Elstone describes Wigan salary cap penalty as "perplexing"

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1. Im not sure how that can be the case. You have described a situation. He has criticised the same one.

2. So you think the SL chairman shouldnt comment on a bad rule that has an effect on the structure of the Super League competition from the very beginning of that competition? Whether this decision is over-turned or not doesnt effect Elstone's criticism of it. He hasnt argued that the rules have been incorrectly applied but they are wrong to start with.

3. I think its silly to think that draconian punishments will stop unintentional technical infractions or that they are necessary or proportional. The game and its integrity is far more damaged by this punishment than the infraction.

This isnt some mutli-million pound off-shore tax avoidance scheme. Its your plumber mate not declaring that bottle of scotch you bought him for taking a look at that leaky tap and you both ending up with a criminal record. Rules is Rules after all.

2. seriously I don't see how I can put it any more simply. I don't think he should have made a comment about the situation at all.

he is also not arguing the rules are wrong he is arguing the punishment is wrong the fact a "relatively minor breach to go straight into points deduction…." 

If he had simply said "its an ongoing case so I cannot comment, but I dont think the RFL should have either" IMHO that is how it should have been dealt with. 

3. Yep rules is rules.. intentional or not this is a rule of the game and that rule comes with a punishment.. if they have broken it they deserve that punishment.. no form of trivialising it changes my opinion on it. risk it if you like but if you get caught its tough.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

2. Yes the rules allowing that is what he has criticised. It isnt an on-going case the RFL have made that decision. They have decided that one process has come to an end and another one (the appeals process) has started. But Elstone is saying two things, he makes two points. 1) that the RFL shouldnt have commented whilst the appeal was on-going and 2) how the rules allow for a relatively minor breach to go straight to points deduction.

Even if the appeal goes in Wigans favour and produces a decision he agrees with. His second criticism that the rules allow for a relatively minor breach to go straight to a points deduction still stands.

3. That just seems a nonsensically dogmatic and totalitarian interpretation of life. I really dont care if you pay your mate a bottle of scotch and he doesnt declare it. There comes a point where applying rules to the minutiae of life makes a mockery of those rules. Where over-reach makes people less likely to support and abide by laws and rules and not more so.

Frankly had there been no punishment I really wouldnt have cared at all. Its a tiny fraction of a sum and the disproportionate nature of this has made the SC look stupid.

2. AND IN MY OPINION HE SHOULDNT HAVE SAID IT... did capitals help? I dont think he should have said anything in his position right now.. 

3. i dont think it is disproportionate and that is what i am saying. 

your using the scotch as a trivial example and no amount of trivialising it makes me think differently that I dont believe this is disproportionate. 

I dont care if you give the bottle of scotch to your mate for doing the plumbing job either.. i would also not have that much sympathy if HMRC does an audit and he gets caught.. we all take risks (like speeding) but when you get caught you face the consequences. The severity of the punishment/likelihood of getting caught is normally what puts people off from taking the risks... 

A heavy punishment for salary cap breaches that is enforced will mean people will not skirt the line too close and that is why i am happy for the punishment to be so heavy.. a deterrent is only any good if you are happy to use it.. simple really (and been said already!) 

right I am pretty sure you see what my opinions are on this.. your argument is not going to change my mind because I dont see them being very strong arguments.. so lets just leave it there.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

2. And i think your opinion, for the reasons you have given, isnt a good one.

3. Im not trivialising it. It is trivial. Your whole line of argument is that if we have punishments severe enough infractions wouldnt happen. The end point of that argument is that where crimes are commited it is because punishments arent strong enough. So why bother with any degrees of punishment? Just punish every offence, however minor, with death. Offences then wouldnt happen.

If a club goes £1 over the SC immediately disband that club. Rules is Rules and deterrence is the aim.

2. and i dont think your reasoning for him having a say is a good one.. 

3. dont be daft.. its from the sublime to the ridiculous with you... 

i refer you to the end of my other post 

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

your argument is not going to change my mind because I dont see them being very strong arguments.. so lets just leave it there.

 

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

2. He is allowed a say. It has to be a good reason for making him keep quiet. Not the other way around. You havent given one.

3. It is daft, but its the end point of your argument. If 2 points doesnt stop clubs contravening the rules, does 4? does 10? does 20? if they dont stop clubs contravening the rules whats next? disbanding the club? if that does stop clubs contravening the rules then why not apply it to every rule and make sure no rules are ever contravened? If they still break them? well rules is rules and we want to see harsh penalties and there isnt much harsher we can go. Its their fault for breaking them.

2. of course he is allowed a say.. i just dont think he should have said anything.. i dont see what it gains at all.. i have heard your reasoning, i understand your reasoning, i dont agree with your reasoning (I am not sure how many more ways I can say that!)

