Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

RFL needs to reform access to SL for Co-Op C. Clubs


  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#181 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,226 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Sep 14 2010, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Since Widnes dropped out of Super League, Rugby Unions crowds have gone through the roof. If you want to believe that's coincidence it's up to you.

Since I read Ricky Hatton's book he's been battered twice and found out as a Cokehead, coincidence? Again that's up to you.

Since Jbd left the board, the number of posts from you has massively increased, coincidence....


Since jbd has left the board bulletproof has appeared aping pretty much all you say, and often coming on the post after you - coincidence??






#182 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:20 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 14 2010, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Since jbd has left the board bulletproof has appeared aping pretty much all you say, and often coming on the post after you - coincidence??


Haha. Nice try Parky. But me and Max are both long term posters on a number of boards.

Considering the post which outed jbd as another sad sock puppet account of yours was addressed to me your post has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Back on topic before you embarrass yourself further methinks.

#183 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,226 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:25 PM

The ignore function is a good tool to use, have used it this evening and it works great.................



#184 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 07:25 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 14 2010, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i've explained this in detail before but as a quick recap and i dont want to go to the ifs and buts becuase its another thread not this one.. but basically you could get rid of cas & Wakey and replace with Fev thus keeping the presence in the area and concentrating the efforts of everyone in the one club but punishing inactivity while rewqarding the work done at fev etc..

Why not? and anyway as you say there is more than just the crowd to conisder there is the business, there is the ground, there is contribution to the comp there are a number of things.. if its either bradford or halifax and bradfords crowds are dropping, ground is getting worse etc and there is halifax sitting there than you could replace one with the other easily.

nothing is hard to understand about the way you put it and that would be fantastic if you hadnt missed out the fact that there was/is an investigation into culpability of both the club and the rfl... the club was fined but if they were fuly guilty of this to the extent that you are making out this fine/punsihment would be a huge amount higher as standard including potential jail time for employees. full culpability is not known at the moment to us. your making judgments without the facts here.

as for chucking them out of super league... they would have been throing in a team not prepared for it so potentially damaging them.. not only that but this was a strategic decision to put them in, were they put in on on field performance? no... it was about other things.. i woudl have more sympathy with your argument if this was straight P&R but it isnt.

oh and what punishment should have gone to the other clubs who were investigated but the players had already left so no action was taken but they were still guilty of the same issues as the crusaders were guilty of or simply the issues around the holiday visa changes.?



so lets throw out the crusaders?? wheres your argument here? either the crusaders were to blame or they werent? if it is the RFL then it would be a bit harsh to throw them out the league if it si the RFL either bending the rules or being rubbish..




no they werent the same as has been pointed out by you infact in the third sentence where you say "the only difference is" rolleyes.gif

that difference is quite large actually.. from my recollection they couldnt fit in a game between the two clubs that were knocked out for a start but more importantly Wellsy has pointed out that the rule was not in place.. stupid by the RFL yes but still it wasnt there for Hull but it was for Halifax..



and prey tell who would Lenegham have sold them to? there is a very good chance that if forced leneghan could have wound the club up and potenitally recoup more of the loan from doing this than by selling them on at the time.. hence London could have lost the club.. it is not ridiculous it was one of the problems... dismiss it if you like but as the majority shareholder he could have done whatever he likes and Hughes would have been pretty much powerless to do anything about it..

i agree with your last sentence but i also agree with what the RFL did and why.


the RFL are the custodians of the game, they are the governing body it is up to them to decide which direction the game goes in, what the aim is, where they want to be and how it is best to get there..
best interests?
more money
more expoure
more players playing
more people watching
more interest
more people buying merchandise
more media presence
etc etc etc
generally growth.. how we get that can be argued till we are blue in the face.. the RFL are doing it the wya they think is best.. so far since Richard Lewis has taken over the growth in many areas has been unprecedented IIRC now he and the RFL just need to transfer that into other areas of the game as well.


