In theory yes. But in practice it would be a lot more complex than that. Not least because we are in the middle of a season.

There is also the question of who would be taking action against who

Well I guess the ball is in the RFL's court now.

Koukash proving he hasn't changed after all. Pathetic.

MK - "If they start deducting points from us, I'll press the red button and go for all-out war."

Sounding more like Dr Evil every day.

think he was sat down in a chair with a large white cat on his knee

obviously fearing he is gonna be upstaged by his mate at Leigh, Dr nob.ed is back!

poor things are just getting picked on by jealous people!

If a club does not agree to abide by the regulations all other clubs agree to abide by then no court on the planet can force a governing body to accept a club/body for membership. Just like a night club owner reserving the right to refuse admission if you wear a red tie, its not unlawful just a condition of membership.

It a condition of membership is unlawful it is unenforceable. Whether agreed to or not. If the Salary Cap is judged an unreasonable restraint of trade it would be unlawful for the clubs to abide by that condition and as such it would be unenforceable whether agreed to or not.

If a club refused to accept any penalty for breach of the rules that were set out (ie salary cap / additional payments by a third party)
could they be excluded from the competition ??

Surely by joining the competition, they are agreeing to work within certain parameters ?

Everyone should have the right to appeal but, in this case, the alleged additional payments to payments are clearly against the agreed rules and it appears the Dr K has decided to have a measuring contest with Red Hall.

There is no doubt that anyone with such wealth usually does well in court but, would any victory for deliberately flouting the rules be good for the game.

I'm not sure what form a club refusing to accept punishment would take?

That the rules were agreed to and that they form part of the conditions of membership aren't really in dispute. The dispute would be over the legality of the rules themselves. If they were judged and unreasonable restraint of trade then they would be unenforceable.

It does seem as I'd the Dr has broken these conditions, but if said conditions are unlawful, then you can't really punish someone for actively not breaking the law in the way you wanted them to