3. it isnt the end point of my argument and to think it is is plain daft.. it is the end point of an argument to try and make a dramatic point that is idiotic.. you know it and everybody knows it.

now once and for all.. 

42 minutes ago, RP London said:

your argument is not going to change my mind because I dont see them being very strong arguments.. so lets just leave it there.

 

[RP London]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

2. It gains that we are honest about what happens. Im not sure what keeping quiet gains.

3. It is the end point of your argument and it is clearly absurd which is why you dont like it. What, in principle is the difference between 2 points and 20points or 200points If we are punishing clubs in to compliance?

2. it looks like we are in fighting within the sport.. for a start.

3. its the end point of my argument in the same way as having a salary cap but not caring what people spend so not policing it and having it in name only is the end of yours.. If you honestly believe that is what I am saying and that that is the "end game" of my argument then you are a fool.

now I'm not answering another post.. post if you like but i'm done.. I dont agree, you arguments IMHO are daft and this is circular so there is no point.. 

 

[Loiner]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Of course there is. Siding with the guilty club on the point that the punishment is too harsh (which he clearly does despite politician words), is controversial. He needs to be careful wanting to undermine the RFL at any opportunity. He is absolutely coming across as a puppet by airing his view on this. I personally think SLE should manage their own cap, and if that ever happens, Elstone has made it clear that you can hide payments like this, call it an error and pay a small fine.

The timing point was typical of the SLE mindset in the last 12m. Don't miss an opportunity to criticise the RFL. He said he is not sure why they announced it when they did, but then explained perfectly why. So he did understand. He doesn't agree. Of course there would have been a lot more controversy had this been announced in April, people would have been asking why this wasn't down pre-season.

Elstone is better staying neutral on stuff like this, by giving opinion on a specific case he is setting himself up for challenge if he doesn't support other clubs in a similar fashion. 

Well said sir, my sentiments entirely.

[Angelic Cynic]

Elstone should not have commented.It must surely have an influence on the Appeal people.

I was intrigued by the fact that the apparent breach took place over a 22 weeks timescale of a 36 weeks season,yet the new Finance Team were in place in the January - before the season started.

As shown elsewhere the salary cap information is easily located - https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2019-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/mobile/index.html#p=280

I have just come to the conclusion that the club who provides the best hospitality is the favourite of rugby league journalists and other influential people.

If only my favourite club did Veggie Pies - https://www.fgr.co.uk/visit-us/matchday-food-and-drink

[Wakefield Ram]

Why did he not make these comments privately to the RFL? Why did he go public if negative stories should be avoided?  Running off and bleating to the press is unprofessional until the final appeal has completed. 

[M j M]

I see in League Express that one of the usual Lenagan apologists is criticising the ruling and, like Elstone, attacking the distraction as if the unfortunate timing should overrule the fact of the clear and admitted breach of the rules.

Lots of predictable deflection and blame shifting but as ever no actual journalism conducted into the apparently imperfect state of the club's management or finances.

[Wakefield Ram]

Why can't this game get some professional administrators who can act in a professional manner? Wood, Rimmer and now Elstone. The game does not benefit from this pathetic sniping.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Elstone is not being unprofessional. He is doing his job. His views - that the punishment looks disproportionate, and that he is perplexed about the timing - are valid. One thing that is clear is that the SL/RFL were not on the same page when it came to this. In terms of punishment that’s the RFL prerogative, but in terms of publicity, this could have been played differently, with the RFL and SL agreeing on a way forward.

There is an important point here, which is the desirability for the RFL and SL to be on the same page. Our game struggles enough without these key organisations falling out. 

It is unfortunate that it was Wigan, as the core problem is overlooked in some oberservers’ eyes by their views of our club and our chairman. The last thing our game needs is a schism, and this sort of avoidable argument is the last thing we need. Though I accept that more transparency and better numeracy at Wigan at the outset would have made this a non issue. 

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Elstone is not being unprofessional. He is doing his job. His views - that the punishment looks disproportionate, and that he is perplexed about the timing - are valid. One thing that is clear is that the SL/RFL were not on the same page when it came to this. In terms of punishment that’s the RFL prerogative, but in terms of publicity, this could have been played differently, with the RFL and SL agreeing on a way forward.

There is an important point here, which is the desirability for the RFL and SL to be on the same page. Our game struggles enough without these key organisations falling out. 

It is unfortunate that it was Wigan, as the core problem is overlooked in some oberservers’ eyes by their views of our club and our chairman. The last thing our game needs is a schism, and this sort of avoidable argument is the last thing we need. Though I accept that more transparency and better numeracy at Wigan at the outset would have made this a non issue. 

Unprofessional is letting everyone in public know that you are not on the same page.