What inactivity are Cas and Wakey guilty of? In what way does anything Fev have done outweigh what Cas and Wakey have done.? You make getting rid of a club sound easy. What about everything that comes with the club, as you point out. Players, staff, community schemes, supporters all abandoned via a very dubious decision making process.

Bradfords crowds may have dropped, but could Halifax, for example, ever hope to match the crowds Bradford get now or equal all the off field things the Bulls do?

How will dropping Cas and Wakey for Fev and Halifax improve on what is already there, using the 'best interests' points you make? How does swapping match reports from the Bradford T&A to the Halifax Courier mean higher media presence?

So you are happy with the RFL whitewash? At the time the story broke Craig Spence openly said the entire responsibility lay with the club. The RFL accepted no responsibility whatsoever for registering these players and not checking the visas were as required to play in the competition. This was of course a very strange thing for the RFL to say given that they had previously told Widnes that they could not register players because the visas were not the correct ones required. For your information, one person oversees these matters and is well known for being highly diligent. in my opinion that diligence level was deliberately lowered to facilitate Celtic Crusaders being allowed to bring in players to get them into SL Do you think it is in the best interests of the game for such a flagrant breach of not only immigration rules but RFL Operational Rules to go completely unpunished? Crusaders should have been expelled from the competition. Other clubs should also have been punished, but remember, none of them were being lined up for an SL slot. For your information the RFL did not carry out any sort of investigation at all. Why would the RFL investigate itself, not in it's best interests?

Crusaders used six ineligible players who were deported. The RFL has not and never will take any action, which to me is a complete whitewash.

Celtic Crusaders were clearly not prepared for SL either were they??

Hull FC and Halifax committed exactly the same offence. What round it was in or when it was discovered is not relevant. The same punishment should have been handed out to both clubs. Hull FC ended up making money from the experience. On the question of rules, there are plenty of precedents in not only the Challenge Cup but other RFL competitions of clubs being expelled for playing ineligible players. Hull FC should have been thrown out with the club they best in the previous round being given their spot, and any others beaten given financial recompense for lost revenue from at least one subsequent game. Comp[lete incompetence and lack of integrity from the RFL

Regarding Harlequins, yet again you are happy for breaches of rules to be perfectly OK because it's an expansion club. The RFL should have told Lenaghan he had to relinquish his shares if he wanted control of Wigan. That deal should have been rubber stamped and in writing or no purchase of Wugan could take place. Just what is the point of having rules if at a whim they can be ignored? What does this and the Crusaders debacle do for the integrity of the sport? In my opinion it leaves it in tatters.

Edited by StevieM13, 14 September 2010 - 07:32 PM.


#185 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,709 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 14 2010, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The ignore function is a good tool to use, have used it this evening and it works great.................


The only problem is if people ignored you they'd still know what you're saying,

blah blah money men blah blah money men blah blah money men...

#186 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 07:37 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Sep 14 2010, 01:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In regards to the Hull CC incident, there was no RFL rule in place at the time to throw them out. It was because of the Hull incident that the RFL made the rule, and thus why Halifax were subsiquently ejected from the competition.

The rules changed between the two incidents, so two different outcomes. None of this "it's because they're in SL" rubbish. Had it happened to any club that year, the same would have happened.


I have to disagree on this. There are numerous precedents of clubs being expelled from competitions for breaking player ineligibility rules. In my view the RFlL had legal precedents to follow and chose not to.

#187 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,226 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 09:12 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Celtic Crusaders were clearly not prepared for SL either were they??

Regarding Harlequins, yet again you are happy for breaches of rules to be perfectly OK because it's an expansion club.


Celtic Crusaders had monetary backing so they were ready. if you have the money your in.

When they got a new backer after the money ran out they made 8th place in the play offs from a scratch start. The "getting ready for Superleague" idea is a nonsense. Rotting in the NL's is more the mark.

Any breaches of the rules are not "perfectly OK" of course not, but I would not blame the RFL for any bending of the rules if in applying the rules they effectively blow their own expansion policy out of the water.

