Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tom Coates

Dual-registration inquiry

144 posts in this topic

Thanks for that Tom (and Mark). It sounds to me as if we have done everything by the book and the RFL are just "making sure". Let's hope that this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate dual registration; in this case helping a rival club to develop their player and possibly be punished for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see a problem,we seem to have done everything by the book hopefully!! Let's hope the RFL see it the same way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we've done it by the book. Bet the rfl find a excuse to punish us though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we've done it by the book. Bet the rfl find a excuse to punish us though.

 

 

Why do you think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Mark for such an early statement.

It looks as though we have met the RFL requirements and lets hope that

it all ends well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause there corrupt

 

 

The laws of libel apply equally to the internet you know?

 

Now in what way specifically are they corrupt and what examples can you give?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws of libel apply equally to the internet you know?

 

Now in what way specifically are they corrupt and what examples can you give?

 

Maybe, not corrupt BSJ, but we all know they do make questionable and stupid decisions from time to time. I do not have the time or the paper stock to list such examples  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the statement, can't see us having any problems, we have done everything by the book,kept within the required rules needed, informed the rfl.Finally thanks to Mark and Tom for getting this statement out so soon and keeping us informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, not corrupt BSJ, but we all know they do make questionable and stupid decisions from time to time. I do not have the time or the paper stock to list such examples  ;)

 

Do you think this investigation is either questionable or stupid then NR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he only played 2 games prior to the deadline, whichg made him inelligible to play after the deadline against Barrow as he needed to have played in 3 before the deadline to qualify.

 

It looks pretty cut and dry to me - we are still awaiting full confirmation of the situation regarding Jacob Fairbank but seems to be pretty similar.

 

It is strange how 4 clubs have fallen foul of this though, makes you wonder if its a clanger by the RFL as opposed to the clubs themselves.

 

Looks like it could potentially be a straight heavy woollen shoot out to stay up if we both get points deducted - the game at the Mount on the 17th could be the most important derby in years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But woods fine because he earns less than 20k a year according to the paper work we have from the bulls? Thought it was only squad players earning more then 20k a year who had to play 3 minimum games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But woods fine because he earns less than 20k a year according to the paper work we have from the bulls? Thought it was only squad players earning more then 20k a year who had to play 3 minimum games?

I think the 3 game rule applies regardless of the cap value.

Stand to be corrected though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 game rule only applies if the player is on 20K or more a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 game rule only applies if the player is on 20K or more a year.

 

 

Strictly, if the player has a salary cap valuation of £20k+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is though that people are talking about a players earnings being £20,000 but that figure as stated in the Operational Rules is not what he earns but what his salary cap VALUE is and that includes all sorts of other things such as agents fees, etc.    So as I read that a player could be on say £18k but his SCV (salary cap value) could be over £20k with additions that are specified in the Operational Rules (E:1:5:1).    Another problem for clubs is that all the different parts of the dual register system are spread out through all the Operational rules instead of being in one place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I see and read between the lines of official statements I don't think anything is going to come of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark seemed to be pretty confident that there is no case to answer, but I have to agree with KeithT. why have such a convoluted calculation process.

"Salary Cap Valuation" - Only the RFL could invent something this ambiguous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But woods fine because he earns less than 20k a year according to the paper work we have from the bulls? Thought it was only squad players earning more then 20k a year who had to play 3 minimum games?

That's my understanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark seemed to be pretty confident that there is no case to answer, but I have to agree with KeithT. why have such a convoluted calculation process.

"Salary Cap Valuation" - Only the RFL could invent something this ambiguous.

 

 

Not really John. The "salary cap valuation" is designed for calculation of the SC in SL in order to prevent the clubs trying to dance rings around the SC by only including salaries whilst excluding a myriad of other benefits. It was brought in because some SL clubs were refusing to abide by the spirit of the regulations, only abiding by the letter of the rules. Its use in these DR rules was intended to persuade SL clubs not to use DR for getting main squad players back up to fitness. Essentially, rules and SL clubs don't sit well together and, as usual, Championship club or clubs look likely to bear the brunt of it.

 

Yet another reason to ditch DR but that will only happen if the SL clubs want it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to banter page it only mentions batley,does this mean we're in the clear?? Then Kevin Nicholas made statement on their forum says the RFL will make a decision by end of next week whether they'll be charged,plus Fairbank will not be playing this weekend due to issues with giants,our team selection will be interesting!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to banter page it only mentions batley,does this mean we're in the clear?? Then Kevin Nicholas made statement on their forum says the RFL will make a decision by end of next week whether they'll be charged,plus Fairbank will not be playing this weekend due to issues with giants,our team selection will be interesting!!!

Were deffo in the clear .Batley well its not looking good. The lads being recalled so he was clearly a d/r.Otherwise he would have had to stay for a 28 day sentence.Salary aside he was signed after deadline day and reading between the lines the Dogs i/c knew this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were deffo in the clear .Batley well its not looking good. The lads being recalled so he was clearly a d/r.Otherwise he would have had to stay for a 28 day sentence.Salary aside he was signed after deadline day and reading between the lines the Dogs i/c knew this.

 

 

You keep saying that he is on loan Equaliser. He isn't, he is on DR as it says in MS's statement, so we cannot be completely assured that we are in the clear until this has been ratified by the RFL.

 

According to press claims the focus is currently upon Batley but that isn't to say that other clubs might not also be involved. Let's not count our chickens just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.