Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:33 am  

tigerman1231 wrote:

Yea lets give the cheats their points back.

Consistency is all we ask for, something the RFL have been unable or willing to do?

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:19 pm  

smudgersmith wrote:

Little worried in 8th place tigerman?

If you want to see worried and mild hysteria casoforum is a good read.

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:27 pm  

tigerman1231 wrote:

Yea lets give the cheats their points back.
Koucash admitted live on sky to making extra payments on the side.........
Should deduct 4 more points.

Ok, please do tell he forum the complete facts of this case as you seem to know a heck of alot judging by your rather silly rant. You clearly know zero about what's happened so until they release the details then try contain your hatred towards our great club.

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:45 pm  

Kiyan wrote:

If you want to see worried and mild hysteria casoforum is a good read.

It feels like the Rangi Chase/work permit/legal eagles discussion all over again.

Various Castleford scaffolders, fishmongers, and professional layabouts donning their wigs and dribbling their vast knowledge of everything law related around a subject they've mainly constructed in their own heads rather than find out the facts. It's like a sociology study piece in conspiracy and stupidity.

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:56 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

It feels like the Rangi Chase/work permit/legal eagles discussion all over again.

Various Castleford scaffolders, fishmongers, and professional layabouts donning their wigs and dribbling their vast knowledge of everything law related around a subject they've mainly constructed in their own heads rather than find out the facts. It's like a sociology study piece in conspiracy and stupidity.

Not I, though.
The decision making process within the RFL is a dark and murky hidden world of reasoning.
Koukash says Salford didn't exceed the cap. The RFL says they did. Neither are exactly reliable fonts of honesty and clarity.
My view is that it would seem odd to make payments to players through third party companies unless the intention was to hide the payments for some reason. If they kept within the cap, why not just pay them normally?

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:03 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

If they kept within the cap, why not just pay them normally?

For the same reason that some teams play on the margins of the laws of the game, to get a potential advantage over your opponents .... and (perhaps) you do it because you believe that's what others are doing too ?

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:09 pm  

shinymcshine wrote:

For the same reason that some teams play on the margins of the laws of the game, to get a potential advantage over your opponents .... and (perhaps) you do it because you believe that's what others are doing too ?

But what is the potential advantage of you are under the cap anyway?

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:27 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Not I, though.
The decision making process within the RFL is a dark and murky hidden world of reasoning.
Koukash says Salford didn't exceed the cap. The RFL says they did. Neither are exactly reliable fonts of honesty and clarity.
My view is that it would seem odd to make payments to players through third party companies unless the intention was to hide the payments for some reason. If they kept within the cap, why not just pay them normally?

Unlike half of Castleford, I'm no legal 'expert' but I do know the difference between evidence and opinion. Wishful thinking on your part doesn't make it true. MK has already said that with the third party payments we were still under the cap, and the issue that has been debated today is all about the registering and de-registering of players. Specifically Jake Mullaney and Kevin Locke. Which is where the alleged breach took place.

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:42 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

Unlike half of Castleford, I'm no legal 'expert' but I do know the difference between evidence and opinion. Wishful thinking on your part doesn't make it true. MK has already said that with the third party payments we were still under the cap, and the issue that has been debated today is all about the registering and de-registering of players. Specifically Jake Mullaney and Kevin Locke. Which is where the alleged breach took place.

Interestingly, although I do work in employment law, this is not a legal case. It's a case of whether or not a club failed to abide by competition rules. There is no legal argument.
If Salford were still under the cap my understanding is that it's okay to pay players through third parties. The questions are:
1. Why would you want or need to?
2. If the payments were under the salary cap, why didn't the club declare them to the RFL?

I also remember Martin Koukash saying he would sue Gareth Hock, Leigh Centurians and Kevin Locke. Just because he says something, doesn't mean it is true. He says the club didn't break the cap. The RFL say they did. This appeal will decide who is right.
Edit - I'm also pretty sure his comments that he would break the cap haven't helped his cause.

Re: Points Appeal : Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:54 pm  

Oh fek who woke Rumpole of the Lace Market up.