I think in 1996 with the clubs going professional and going on SKY the RFL/Uncle Mo felt that it could attract new money into the game to back new clubs and give us a new world of expanded Rugby League.

It didn't happen so what little has been offered to the RFL in terms of money to back expansion they've had to take.

Often beggars can neither be choosers, nor afford the high moral ground.



#188 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 08:03 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What inactivity are Cas and Wakey guilty of? In what way does anything Fev have done outweigh what Cas and Wakey have done.? You make getting rid of a club sound easy. What about everything that comes with the club, as you point out. Players, staff, community schemes, supporters all abandoned via a very dubious decision making process.

Bradfords crowds may have dropped, but could Halifax, for example, ever hope to match the crowds Bradford get now or equal all the off field things the Bulls do?

How will dropping Cas and Wakey for Fev and Halifax improve on what is already there, using the 'best interests' points you make? How does swapping match reports from the Bradford T&A to the Halifax Courier mean higher media presence?


as i say they are all arguments.. none of which are worth going into again.. and if i were cas and wakey i would look over my shoulder.. that doesnt mean any of hte above were to happen but they are all possibilities and would make me nervous to be clubs that dont make headway.

QUOTE
So you are happy with the RFL whitewash?


my understnading is that there is an investigation ongoing.. i think the way it was handled was the best it could possibly have been handled given the situation yes.

QUOTE
At the time the story broke Craig Spence openly said the entire responsibility lay with the club. The RFL accepted no responsibility whatsoever for registering these players and not checking the visas were as required to play in the competition. This was of course a very strange thing for the RFL to say given that they had previously told Widnes that they could not register players because the visas were not the correct ones required. For your information, one person oversees these matters and is well known for being highly diligent. in my opinion that diligence level was deliberately lowered to facilitate Celtic Crusaders being allowed to bring in players to get them into SL Do you think it is in the best interests of the game for such a flagrant breach of not only immigration rules but RFL Operational Rules to go completely unpunished? Crusaders should have been expelled from the competition. Other clubs should also have been punished, but remember, none of them were being lined up for an SL slot. For your information the RFL did not carry out any sort of investigation at all. Why would the RFL investigate itself, not in it's best interests?
my understnading is different and that an in vestigation into it is ongoing.. companies do do that when they try to work out what went wrong and why.. if you have a true source that it didnt it would be interesting to hear.
The crusaders were punished as much as the others were punished so to ask for more is unfair. as it is as i have said the best was done that could be done.. they werent lined up for a SL slot they were in the SL already and the on field, if you remember what you have said before, is less important so why shoudl the fact they used them to get up the leagues actually be that importnat.. Yes they broke the rules in the Super league by fielding these players.. fine but in the past breaches of hte slaray cap are not punished severly by throwing teams out.. they are points deducted.. which i agree perhaps they should have had done but throwing them out would be a massive overreaction anhd in one fell swoop would have destroyed all the hard work done in wales. fantastic
QUOTE
Crusaders used six ineligible players who were deported. The RFL has not and never will take any action, which to me is a complete whitewash.

fine that is your opinion.. i agree deducting points may have een better.. but they should not have been thrown out that would be over the top to an extreme..
Wigan survived relegation by breaking the salary cap as have other clubs.. and not been thrown out.. it is in a different way as bad as they could not have had the same set of players if they had kept within the cap etc.
QUOTE
Celtic Crusaders were clearly not prepared for SL either were they??


they were arguably as prepared as any one else would have been.. Salfrod have hardly been pulling up trees..

QUOTE
Hull FC and Halifax committed exactly the same offence. What round it was in or when it was discovered is not relevant.


i've not mentioned the round.. WHEN it was discovered does make a difference though it was discovered after the matches for Hull and before the next one for Halifax, so direct action was able to be done, your annoyance was that "SL club gets a fine, Championship club has to cancel a game just hours before kick off and is thrown out of the competition.".. if the Halifax incident had not been found out before the gae they would also have got to play it and then retrospective action would have taken place.. as it was it would have been wholly irresponisble of the RFL to allow it to go ahead when they knew that it would be cancelled out and risk injuring players in a non game.. somehting they would have been castigated on here for.. damned if you do damned if you dont.

