Salary cap row - Wire distance themselves

[Middleman]

2013 Puletua reportedly paid £128k per annum at Saints, they offered the 34 yr old a one-year extension whereas Salford under Noble  offered him a two-year deal. 2014-15 supposedly £80k per year . he was one of the last of the 12 signings for Salford that season.

I believe Green's claims of wrongdoing stemmed from the disparity in contracts , but time to time players approaching retirement accept a lower but longer contract as it gives greater security,  so not proof in itself .  

He made 26 appearances for the club in 2014, but was not named in Harris's 2015 squad  although legally contracted to the club for another yr ,

 

To my knowledge Puletua's claim for unpaid money wasn't won during the court case, but that is where verbal claims for money to be paid for various consultancy work , including acting as a introducer/ agent to target other  players  to sign was aired. which I guess has ultimately led to the charge?

 

Either way its looked at it's messy.  

One presumes that the Salford Owner didn't walk into RL with an in depth knowledge of ' cap swerving scams ' .so  shouldn't there also be similar threats of penalties against- Agents or Players if complicit in any arrangement is proven ? 

 

it certainly did not result in dominant performances , and he club has learned the hard way with a Aldi priced 2016 squad significantly outperforming it's 2014-15 counterparts.  

[Dave T]

2013 Puletua reportedly paid £128k per annum at Saints, they offered the 34 yr old a one-year extension whereas Salford under Noble  offered him a two-year deal. 2014-15 supposedly £80k per year . he was one of the last of the 12 signings for Salford that season.

I believe Green's claims of wrongdoing stemmed from the disparity in contracts , but time to time players approaching retirement accept a lower but longer contract as it gives greater security,  so not proof in itself .  

He made 26 appearances for the club in 2014, but was not named in Harris's 2015 squad  although legally contracted to the club for another yr ,

 

To my knowledge Puletua's claim for unpaid money wasn't won during the court case, but that is where verbal claims for money to be paid for various consultancy work , including acting as a introducer/ agent to target other  players  to sign was aired. which I guess has ultimately led to the charge?

 

Either way its looked at it's messy.  

One presumes that the Salford Owner didn't walk into RL with an in depth knowledge of ' cap swerving scams ' .so  shouldn't there also be similar threats of penalties against- Agents or Players if complicit in any arrangement is proven ? 

 

it certainly did not result in dominant performances , and he club has learned the hard way with a Aldi priced 2016 squad significantly outperforming it's 2014-15 counterparts.  

Would it be classed as normal for Saints to offer Puletua an extension on reduced terms? Just because he was on £128k one year do players ever take cuts at their existing clubs?

[Oxford]

There's a thread on SRD crashing the salary cap and another on Wire shifting uncomfortably to the side over the issue, but which is which?

[The Parksider]

The rfl obviously have a file of evidence to issue a charge.

 

Indeed Koukash is keen to see that as soon as possible and complains he hasn't been afforded that.

 

The RFL claim this isn't forwarded until a set number of days before the Tribunal date is set. 

 

This is an interesting point. Surely any court case would purely be about them being treated fairly not the salary cap itself. Remember Salford have signed up to be in SL and the rules involved.

 

Indeed nothing in the process the RFL are undertaking as regards Salford is seen by Koukash as "fair", but if you will forgive me, if I quote you the points he makes on "fairness" then it will be my biggest post ever and me and the lads don't want that

 

Maybe the clue to this all is the Koukash quote in the opening post that he and Simon Moran sink bags of money into Superleague and they should have a say in the way Superleague is run.

 

This is unfinished business from January 2014. 

 

Koukash was one of six "Rebel" clubs who lost a crucial vote on the suture of Superleague 6-7 who according to Mr. Sadler in January 2014 "Are (still) determined to create a change in the way Superleague is run".......

 

This alleged breach of salary cap in which a "Championship Charlie" who the rebels believe should have neither a say on Superleague or get any SKY TV funding, has seemingly pulled the strings of the RFL to get this salary cap charge, will infuriate Koukash who along with the rebels doesn't think that the Championship should have been handed such a large slice of the TV deal, and that the RFL should not be having such a large say as to how Superleague is run.

