Best result is for Salford to complete takeover discussions and retain their players and a place in SL. Any other outcome is disastrous for the competition and TV deals. Sick of hearing all this negativity. We should be talking RL up because IMG aren't.

Looks like Salford have today managed to pay their players' wages for January.

According to reports the next key date is a week on Sunday, Sunday 9th February, when they have to have registered their players for their cup game against Midlands Hurricanes. It follows that to do so they will only be able to play and register players within their imposed salary cap.

The 9th February it is then. Watch out for last minute player sales and if there are any it is likely to involve Sneyd in which case do not rule out Leigh making a move.

Salford have to get the investment/take-over agreed, approved by RL and rescue finance in place in their bank account straight away before the start of the season. Whilst some things can happen in business fairly quickly, take-overs generally take much longer.

I fear that for Salford it is all not going to happen quickly enough, if at all.

I suppose they could also sit out players for the beginning of the SL season too if they're convinced the takeover is going to happen. Still spending money on contracts though, so would be interesting to see if the sustainability cap might be further reduced if it drags on.

Mick, my reading of the situation is that they cannot sit players out as you suggest. Players who are not registered will become free agents because they will not be paid. It follows that players who are registered must have a combined salary below or at the limit of the imposed salary cap. They cannot have paid players outside the salary cap limit. this is why they would have to sell.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding the position.

I've got a bit of history in employment law, but it's been a while so I'm only 80% sure on what I'm saying here.

I believe the RFL have jurisdiction over players salaries. However, players are only players in the eyes of the salary cap regulations once they play a competitive game for the club. Until then they're just employees of the club. The RFL can refuse to register players if it would make the club break the salary cap rules.

I believe that if Salford chose to sit players to avoid registering them, then the player could, in theory, claim breach of contract as it could be demonstrated that they were signed to be part of the playing squad and that failing to register them is detrimental to their careers. I think it would be up to players to pursue that line themselves with the club and at employment tribunal if necessary.

If Salford were unable to make payroll at any point they would automatically find themselves in breach of contract and players would become free agents.

This should all be taken with a pinch of salt as I don't have detailed information on the regulations involved, but it is unlikely that the RFL have it within their remit to withhold the right of Salford to employ people in non-playing situations, which is what it would be if they don't register the players.

That being said, it could well be within the remit of the RFL to suggest that if Salford honour the contracts of players without registering them then they have not in fact reduced their costs in any meaningful way and their sustainability cap could be further reduced to compensate for that.


All in all, it's very complicated for Salford if the takeover doesn't happen soon and they have the sustainability cap lifted. There could be areas that would have to be clarified by tribunal or in the courts. They're also going against the spirit of what the RFL have asked of them.

Mick, in addition to all you have just posted there is the issue of the players themselves. They are the collateral damage in all of this. The longer Salford's situation drags on without a successful outcome at the end of it then the more the players are prejudiced with limited choice for those who have to be sold as to where they go and with moves having to take place at, potentially, very short notice with the obvious impact upon them and their families of sudden upheaval caused by last minute transfers.

Great posts, both Mick & Jack.

A question in innocence (in fact two): if a player has appeared in a competitive fixture during the term of his present contract, does that mean that he is counted on quota?

If so, could The Devils dodge that by asking everyone to sign fresh contracts (on the same rub) or would the contracts be deemed contiguous by the authorities?

I'm not sure on either of those questions.

What I do know is that the government is involved with quota players through the visa system, which will always make things more rigid. The only way I've heard of getting quota players off the books is by loaning them out to another clubs,

My very unqualified answers are yes, they would count on the quota. This is why the Cup game is a crucial deadline for Salford.

Secondly, yes. Certainly a contract of employment can be changed (I suppose this would amount to all intents and purposes as a fresh contract) but only with the agreement of both employee and employer.

Thanks for the reply Mick. Bongser realises now that he muddied the water on the question by misusing the word quota whereby he meant cap. In this light, please reply again as your knowledge in this area is intriguing (and would make B seem "dead clever" when opining in The Egerton (Salford) tomorrow night!)