QUOTE
The same punishment should have been handed out to both clubs. Hull FC ended up making money from the experience. On the question of rules, there are plenty of precedents in not only the Challenge Cup but other RFL competitions of clubs being expelled for playing ineligible players. Hull FC should have been thrown out with the club they best in the previous round being given their spot, and any others beaten given financial recompense for lost revenue from at least one subsequent game. Comp[lete incompetence and lack of integrity from the RFL


there was not rule to break.. and that is how the RFL saw it and put a rule in place.. before hull who was the last team to be thrown out for not actually breaking a rule but breaking a spirit of a rule?
I agree they "should" have been thrown out but sadly there was a hole in the rules and thats the breaks..
so you want to put in the team they beat in the previous round.. fantastic.. what about the team before then who could have beaten that team had htey been given the chance?? thats not fair.. and what sort of financial recompence how do you work that out.. how far could they have gone etc.. Hull broke NO rule.

QUOTE
Regarding Harlequins, yet again you are happy for breaches of rules to be perfectly OK because it's an expansion club. The RFL should have told Lenaghan he had to relinquish his shares if he wanted control of Wigan. That deal should have been rubber stamped and in writing or no purchase of Wugan could take place. Just what is the point of having rules if at a whim they can be ignored? What does this and the Crusaders debacle do for the integrity of the sport? In my opinion it leaves it in tatters.


where did i say that becuase they were an expansion club they should be allowed to breach the rules??? dont put words in my mouth
i would say the same if it were the toher way around and that wigan were under grave threat if they forced leneghan to get shot before he bought quins..

The RFL are the guardians of the game and they have to do what they feel is right for the LONG TERM future of the game. This "integrity" you speak of is short term and easily forgotten about.. for a start if you speak to anyone outside of the game they wont give a hoot who owns quins or wigan and in fact couldnt tell you either.. they wont know they own both.. this whole debacle is internal.

The Crusdares mess was weel known but will be forgotten over time and success in Wales is more important than short term damage to the name.

your opinion is fair and is your opinion but you have to see that the RFL are doing what they think is right, they are expanding the game and if that doesnt happen then the whole game will regress.. that may be what some people want but it certinaly isnt what I or those involved at the RFL want.

i dont intend to continually repeat myself though as i feel i have done in the last few posts

#189 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:23 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 15 2010, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
as i say they are all arguments.. none of which are worth going into again.. and if i were cas and wakey i would look over my shoulder.. that doesnt mean any of hte above were to happen but they are all possibilities and would make me nervous to be clubs that dont make headway.



my understnading is that there is an investigation ongoing.. i think the way it was handled was the best it could possibly have been handled given the situation yes.

my understnading is different and that an in vestigation into it is ongoing.. companies do do that when they try to work out what went wrong and why.. if you have a true source that it didnt it would be interesting to hear.
The crusaders were punished as much as the others were punished so to ask for more is unfair. as it is as i have said the best was done that could be done.. they werent lined up for a SL slot they were in the SL already and the on field, if you remember what you have said before, is less important so why shoudl the fact they used them to get up the leagues actually be that importnat.. Yes they broke the rules in the Super league by fielding these players.. fine but in the past breaches of hte slaray cap are not punished severly by throwing teams out.. they are points deducted.. which i agree perhaps they should have had done but throwing them out would be a massive overreaction anhd in one fell swoop would have destroyed all the hard work done in wales. fantastic

fine that is your opinion.. i agree deducting points may have een better.. but they should not have been thrown out that would be over the top to an extreme..
Wigan survived relegation by breaking the salary cap as have other clubs.. and not been thrown out.. it is in a different way as bad as they could not have had the same set of players if they had kept within the cap etc.


they were arguably as prepared as any one else would have been.. Salfrod have hardly been pulling up trees..