 

I therefore suggest all the evidence is that this is part of a proxy war between rich  Superleague Rebels.v.The RFL and the Championship.

[Dave T]

Indeed Koukash is keen to see that as soon as possible and complains he hasn't been afforded that.

The RFL claim this isn't forwarded until a set number of days before the Tribunal date is set.

Indeed nothing in the process the RFL are undertaking as regards Salford is seen by Koukash as "fair", but if you will forgive me, if I quote you the points he makes on "fairness" then it will be my biggest post ever and me and the lads don't want that

Maybe the clue to this all is the Koukash quote in the opening post that he and Simon Moran sink bags of money into Superleague and they should have a say in the way Superleague is run.

This is unfinished business from January 2014.

Koukash was one of six "Rebel" clubs who lost a crucial vote on the suture of Superleague 6-7 who according to Mr. Sadler in January 2014 "Are (still) determined to create a change in the way Superleague is run".......

This alleged breach of salary cap in which a "Championship Charlie" who the rebels believe should have neither a say on Suyperleague or any SKY TV finding, has seemingly pulled the strings of the RFL to get this salary cap charge will infuriate Koukash who along with the rebels doesn't think that the Championship should have been handed such a large slice of the TV deal, and that the RFL should not be having such a large say as to how Superleague is run.

I therefore suggest all the evidence is that this is part of a proxy war between rich Superleague rebels.v.The RFL and the Championship.

im less sure it is a concerted effort by a group of rebels ut dont discount that, remember this isnt Koukash on the offensive but the defensive and he will rightly defend his actions.

The way to strengthen your rebellion is to get more people on side, this is unlikely to get him favours.

I dont ever recall the likes of Moran, McManus or Hetherington being upset with the RFL, I recall Lenegan being peed off about some stuff.

As has been mentioned, the clubs agreed for the sc to remain as is now the marquee player rule is in.

It is easy and fun to come up with rebellions and conspiracies, but there is genuinely not a shred of evidence. Kukash vocal and comes across a little spoilt but he seems to be calming down and focussing on improving his club.

[The Parksider]

1. Remember this isnt Koukash on the offensive but the defensive and he will rightly defend his actions.

2. The way to strengthen your rebellion is to get more people on side, this is unlikely to get him favours. I dont ever recall the likes of Moran, McManus or Hetherington being upset with the RFL, I recall Lenegan being peed off about some stuff. 

 

3. As has been mentioned, the clubs agreed for the sc to remain as is now the marquee player rule is in.

4. It is easy and fun to come up with rebellions and conspiracies, but there is genuinely not a shred of evidence. 

 

1. Did you not read his quote that he will take this to the highest court in the land????

 

2. How am I supposed to accept your "recollections" against Martyn Sadler's considered and more expert view that the six clubs would go on to fight their case for Superleague to be run differently? 

 

3. So your making the gross assumption that because there was a unanimous vote to keep the cap there is now peace and harmony???

 

4. So Martyn Sadler made it up in his article in January 2014??

 

There's absolutely no need to answer this post, you have IIRC several times stated that Mr. Sadler's views are but those of one man and are no more valid than anyone else's views.

 

You won't shift my opinion that Mr. Sadlers has a lot more of the facts and information than you have.

[Dave T]

1. Did you not read his quote that he will take this to the highest court in the land????

2. How am I supposed to accept your "recollections" against Martyn Sadler's considered and more expert view that the six clubs would go on to fight their case for Superleague to be run differently?

3. So your making the gross assumption that because there was a unanimous vote to keep the cap there is now peace and harmony???

4. So Martyn Sadler made it up in his article in January 2014??

There's absolutely no need to answer this post, you have IIRC several times stated that Mr. Sadler's views are but those of one man and are no more valid than anyone else's views.

You won't shift my opinion that Mr. Sadlers has a lot more of the facts and information than you have.

when any of these rumoured rebellions actually amount to anything i will start to give credibility to journo's rumours.

Your prerogative to believe there is a civil war going on within SL, there appears to be no evidence if that at all. But hey, if Martyn suggests it...

[Adeybull]

This is unfinished business from January 2014. 

 

Koukash was one of six "Rebel" clubs who lost a crucial vote on the suture of Superleague 6-7 who according to Mr. Sadler in January 2014 "Are (still) determined to create a change in the way Superleague is run"........

