whole issue.

How many rumours involve players being seen at a dealership trying out their new BMW over the years?

actually, the reason behind the gift doesnt change anything from an SC point of view. Strictly speaking anything whatsoever that transfers from anyone at all involved with Koukash to anyone at all involved with Evalds would have a cap value.

Even if Evalds were to borrow it for a weekend it is a benefit so would have some sort of cap value.

Will be interesting to see if the RFL react at all. Koukash usually uses Twitter to start a dialogue with them.

IIRC didn't Melbourne & their sponsors buying players boats, cars and home renovations count towards their salary cap breach?

Reasoning does matter. If he was awarded it because he won Salfords Young player of the year (for example) it is cap exempt. If it was a sign on fee for signing a new contract, that does count on the cap (and as he's a renewing player it would count entirely on this years cap). If it was rented the rfl would need to rule how much of the value of the car could be deemed exempt as part of travel allowances which are also exempt.

Different cap outcomes, different situations.

Why is an award cap exempt? You could have hundreds of awards. Top tackler, top yard maker, best disciplinary etc .. etc. Isn't the prize money exemption related to the club's prize money? ie, if the club wins prize money it can give to players, cap free?

Bizarre I know. The m.o.m. Awards being off cap seems ludicrous ...

Wow - that is incredible! The man of the match is awarded by the club and doesn't count!!

So you could have a player on £1,000 a year contract with a £1million bonus for each man of the match award that the club itself awards!!! It would make some interesting analysis of (all) the club man of the match awards this past season....

And that's got unveiled earlier this year, as part of these disputes they were having.


Doc himself said its prize for player of the year, me, I think it's a sweetener to a highly rated kid on a low paid contract, to prevent a Theo style situation arising, without actually giving him a better contract at this point

Though it does explain why certain players always seem to get the m.o.m. award even if they've had a bit of a stinker

Salary cap will be defunct soon anyway

Brand new maybe, but we're talking about a 57 plate Quattroporte here. You can pick them up for 20 grand all day long.

So Koukash could simply sign Sonny Bill and offer him a million pounds bonus if he wins the best player called Sonny Bull Williams of the year award.

I think you have misread the rules. There is a prize awarded for mom or for Man of Steel and similar awards that do have a value. For instance previously Tissot would provide a watch for the man of the match. Without the exemption that award would count on the SC even though it wasn't provided by the club to the player.

Any payment to a player in relation to his playing of the game by any party related to the game is admissible.

This is besides the point anyway as we have already been told that this isn't the case and this is a gift from Koukash to evalds and Koukash's defence is this is nothing to do with Salford Red Devils. Which is how I have always said the cap can be broken. The RFL does not and cannot have the reach it needs to properly defend such a cap.

That's closer to the truth. The club can only pass on a contracted share of the prize money it receives. It can't give out bonuses like this.

The exemption has been there a while partly because of Bradford's breaking of the cap with Harris. Harris was signed to advertise a company in a normal sports image deal. That company was also a minor sponsor of Bradford. This meant that technically Bradford broke the SC as Harris payment from this company constitutes a cap liable sum.

This is the case for pretty much every man of the match award in RL where a company will pay the club to sponsor it and give an award to the player for being named man of the match. If this exemption didn't exist then every man of the match award would be a payment to a player by a club sponsor and as such a cap liable sum. Which is stupid in the first place but it would be even stupider without the exemption.

The SC is all but dead in its current form, and not before time

Koukash has simply put Evalds on his insurance for a year - how is that viewed?

Every offseason I promise myself I won't get into this!



Yep. As has been pointed out, there have been rumblings that clauses like this are the starting point of the fallout between Koukash and other players. As I said, it all depends whether it's contracted, wink winked or totally spontaneous. if it's contracted, the rfl can choose to let it slide on numerous of the rulings mentioned, if its a wink wink it will almost definitely get pulled up due to obligation of reporting, and if it's totally spontaneous the rules aren't covering it. after the wigan "breaking the spirit of the cap" fiasco, the rfl put rules in place to allow them to pick and choose what they do and don't like.



You of all people must know ambiguity in a contract favours the side signing. In this case, the clubs. No where does it state it can't be club individual awards, or club mom awards. Given how incredibly easy it would be to reword to say RFL individual awards and broadcasters MoM awards, one cannot simply assume that's what it means, now I'm more than happy to accept this may be a misinterpretation, but there's no misreading going on.