i've not mentioned the round.. WHEN it was discovered does make a difference though it was discovered after the matches for Hull and before the next one for Halifax, so direct action was able to be done, your annoyance was that "SL club gets a fine, Championship club has to cancel a game just hours before kick off and is thrown out of the competition.".. if the Halifax incident had not been found out before the gae they would also have got to play it and then retrospective action would have taken place.. as it was it would have been wholly irresponisble of the RFL to allow it to go ahead when they knew that it would be cancelled out and risk injuring players in a non game.. somehting they would have been castigated on here for.. damned if you do damned if you dont.



there was not rule to break.. and that is how the RFL saw it and put a rule in place.. before hull who was the last team to be thrown out for not actually breaking a rule but breaking a spirit of a rule?
I agree they "should" have been thrown out but sadly there was a hole in the rules and thats the breaks..
so you want to put in the team they beat in the previous round.. fantastic.. what about the team before then who could have beaten that team had htey been given the chance?? thats not fair.. and what sort of financial recompence how do you work that out.. how far could they have gone etc.. Hull broke NO rule.



where did i say that becuase they were an expansion club they should be allowed to breach the rules??? dont put words in my mouth
i would say the same if it were the toher way around and that wigan were under grave threat if they forced leneghan to get shot before he bought quins..

The RFL are the guardians of the game and they have to do what they feel is right for the LONG TERM future of the game. This "integrity" you speak of is short term and easily forgotten about.. for a start if you speak to anyone outside of the game they wont give a hoot who owns quins or wigan and in fact couldnt tell you either.. they wont know they own both.. this whole debacle is internal.

The Crusdares mess was weel known but will be forgotten over time and success in Wales is more important than short term damage to the name.

your opinion is fair and is your opinion but you have to see that the RFL are doing what they think is right, they are expanding the game and if that doesnt happen then the whole game will regress.. that may be what some people want but it certinaly isnt what I or those involved at the RFL want.

i dont intend to continually repeat myself though as i feel i have done in the last few posts


You didn't put forward any arguments, you just said it could easily be done.
Your understanding is misplaced. The RFL has never said it was undertaking an investigation into the Celtic Crusaders matter. It never has and it never will. From the off the RFL ststed it was down to the club. A club fielded six ineligible players and the RFL took no action whatsoever. The transgressions took place while the club was playing in the National Leagues and continued during it's first season. That is a whitewash and shows a complete lack of integrity and a lack of action that borders on the corrupt. You confirm then that you believe cheating and not being punished is fine by you.

As far as the Challenge Cup goes, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. The player eligibility rule was introduced in 1982. The Challenge Cup signing deadline has been around just as long.
The precedents for clubs being expelled from RFL competitions are well known, and would lead to an assumption that the RFL rules and bye laws were in place to sanction such punishment.

Hull FC were not expelled for playing Jamie Thackray in two rounds. Thackray was signed by Hull FC three weeks after the Challenge Cup signing deadline. The club must have known he was ineligible and so must the RFL. The RFL did not have any checking mechanism in place.

You state there is nothing in the RFL rules to allow Hull FC to be expelled. Either the expulsion sanction was in the rules but the RFL chose not to use it in the case of Hull FC, or it was removed from the rules when they were re-written at some point. If it had been removed, given the number of precedents, why was the change everomade?

Hull FC were fined but still made plenty of money from going all the way to Wembley. Was there only a fine sanction in the rules? You seem to say that this is the case.

Halifax signed a player who had appeared in an earlier round for Rochdale Hornets. Neither the Halifax club or thre RFL picked up on this so Michael Ostick then played for Halifax in the same competition.

When it came to light Halifax, were expelled from the competition. Either the RFL changed the rules back to what they originally were after the Thackray debacle, which would make them look even more stupid for changing a change, or they punished the two clubs differently for committing the same offence of fielding an ineligible player. Remember Michael ostick on played one game for Halifax, yet Thackray played two for Hull FC.

Either the RFl keeps changing it's rules, and changing them back, or the two clubs were treated very differently. What do you think?