If I recall correctly, Bradford was one of the clubs that voted FOR the resolution?  At the time, Bradford was being represented by the "gang of three" whom it appeared (and, from discussions with them I can attest) clearly believed the RFL was looking with favour upon their proposal to acquire the club.  Shortly after the vote, again if I recall correctly, various significant events took place, and the "gang of three" said they felt obliged to walk away, giving the clear impression that something dramatic had happened regarding their relationship with the RFL?

 

All from recollection, and of course as time passes the stories grow hazy and the legends come true...but you DO wonder what might have happened had the then-representatives of Bradford elected - and felt able to - oppose the proposals? Although whether it would have been in their interests of a cash-strapped club to join the rebels is a different question?

[Scubby]

when any of these rumoured rebellions actually amount to anything i will start to give credibility to journo's rumours.

Your prerogative to believe there is a civil war going on within SL, there appears to be no evidence if that at all. But hey, if Martyn suggests it...

 

I agree with this. MK has a lot of things he is unhappy about and some of these things will get support from some sides (e.g. Marquee signing and IL at Wigan) and some other issues will have sympathy from other club chairman. I see no semblance of a split in SL.

 

I think the danger is that the RFL will hand out a punishment which will provoke MK to challenge the whole SC, implementation and restraint of trade in the courts. We will then see any SL clubs with potential skeletons in the cupboard squirming and lobbying the RFL for a round the table accord. There is then a real chance the SC will be no more in a real enforceable model.

[Derwent]

1. Did you not read his quote that he will take this to the highest court in the land????

 

 

 

He threatens to take everyone to court every 5 minutes, I'm not aware of anybody who has actually been sued by him despite all of his bluster.

 

Secondly, on what grounds would he take court action ? The EU Commission published their ruling on the whole issue of salary caps, financial restrictions etc when the FIFA Financial Fair Play rules were being developed. Their ultimate point was that, in sport, such things are not unlawful so long as they are pro-competitive and allow clubs to compete on an equal footing. They summed it up in one short sentence  - "Clubs have a direct interest not only in there being other teams, clubs and athletes to compete against, but also in their economic viability as competitors".

[Oxford]

He threatens to take everyone to court every 5 minutes, I'm not aware of anybody who has actually been sued by him despite all of his bluster.

 

 

Are you confusing him with Donald Trump? Most of the times he has mentioned going to court I think it was because someone else was taking him there!

[Oxford]

.

 

I think the danger is that the RFL will hand out a punishment which will provoke MK to challenge the whole SC, implementation and restraint of trade in the courts. We will then see any SL clubs with potential skeletons in the cupboard squirming and lobbying the RFL for a round the table accord. There is then a real chance the SC will be no more in a real enforceable model.

Enforceable now but barely policeable, what 's the difference? Those skeletons are squirming already! And on a 7-6 split that is a divide in SL itself. You do have to ask who voted to keep it the way it was and who wanted change? But more importantly you need to ask why?

[Derwent]

Are you confusing him with Donald Trump? Most of the times he has mentioned going to court I think it was because someone else was taking him there!

 

When he held his infamous expletive riddled press conference after the Kevin Locke episode he was suing, in no particular order, the RFL, Kevin Locke, Tony Puletua, both players' agents, Salford City Council, journalists that had written about him and anyone and everyone who had defamed him on social media and internet forums. HTH.

[The Parksider]

He threatens to take everyone to court every 5 minutes,

 

Dave's point was Kooks is on the defensive. So no matter who he threatens how many times, the fact he has the money means these threats are aggresive and real. The fact he may not actually go to court may well be his threats work...... maybe as a professional you have seen this when disputes are of a value above small claims. The system favours the "I have the money" men which is what he says.

 

I agree with this. MK has a lot of things he is unhappy about and some of these things will get support from some sides (e.g. Marquee signing and IL at Wigan) and some other issues will have sympathy from other club chairman. I see no semblance of a split in SL.

 

The split was reported by Martyn Sadler and therefore you can either take this knowledgable gentleman at his word or not, or maybe he would like to comment personally??.

