No need to be such a prick. It was a genuine rugby league enquiry on a gift made to a player. if you think people aren't going to question this given the calamitous way he runs the club then you're a bigger idiot than he is.

makes a change from the brown paper bag under the table



it will be seen as some as a 'bribe' but can it be prooved?



just another foolish tweet from the doctor who should have kept quiet, again

as the SC has been sold to us, it undoubtedly would.

for me that's it now, get rid of the cap, it's a farce, it's so easy to get around. Need to attract some Russian businessmen to take over a SL club, there must be some Russians who would love a bit of rugby league.

You really are in need of some 'stress relief.'



Do your littleman a favour littlerich. Nobody can be angry after launching some spaff...

Depends who it's from. If it's from Koukash, any of his companies, or any person or company associated with Salford then it counts on the cap. If not then it doesn't count.



Even if it counts on the cap, it might be more tax efficient for either the club or player to receive something like this rather than a higher wage or bonus. As I understand it something like this could be spread over the entirety of the player's contract.

I have utterly no idea how much a Maserati costs but let's say it's £100,000. If Evalds has (say) a 4 year contract then I think it could be spread £25k a year over the 4 years like a signing bonus.



If Koukash is saying it doesn't count then either:

1 - he's wrong

2 - the rules have changed, very quietly

3 - the rules have been ignored

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.