How will not expanding mean the game regesses? To what and where?

Edited by StevieM13, 19 September 2010 - 04:29 PM.


#190 Jill Halfpenny fan

Jill Halfpenny fan
  • Coach
  • 4,448 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 06:38 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your understanding is misplaced. The RFL has never said it was undertaking an investigation into the Celtic Crusaders matter. It never has and it never will. From the off the RFL ststed it was down to the club. A club fielded six ineligible players and the RFL took no action whatsoever. The transgressions took place while the club was playing in the National Leagues and continued during it's first season. That is a whitewash and shows a complete lack of integrity and a lack of action that borders on the corrupt. You confirm then that you believe cheating and not being punished is fine by you.



I've sure I've heard big Nige on GMR saying they would investigate it and they were waiting for reports from the border agency, etc etc.

This is going back to when they were still in South Wales.

These reports must be taking some time to produce.


Just because you think everyone hates you doesn't mean they don't.

#191 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,226 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:05 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How will not expanding mean the game regresses? To what and where?


Steve - is it possible to stand still in business for that's what pro RL is?



#192 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Jill Halfpenny fan @ Sep 19 2010, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've sure I've heard big Nige on GMR saying they would investigate it and they were waiting for reports from the border agency, etc etc.

This is going back to when they were still in South Wales.

These reports must be taking some time to produce.


I listened to the same programmes, and it was an interview with a former Widnes official which really made me think the whole thing was going to be covered up. He made it clear who at the RFL handled the visa checks and that person's diligence in telling Widnes that because visa rules had changed they could not keep certain overseas players at the club. The same erson handled the Celtic Crusaders playing visas. Craig Spence did say the RFL would wait to see what the UKBA said, but he did not say the RFL would hold an investigation. It never had intention of doing so and never will. Complete whitewash.

#193 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,226 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:21 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Complete whitewash.


So what?

#194 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,498 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 01:42 AM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 14 2010, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Since jbd has left the board bulletproof has appeared aping pretty much all you say, and often coming on the post after you - coincidence??


I confess that on the jbd thing, I consider you as guilty as sin.

However, that does not in the least invalidate what you write in regard to other topics. If you make a good point, it is still a good point. Indeed, if jbd had made a good point, it would still have been a good point, regardless of how sincere it is. I am on this board less and less, but I value your contribution.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#195 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,226 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 06:44 AM

QUOTE (Bob8 @ Sep 20 2010, 02:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I confess that on the jbd thing, I consider you as guilty as sin.

However, that does not in the least invalidate what you write in regard to other topics. If you make a good point, it is still a good point. Indeed, if jbd had made a good point, it would still have been a good point, regardless of how sincere it is. I am on this board less and less, but I value your contribution.


biggrin.gif Thanks Bob, shame popping jbd on the bottom of a post for a laugh makes me guilty! I'd like to think that If I had perpetrated the crime I'd not have just given myself up for banning, and that the posts jbd made would have been much better wind up's than just constant Widnes.v.Crusaders ill considered "loose" exchanges.

As it is I didn't forecast that the apoplectic rage of not getting in SL was going to be focused on me in such a way by the usual suspects, but I have the ignore button, am used to the ill manners on the board, and nothing that's thrown at me can ever match Hannibal wonderful efforts!!!

Only regret is I got jbd banned and he didn't bother to come back, couldn't PM him as he was banned sad.gif

Don't go on jury service Bob or you may do someone else a dis-service.

Bob 8

(see)

Edited by The Parksider, 20 September 2010 - 07:23 AM.


#196 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You didn't put forward any arguments, you just said it could easily be done.
Your understanding is misplaced. The RFL has never said it was undertaking an investigation into the Celtic Crusaders matter. It never has and it never will. From the off the RFL ststed it was down to the club. A club fielded six ineligible players and the RFL took no action whatsoever. The transgressions took place while the club was playing in the National Leagues and continued during it's first season. That is a whitewash and shows a complete lack of integrity and a lack of action that borders on the corrupt. You confirm then that you believe cheating and not being punished is fine by you.