 

Six clubs were not happty with the financial distribution of the TV monies, or the league structure. That this was not a prolonged public fight which may account for you and Dave seeing no split, was because the six backed off knowing any fight then could have affected the TV deal.

 

Mr. Sadler "Rock the boat"

 

And so it may be that the RFL got their way. They won. The "Rebels" have to put up with it.

 

But to believe that they won't fight their cause another day doesn't stack up.

 

At some point the TV deal will be back on the agenda, and so will the league structure - how many of us think it will be around forever??

 

That is the time that the Rebels will be able to again put their case that the structure should be scrapped and SL clubs should have more of a say in running SL which was said at the time of the split and said last thursday by Koukash and said on behalf of Moran (and Smith did not refute that) so that has not gone away.

[sweaty craiq]

Really enjoyed your post Kris, thanks for the contribution

 

2. Beaumont asked if he could spend more on the cap and IIRC the RFL said yes go on spend another £300,000. Now he suggests he can spend more on Brierley just by asking again.

 

You can bet Koukash will pull the RFL up on that double standard. So much for strict cap enforcement.

 

The SC in the Championship is the same as SL without the funding, provided you personally cover the extra so any wealthy owner can put his hand in their pockets and pull together a SL squad - which is what will happen with Toulouse and Toronto.

[The Parksider]

If I recall correctly, Bradford was one of the clubs that voted FOR the resolution? All from recollection, and of course as time passes the stories grow hazy and the legends come true...but you DO wonder what might have happened had the then-representatives of Bradford elected - and felt able to - oppose the proposals? Although whether it would have been in their interests of a cash-strapped club to join the rebels is a different question?

 

2014

 

For: Bradford Castleford, Leeds, London, Saints, Wakefield and Widnes,

 

Against: Hull, HKR, Salford, Wigan, Wire, Huddersfield

 

Les Catalans abstained.

 

Now i do not know what clubs would vote today? I suspect the promise of every minite matters and consequent big crowds has worn very thin. nearly every Superleague club home game on the middle eights was a below average crowd. apart from Salford.v.Leigh

 

But if the clubs who would still be eligble to vote all voted the same, then the vote would be the other way.

 

Once again to believe all is well because they were not split over the salary cap vote may well be a gross assumption because those rebels look like they are in the majority now the tail is not wagging the dog. 

 

This may have been a Padge quote, I do apologise if not?

[Dave T]

Dave's point was Kooks is on the defensive. So no matter who he threatens how many times, the fact he has the money means these threats are aggresive and real. The fact he may not actually go to court may well be his threats work...... maybe as a professional you have seen this when disputes are of a value above small claims. The system favours the "I have the money" men which is what he says.

The split was reported by Martyn Sadler and therefore you can either take this knowledgable gentleman at his word or not, or maybe he would like to comment personally??.

Six clubs were not happty with the financial distribution of the TV monies, or the league structure. That this was not a prolonged public fight which may account for you and Dave seeing no split, was because the six backed off knowing any fight then could have affected the TV deal.

Mr. Sadler "Rock the boat"

And so it may be that the RFL got their way. They won. The "Rebels" have to put up with it.

But to believe that they won't fight their cause another day doesn't stack up.

At some point the TV deal will be back on the agenda, and so will the league structure - how many of us think it will be around forever??

That is the time that the Rebels will be able to again put their case that the structure should be scrapped and SL clubs should have more of a say in running SL which was said at the time of the split and said last thursday by Koukash and said on behalf of Moran (and Smith did not refute that) so that has not gone away.

im not convinced any time a club votes against an issue they should be branded rebels. Worst rebellion ever tbh if their dastatdly plot is to use the democratic processes in place to win a vote in future.

Clubs vote how they see fit and will try and influence others, the ones who voted against it may accept democracy at work nd ve moving on to the next big thing. This vote wasquite a while ago now!

[The Parksider]

This vote was quite a while ago now!

 

But the issues of too much money going to waste in the Championship and the big SL clubs being controlled by the RFL and their lapdogs have not gone away.

 

The new structure delivered neither P & R nor crowds

 

And the fact two lapdogs who supported the RFL, London and Bradford are out means that the Rebels can get their way next time.

