Which one of you is right ?


By Gareth Walker

12:01AM BST 27 Jul 2007





Castleford Tigers are consulting their legal advisors after describing Wigan's breach of last season's salary cap as "one of the biggest injustices in the history of the sport".


Wigan were docked four points and ordered to pay costs on Wednesday after an independent tribunal ruled that they exceeded the 2006 salary cap by £222,314. That season the Warriors finished three points above Castleford, who were relegated to National League One.


The Tigers publicly aired their concerns to the Rugby Football League about Wigan's spending midway through last year, when they recruited Great Britain prop Stuart Fielden and outbid Castleford for Australian halfback Michael Dobson.


"The loss to Castleford is impossible to quantify," Richard Wright, the Castleford chief executive, said. "Financially the loss of £800,000 from TV rights was only the starting point. Players had to leave the club and others had to accept pay cuts. Even worse is the effect on the club itself and our fans. Yet this injustice could have been avoided."


It seems that one of you has a selective memory ?

What's your point? Which part of my post was confusing?

If the maximum penalty for breaching the salary cap is 20 points, would that not mean Salford face a 40 point deduction if they breached the cap in two seasons as it might be considered two separate offences?

If I get caught speeding on a Monday, I can't just do the same on Tuesday and expect it to be treated as part of Monday's offence, even if I don't receive the paperwork from Monday's offence until Wednesday.

I would guess he means that the two points they were deducted in 2006 would have been deducted in 2005 instead, meaning they would have finished five points clear of Cas before any points deduction so the four points would have made no difference regarding Cas going down.

True, however it's the nature of the breach that's in question.

When Saints, Bradford and Halifax all breached in the same year, that was down to poorly worded rules regarding 3rd party payments and player image rights. Because the RFL were partly to blame for the breach due to poor wording of the rules the clubs ended up with just 2 point deductions.

If Salford have two sets of books and have therefore deliberately set out to not only breach the cap but to smash it into a million pieces, then the RFL have to hit them with the most severe penalty that they can. Also, Bradford and Halifax could take some form of legal action as had Salford been penalised during the season they committed the offences (2015) then Salford would have finished bottom of the middle 8's and the million pound game would have been at Odsal between the two of them. Go one further, if Salford were doing this back in 2014 then Bradford have even more reason to be aggrieved as they'd not have been relegated.

Still in that African River regards cheating I see.

I agree re the severity. This isn't like other cases in British RL and the only comparative example I can think of is the Melbourne case, which ended with large fines, large points deductions, club officials banned and some were even looking at criminal charges at one point.
I'm not sure re Bradford & Halifax taking legal advice. They'd have to prove the RFL were negligent in not uncovering the alleged deception before the end of the 2015 season. That would seem doubtful since all this came out with the Tony Puletua case.

If proved, this is THE most serious breach of operational rules as I can remember. I can't see what other case would warrant the maximum penalty so it has to be the full 20 points for me. As I've said previously, with the new system, give them a 15 point penalty for the regular season and a 5 point penalty in the 8's.

I know that it seems logical but, would the operational rules within SL allow for a deduction to be split 15 + 5.
If not, this in itself would be open to a legal challenge from Salford (or any other club found to be deliberately breaking the cap).

I would think that it would be a 20 point deduction for the season so that when the split occurred and remaining point deduction was carried over.

It seems to be the press that have decided the maximum penalty will be 20 points.
However, that has not come from the RFL.
The RFL statement says they have issues charges. Note the plural - more than one charge.
Each charge has a maximum penalty of 20 points, so they could be facing more than that. It could be that breaching the cap in two seasons has led to two charges, and therefore the maximum total penalty will be 40 points.
It could be that there is a separate charge for each player they have paid secretly (as each would be a separate offence), so it could be significantly higher than that.
Or it could be that they are found not guilty...

Wouldn't surprise me to see Koukash charged over his Twitter comments in the last 24 hours too. One abusinve tweet that wouldn't get past the swear filter on here and one saying he hates the RFL. He really is a fool.

is there something in the operational rules of the RFL that a club which takes legal action against the RFL has their membership of the RFL suspended for the duration of the legal action? Or is that just an urban myth?

Oh dear. This won't help him :- https://twitter.com/drmarwanK/status/706241402481602561

Oh dear. This won't help him :- https://twitter.com/drmarwanK/status/706241402481602561

Assuming that they were in the "qualifiers" exactly how would the deduction be "carried over", everyone starts level in the Middle 8.

If Koukash is that desperate to spend more money on Salford why doesn't he actually fund the Salford academy instead of going cap in hand to the fans and asking them to fund it?

