RP London

Its a false premise to say no one has been punished before... 1 it's a different scenario 2 it doesn't matter anyway, you can still punish them as long as it is within the stated rules... Yes you'll then have to continue in that vein but the mood of the clubs appears to be they'll live with that but this is unacceptable... Which it is

Exactly... First thing you'd say was "I wanted to but this is what the rfl said, oh and here's the paper trail to prove it"..

Or no not picking a good team because even if we win this we lose the next one so stuff it... (Or if you're Rowley just "reasons")

I'm agreeing with you... We need the whole story out there, that's on the media to get it out or the rfl to come back at him, as we've all said on here.

I agree with you that the full narrative needs to be given but it is the restrictions that Rowley is arguing so you can't ignore them.

Can someone tell Rod Studd that he doesn't have to just talk.. silence is ok

It's the full story thats needed. The restrictions is what Rowley is toy throwing about.. but they are in because SRD owe quite a lot of money.. get the full story out rather than a snippet but you cannot ignore the restrictions, what is Rowley "protesting" about otherwise?

No but the restrictions allowed him to do it and "have an argument" which is why they're being brought up.. I think we all know that he is being a big baby rather than anything else, he could easily have played a team that wasn't the one last night within the restrictions, he just chose not to. The RFL shouldn't lift them.. he should grow up and realise that and play within them until the takeover is complete.. why should the RFL trust anything coming out of SRD at the moment without verifiable proof.. I wouldn't.

Exactly.. he wont throw the cup game because if things move forward Salford might actually have a chance there, and won't want to be knocked out early... Throw a couple of league games as all you have to do is make the 6 at the end and you are in with a chance (as Leeds have proven umpteen times)... It's no coincidence and that would be obvious to a court and very easily argued.

It will be very interesting to see what happens/is said this afternoon on sky at the Warrington game

You don't need to prove it legally, these are operational rules for playing in a comp. You sign up to them when you agree to play in that comp. Don't sign up if you don't want to be held to account. Also it would be really easy to do this legally, physio notes/reports etc. massive set of injuries after handing the paperwork in... You don't need exact proof it becomes weight of proof same as any criminal case.. weight of proof can be as damning as actually getting caught red handed.

Then proof of funds should have been really easy to give, the fact it hasn't been done is stupid on Salford and the new owners part.. if you buy a house you don't move forward until there is a mortgage agreement for the buyer or proof of funds is given, same with a business, it really isn't that difficult, it's also the way it always works so shouldn't be news to business owners. It's not Mad that was why it was called an advance.. but the fact Salford couldn't even do the decent thing, which is to stand by what they agreed to to be able to get the advance, without throwing their toys out for the pram is embarrassing.

I agree, totally happy for the Aston ban at Eagles and surprised Eagles didn't get a sanction. For me I think Rowley should be looking at a ban for bringing the game into disrepute, Salford points deduction sort of irrelevant with IMG maybe, fine to add to the debt maybe irrelevant to (especially if this guy does have "throw away money", if he doesn't and this is all bull then a fine just goes into the admin never to be seen again pot anyway).... Dock IMG points maybe.

So where are the funds to pay the loan back to the rfl, which is a stipulation of lifting the cap I believe... Proof of funds would have done or a bank guarantee.. both can be done in minutes.. this is not on the rfl.

I think for most of us it's the fact there is a time and a place for them to speak out which often is the problem.. that also applies to when the time and place is right to do so, which is now.. and fair play to Derek and the others.now following for that.. I hope more do soon.

This bit has totally been brought on by their own actions..

This is a joke, 10 minutes in and I'm about to turn it off... Utter ridiculous situation.

There are ways and means without transferring actual cash and they take no time at all to sort.. if they wanted to. That's where the concern is.. And journos have missed an awful lot around this so far..

It's not really.. they're talking proof of funds not transfer of payment.. they are 2 separate things.. with proof of funds and bank lines etc you can prove that the money is coming but yes it takes time for it all to happen, however, these finance vehicles are guarantees so you then work off the back of those as actual payment. When I worked at GE commercial finance and HSBC we used the vehicles all the time as it was vast sums of money. This really isn't that complicated at all if you know what your dealing with. The fact they cannot show this sort of stuff IS a concern. I hope it's misplaced but it is a concern.

He yanked off the corrs.. blimey...

Out of interest what, in the end, can they do to avoid this kind of problem? Genuine questions because I'm not sure. They can phone, turn up on the doorstep, bang their fist in the table but they cannot pick the team in the end. Rowley can be told all he likes but if Salford, who actually pay his wages, don't insist he picks the best team then he can do this (which shows Salford are to blame IMHO which you also acknowledge). There are rules about playing your strongest team and sanctions for doing it, but (and this is an assumption so please correct me if I'm wrong) they only get put in place post the event... As that is then the "crime" as it's technically not been commited yet. I don't think lifting sanctions is a good idea until they are comfortable with the due diligence progress, lifting them reapplying IMHO would be a worse look and show a lack of good sense and leadership too. Maybe they should postpone the game but is that a great precedent to set? I'll bash the RFL as much as anyone when it is due, they don't show leadership or organisational skills and their governance is severely lacking but I genuinely am not sure what more they could do.

1. Will Wigan beat Leigh? Yes 2. Will Leeds score more points than St Helens? No 3. Will there be a red card in the Leeds V Wakefield game? No 4. Will Toulouse score more than 30 points? No 5. Will Goole Vikings score more than 16 points in their game? Yes Tie breaker: predict the crowd at the Wigan v Leigh game. 19,789

just get it right then you dont need to worry

Its a good big stadium and central to the city. Sheffield is relatively easy to get to from across the country (Hull being on the edge etc). In reality it was a tongue in cheek joke because it was just down the road from me.. I would be shocked if the RFL picked it, but I do think they should be looking at it to host events as it did fine with the England v Greece world cup match, its hosted the womens football internationals recently etc so its not a bad place to be going to.

My problem on this is that they actually dont seem to ask the questions.. plenty of questions to ask like "any chance of knowing when the ashes might be on and where"... but there never seems to be the type of questions asked that we ask here.. an easy job would be to take half the threads on here where we are battering around what we "think" is happening and put it to IMG/RFL/clubs etc to try to get to the bottom of it.. TRL and LE just appear full of opinion pieces now