On issues like this i much prefer the DRs approach of openness as opposed to the usual smoke & mirrors & knives in the back approach that we usually have to put up with in RL

There seems to be some very big assumptions on here on the evidence of a picture. Any one of the following could be true:



-the car has been bought for the player by Koukash, completely at random

-the car has been bought for the player by Koukash, as part of agreed contractual obligation.

-the car has been bought for the player by Koukash, without contract and a wink wink.

-the car has been bought by the club, and subsequently rented to player as part as contractual obligation.

-the car has been bought by Koukash, and subsequently rented to the player on the request of the player.

-the car was bought by Koukash and let the player borrow it for the weekend.



Each has different cap implications. The long and short of it is: the rfl can take offence to it if they really want to. Given the rumours that I've seen Salford aren't being granted the exemption to the 50% turnover rule this year, this could just be part of the whole issue.



How many rumours involve players being seen at a dealership trying out their new BMW over the years?

actually, the reason behind the gift doesnt change anything from an SC point of view. Strictly speaking anything whatsoever that transfers from anyone at all involved with Koukash to anyone at all involved with Evalds would have a cap value.



Even if Evalds were to borrow it for a weekend it is a benefit so would have some sort of cap value.

Will be interesting to see if the RFL react at all. Koukash usually uses Twitter to start a dialogue with them.

IIRC didn't Melbourne & their sponsors buying players boats, cars and home renovations count towards their salary cap breach?

Reasoning does matter. If he was awarded it because he won Salfords Young player of the year (for example) it is cap exempt. If it was a sign on fee for signing a new contract, that does count on the cap (and as he's a renewing player it would count entirely on this years cap). If it was rented the rfl would need to rule how much of the value of the car could be deemed exempt as part of travel allowances which are also exempt.



Different cap outcomes, different situations.

Why is an award cap exempt? You could have hundreds of awards. Top tackler, top yard maker, best disciplinary etc .. etc. Isn't the prize money exemption related to the club's prize money? ie, if the club wins prize money it can give to players, cap free?

Bizarre I know. The m.o.m. Awards being off cap seems ludicrous ...

Wow - that is incredible! The man of the match is awarded by the club and doesn't count!!



So you could have a player on £1,000 a year contract with a £1million bonus for each man of the match award that the club itself awards!!! It would make some interesting analysis of (all) the club man of the match awards this past season....

And that's got unveiled earlier this year, as part of these disputes they were having.





Doc himself said its prize for player of the year, me, I think it's a sweetener to a highly rated kid on a low paid contract, to prevent a Theo style situation arising, without actually giving him a better contract at this point

Though it does explain why certain players always seem to get the m.o.m. award even if they've had a bit of a stinker

Salary cap will be defunct soon anyway