 

And the fact Moran and Koukash are still named as retaining their objections to the RFL

 

But I'll leave the overwhelming weight of evidence the rebels alive and well and waiting to strike for you to carry on dismissing on no grounds at all......

[Spidey]

This vote was quite a while ago now!

Yes at the latest meeting there was a unanimous decision to keep the SC in its current structure and level - no more pesky "Rebels"

[Oxford]

"The new structure delivered neither P & R nor crowds"

This is for several reasons People don't like change especially if it is portrayed as complicated! So lots waited to see how it would work and watched in the hope it wouldn't. Then you have to market it till the cows come home. RL needs marketing about 4 times as much as similar products.

 

Other rugbies are available(just not as good!)

 

And Spidey the vote was unanimous last time out? Between chairman? In a meeting about RL?And involving the SC? And this didn't strike anyone as so amazing it should be a thread on its own?      

[Spidey]

"The new structure delivered neither P & R nor crowds"

This is for several reasons People don't like change especially if it is portrayed as complicated! So lots waited to see how it would work and watched in the hope it wouldn't. Then you have to market it till the cows come home. RL needs marketing about 4 times as much as similar products.

Other rugbies are available(just not as good!)

And Spidey the vote was unanimous last time out? Between chairman? In a meeting about RL?And involving the SC? And this didn't strike anyone as so amazing it should be a thread on its own?

The latest SL meeting of club chairmen

[Dave T]

But the issues of too much money going to waste in the Championship and the big SL clubs being controlled by the RFL and their lapdogs have not gone away.

 

The new structure delivered neither P & R nor crowds

 

And the fact two lapdogs who supported the RFL, London and Bradford are out means that the Rebels can get their way next time.

 

And the fact Moran and Koukash are still named as retaining their objections to the RFL

 

But I'll leave the overwhelming weight of evidence the rebels alive and well and waiting to strike for you to carry on dismissing on no grounds at all......

What evidence do you have that Moran is retaining his objection to the RFL.

 

Please don't use that Koukash quote as any kind of credible evidence. Koukash could have named every chairman, it wouldn't mean a single thing.

[Dave T]

Yes at the latest meeting there was a unanimous decision to keep the SC in its current structure and level - no more pesky "Rebels"

To be fair to Parky, the vote he is referring to is about the structure. You know, that stuff that went on two years ago.

[Saintslass]

Puletua didn't win his case against Salford.  He withdrew it, just as the others who took legal action against Salford around the same time lost their cases.  Saints would have quite possibly offered Puletua a reduced contract.  I know they offer rolling one year deals to older players, including their most treasured ones (Wello was on such a rolling contract for the last few years, as was Cunningham).  Puletua wasn't really performing at the back end of his stay with Saints and so his departure was no surprise to any of us.  Whether Salford offered him the same salary as he was on at Saints is anyone's guess but the two year deal might have also been influential given the financial stability that would have brought to him and his family at the end of his career.

 

I think it is interesting that the RFL opted to bring a case only after Marc Green complained.  The RFL helped Bradford out when they were in repeated difficulties prior to their eventual relegation by buying the lease of their ground (no update on whether they still hold that) and by not enforcing their own rules under licensing after Bradford went bust the first time in that season.  Now they are acting on Bradford's prompting. The cap is supposed to be live and therefore there is absolutely no reason for any potential infringements to be investigated up to two years after the event - except, of course, that Bradford's CEO has complained.  That smacks of a lack of impartiality at best and maybe something Dr K would bring up in any future court case.

 

I think challenging the RFL in court would be very interesting for the sport as a whole.  They have become a very closed organisation since the departure of Richard whatsisname.  Given the input ordinary fans have into the RFL coffers I don't think such an approach is appropriate and so it might be useful for them to have a kick up their collective backsides.  However, a court case would be negative publicity, something our sport could do without.

[Derwent]

 

 

I think it is interesting that the RFL opted to bring a case only after Marc Green complained. 

 

That's not true though, its a myth being peddled by some people. The RFL began this investigation as far back as October, even Koukash tweeted at the time that they were complying with the investigation.

 

Green's complaint was about the length of time it was taking, not that it wasn't being investigated.

 

Given the potential number of players it could involve it might have been a fairly complex investigation especially given the myriad of companies that Koukash operates through.