Shows he still hasn't changed. Chasing instant success at all costs at the expense of building long term.

is Marwan getting a bit annoyed that Beaumont at Leigh seems to be taking his prize cock award off him?

I can't understand why the Salford fans are moaning and crying they are being picked on. Marwan knew there was a salary cap (although it appears not from day one!) and knows that all clubs are bound to abide with it or risk punishment. he's publicly stated he will break the cap, he's now found to have deliberately broken the cap by cheating- it clearly states in the rules that payments of this type must be declared as part of the cap. Salford aren't being picked on by the RFL, they are doing what they would do if they found any other club had done this. Other clubs have been dealt with under the rules as they stood at the time. When Wigan did what they did there were no rules to state that contracts couldn't be backloaded- there are now!!! That is why they weren't charged with breaking the cap but with breaking the "spirit" of the cap. It was like tax loopholes that people take advantage of - not against the rules but morally abhorrent.
As per the punishment - Salford were paying these players throughout the whole season and hence through both the regular and middle 8s. The punishment should reflect that.

Think this would be a good idea. It obviously depends on the severity of the breach (but it's looking like the most severe in the sport in this country for a while) if Salford start the middle 8s on zero, the new system is a farce and clubs might as well cheat as they don't have any punishment for the only meaningful part of the season.

How excruciating was it watching Hemmings and Clarke discuss this after the game on Friday?

Neither of them appear to have any idea about the events leading up to the charge. Hemmings was even asking why if the breaches are two years old they weren't picked up under the live cap so Salford could have been punished then.

Comes to something when supposed professional broadcasters about the sport haven't even bothered doing any basic research into the situation but still feel qualified to discuss it.

Was part of the RFL bye-laws, not sure if it still is. Salford would lose their RFL membership and therefore the ability to play in any RFL run competitions or receive any central funding IIRC if they sued the RFL.

Koukash is coming out of this looking like a spoiled child. You get the impression he's not used - in his business life at least - to hearing people tell him what he can and cannot do.

Absolutely. It was terrible. 2 people who are paid to understand the issues in our game don't even know the absolute basics of a big news story that had broken days beforehand and was reported by the organisation they work for.

Sadly it's not an isolated incident and exemplifies the shoddy and unprofessional nature of the Sky RL team at the moment.

There was a rule that you can't sue the RFL, Cas straight up told fans that at a meeting during the franchise era. I assume that rule is still in place, most leagues around the world have similar clauses.

No complaints from me, if Koukash was stupid enough to sanction paying Tony Puletua £120k for two-years with only £80k going on the cap and another £40k being paid via his other company (EuroMachTech and then refuse to pay the second years £40k meaning all this became public knowledge via a tribunal) then we deserve to be punished accordingly.

My only issue is the "punished accordingly" as when we accidentally fielded 14 players in 2013 we were given a £10k fine whereas previously St Helens had done the same and were only given £100 fine. Therefore, despite a precedent of previous point deductions against clubs who have been found guilty I am a little worried Salford's punishment will be far greater, for what reason I don't know.

It's hardly a precedent - the previous breaches were nothing like as egregious as this one is alleged to be; if indeed there is only one, which seems unlikely.

I don't understand. Wigan breached the cap by £222,000 in 2007, it was the biggest breach in Super League history. They were given a 4 points deduction, surely a precedent has been set. Salford are being charged with an alleged breach (or breaches) totalling (best case) £40k and (worst case) £80k. When I say best and worst case, I am unsure whether they can use 2015 against us as the whole reason behind Tony Puletua's very public fued and subsequent tribunal was due to non-payment.

Whether or not one seems unlikely or not, there is only evidence to suggest at this moment in time there is. Unless other players come forward with appropriate evidence, which I doubt as HMRC would jump straight on them, then we'll never know.

Wigan breached the cap with what they thought was a clever way around it, forestalling payments within a contract. They were also perfectly up front about what they had done. Also, none of the Wigan directors had stood up a couple of years earlier and boasted that they would break the salary cap.

What Salford have done is equivalent to Melbourne's cheating in the NRL. Had Puletua not taken the club to an employment tribunal, the payments from the third party would not have become a matter of public record. Given Koukash's previous statements on the matter, it's hard to argue that this wasn't a deliberate and calculated attempt to defraud the live cap by hiding third payments from a related company.

Comparing Wigan and Salford's (alleged) breaches of the cap is like comparing Greg Eden to Billy Slater. They're the same in some ways, but in other important ones they are massively different.