Nope. There are many payments a club can make to a player that are cap exempt. The money paid to Morley and Ali for their appearance in the game vs NZ for example has no bearing on Leeds cap. The cap is a notional value, it in no way relates to how much a player actually get paid.



Do we have to go here again? It's really very simple. The rfl at any time can request access to a players hmrc information. If they refuse this, they're revoking the agreed terms of their players contract with the rfl, making it void. Meaning the player can't play any more, meaning how much they're being paid by the club completely ignorable in terms of the cap.

Unless the car was given without hmrc's knowledge, the rfl can go and find out whatever they want about it. This is why offshore payment policy loopholes were closed.

since Koukash has "confirmed" it was a gift, the onus will be on Koukash to prove it had nothing to do with his role as director at the club, nor it had anything to do with the player being an employee of the club (nigh on impossible.) If that can't be proven, then the rfl will count it in a cap calculation, to what extent, with what exemptions applying, depending on who owns the car, if it's rented etc.

I'm sorry but that is just incorrect. The salary cap covers

5.6.8 unless otherwise excluded in accordance with Clauses 5.7, the Gross value of all other amounts that Accrue to the Player during the Salary Cap Year (whether pursuant to the Playing Contract or otherwise) in consideration for or otherwise on account of the Player’s provision of playing (or related) services to the Club in that Salary Cap Year, including (without limitation), allowances; bonuses (whether discretionary or otherwise); disbursements; expenses; fringe benefits; incentives; insurance premiums; loans; pension contributions; and any other amounts determined by the HSCR to Accrue to the Player in consideration for the playing (or related services) he is providing to the Club in that Salary Cap Year. Where necessary, the HSCR shall determine the deemed Gross value of the relevant provisions for the purposes of calculating the Player’s Salary Cap Value.

What it doesn't cover is third party bonuses/awards made through the club such as
The following items may be excluded in the calculation of the Salary Cap Value of a Player: 

Prize Money 

5.7.1 the Gross value of any of the following payments that may Accrue to the Player during the Salary Cap Year: 

(a) any share of the official prize money paid by the RFL to the Club as a result of the Club’s performance in the Super League competition (provided that full details of such prize money bonuses are submitted to the HSCR at the time that the Player’s playing contract is submitted); 

(b) any share of the official prize money paid by the RFL to the Club as a result of the Club’s performance in the Challenge Cup competition (provided that full details of such prize money bonuses are submitted to the HSCR at the time that the Player’s playing contract is submitted); and/or 

(c) any share of the official prize money paid by the RFL to the Club as a result of the Club’s performance in the World Club Challenge competition (provided that full details of such prize money bonuses are submitted to the HSCR as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event no later than seven days prior to the World Club Challenge competition). 

Comment to Clause 5.7.1: For example, where a Club contracts to pay a Super League bonus to a Player, such Super League bonus being a share of the prize money paid by the RFL to the Club based upon the Club’s success in the Super League during the relevant Salary Cap Year, the value of such Super League bonus will be excluded from the calculation of the Salary Cap Value for that Player. 

5.7.2 the Gross value of any bonus payments that may Accrue to the Player during the Salary Cap Year if he wins the annual Man-of-Steel award (or any other similar individual award) or any Man-of-the-Match awards in that Salary Cap Year; 

Notice that all awards, every single one of them, which the RFL specify not only are have a known value, but are also awarded by a third party.

As for ambiguity, well yes that would be the case if not for the article stating that the RFL/compliance officer is the final arbiter on what counts and it's SC value.

If the SC were the SC as was sold to the public, I.e it does what it was supposed to do and what we were told it would do then there is no doubt whatsoever that under whatever circumstances this is and SC applicable item. If it is the paper tiger I have long argued it is, then the RFL can ignore it. But we can't pretend they are ignoring it because they rules state they will or should, and let's not pretend they are ignoring it because they have missed a loophole and can't punish it, and let's not pretend they aren't punishing it because they have decided this is within the rules and spirit of the cap. If they don't punish it, they are making a conscious decision not to punish something they can punish because it's a fight they don't want.

Or how about informing the rfl instead of showing off his flamboyance on social media

Informing the rfl about what?