As far as the Challenge Cup goes, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. The player eligibility rule was introduced in 1982. The Challenge Cup signing deadline has been around just as long.
The precedents for clubs being expelled from RFL competitions are well known, and would lead to an assumption that the RFL rules and bye laws were in place to sanction such punishment.

Hull FC were not expelled for playing Jamie Thackray in two rounds. Thackray was signed by Hull FC three weeks after the Challenge Cup signing deadline. The club must have known he was ineligible and so must the RFL. The RFL did not have any checking mechanism in place.

You state there is nothing in the RFL rules to allow Hull FC to be expelled. Either the expulsion sanction was in the rules but the RFL chose not to use it in the case of Hull FC, or it was removed from the rules when they were re-written at some point. If it had been removed, given the number of precedents, why was the change everomade?

Hull FC were fined but still made plenty of money from going all the way to Wembley. Was there only a fine sanction in the rules? You seem to say that this is the case.

Halifax signed a player who had appeared in an earlier round for Rochdale Hornets. Neither the Halifax club or thre RFL picked up on this so Michael Ostick then played for Halifax in the same competition.

When it came to light Halifax, were expelled from the competition. Either the RFL changed the rules back to what they originally were after the Thackray debacle, which would make them look even more stupid for changing a change, or they punished the two clubs differently for committing the same offence of fielding an ineligible player. Remember Michael ostick on played one game for Halifax, yet Thackray played two for Hull FC.

Either the RFl keeps changing it's rules, and changing them back, or the two clubs were treated very differently. What do you think?

How will not expanding mean the game regesses? To what and where?


As i have said there are arguments put forward on other threads and iam not going to rehash them on here as its not what this thread is about..

The guardian seems to think the rules were changed/"tightened" in the wake of hte hull match linky dink
and again

and the sun points out that there was nothing in the rules allowing them to throw hull out..
here we go

whatever happened.. re written or not.. precedent or not this is what has been said..

whatever you like to think this was the case and we are right in saying the rules changed etc.. whether you like that or not is neither here nor there... as has been pointed out the rules changed and they were tightened to allow them to take action. you can call it one rule for one one for another if you like.. i dont care.. you can call it a whitewash if you want.. but this is what happened.

Crusaders:

Sky sports report:
linky
"The RFL have asked the UK Border Agency for their report to see if Celtic Crusdaers need to be sanctioned further and to hopefully clear up any misunderstandings for the future."

that would be an investigation in my book.. they will be investigating the issue to see what can be learnt and my understanding from people i know that is what they did/are doing.

tis up to you what you want to believe on the "whitewash" etc.. but i dont think it is the case i think it is much more complicated than it first appeared and what responsibility lies with who.. player/club/rfl etc.. and that an investigation by the RFL is done into how to make this much clearer.


you can think what you like on the Hull v Halifax issue, but it seems clear the rules were not the same from one instance to the other.. which is what has been said, precedents aside (you dont have to follow a precedent you can always set another one).. the Crusaders issue you can either believe they are investigating it themselves or brushing it aside.. i really dont care anymore.. i have pointed out my thoughts whether you agree or not is up to you.

#197 Bomb Jack

Bomb Jack
  • Coach
  • 2,022 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 12:32 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 20 2010, 07:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
biggrin.gif Thanks Bob, shame popping jbd on the bottom of a post for a laugh makes me guilty! I'd like to think that If I had perpetrated the crime I'd not have just given myself up for banning, and that the posts jbd made would have been much better wind up's than just constant Widnes.v.Crusaders ill considered "loose" exchanges.


I don't want to start an argument with you Parky, but it was confirmed to me in a PM via another Poster that a Mod of this board did indeed confirm you and jbd were one and the same ( unless he used to log-in on your PC while your back was turned ) rolleyes.gif
Widnes - Super League's newest Club, and Cheshire's Original Glamour Club. Watch out Warrington, we're back !




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users