If the RFL own the governance and management of the SC, then what they say goes. 

A professional answer from Elstone would have been along the lines of:

"The RFL governs the Salary Cap and have made their decision via the independent tribunal. Wigan are appealing and we will see what happens". 

Literally the only thing that comes out of him stating that he disagrees with the RFL's punishment and timing is publicly showing the disagreement between the RFL/SLE, which you suggest you are not happy with. 

If he is genuinely unhappy with this, go and work with the RFL to fix it moving forward. There is a contradiction in your post to suggest this isn't unprofessional, but then state these public disagreements are undesirable.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Unprofessional is letting everyone in public know that you are not on the same page.

If the RFL own the governance and management of the SC, then what they say goes. 

A professional answer from Elstone would have been along the lines of:

"The RFL governs the Salary Cap and have made their decision via the independent tribunal. Wigan are appealing and we will see what happens". 

Literally the only thing that comes out of him stating that he disagrees with the RFL's punishment and timing is publicly showing the disagreement between the RFL/SLE, which you suggest you are not happy with. 

If he is genuinely unhappy with this, go and work with the RFL to fix it moving forward. There is a contradiction in your post to suggest this isn't unprofessional, but then state these public disagreements are undesirable.

I follow your line of reasoning and accept it; subject to the caveat that clearly the RFL had not pre agreed the course of action. He could have said nothing but the RFL had already erred in my view. The best way is of course for the SL/RFL to keep this in house, and sort themselves out. Especially if the RFL wants to retain such powers as they still have. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I follow your line of reasoning and accept it; subject to the caveat that clearly the RFL had not pre agreed the course of action. He could have said nothing but the RFL had already erred in my view. The best way is of course for the SL/RFL to keep this in house, and sort themselves out. Especially if the RFL wants to retain such powers as they still have. 

Maybe, but the RFL wanted to announce this as per the correct process that we always follow. So they did so.

Elstone didn't want this announcing.

I support the more transparent approach, even if it is bad news.

And tbh mate, if I were the RFL, I'd be looking to offload this piece of governance pretty sharpish!!! You are going to win no friends anywhere policing the salary cap!

[Angelic Cynic]

10 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Elstone is not being unprofessional. He is doing his job. His views - that the punishment looks disproportionate, and that he is perplexed about the timing - are valid. One thing that is clear is that the SL/RFL were not on the same page when it came to this. In terms of punishment that’s the RFL prerogative, but in terms of publicity, this could have been played differently, with the RFL and SL agreeing on a way forward.

There is an important point here, which is the desirability for the RFL and SL to be on the same page. Our game struggles enough without these key organisations falling out. 

It is unfortunate that it was Wigan, as the core problem is overlooked in some oberservers’ eyes by their views of our club and our chairman. The last thing our game needs is a schism, and this sort of avoidable argument is the last thing we need. Though I accept that more transparency and better numeracy at Wigan at the outset would have made this a non issue. 

     Despite the Wigan followers being kept in the dark about the findings - and the subsequent action - do you think it fair that the season should have been allowed to get underway,for some considerable number of games,perhaps,until such time as the result of the appeal is known?

     You,and the other Super League clubs,would then have a decision,and publicity,on a points deduction some way into a season which may  prove to be really significant for clubs other than just Wigan. 

     I think the other Super League clubs,and club owners,may have a different view to Elstone.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Unprofessional is allowing a club, one that claims to be one of the biggest in the land, to flout the salary cap numerous times (three, including the joke that was 2005/06) and slating a governing body for coming down hard on them. 

[Wakefield Ram]

13 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Elstone is not being unprofessional. He is doing his job. His views - that the punishment looks disproportionate, and that he is perplexed about the timing - are valid. One thing that is clear is that the SL/RFL were not on the same page when it came to this. In terms of punishment that’s the RFL prerogative, but in terms of publicity, this could have been played differently, with the RFL and SL agreeing on a way forward.

There is an important point here, which is the desirability for the RFL and SL to be on the same page. Our game struggles enough without these key organisations falling out. 

It is unfortunate that it was Wigan, as the core problem is overlooked in some oberservers’ eyes by their views of our club and our chairman. The last thing our game needs is a schism, and this sort of avoidable argument is the last thing we need. Though I accept that more transparency and better numeracy at Wigan at the outset would have made this a non issue. 

It is utterly unprofessional. He should have these discussions in private. The following only reason to go public is either to try and put pressure on the RFL or to curry favour with the SL clubs. Pathetic either way.

[Loiner]

3 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Unprofessional is allowing a club, one that claims to be one of the biggest in the land, to flout the salary cap numerous times (three, including the joke that was 2005/06) and slating a governing body for coming down hard on them. 

Again we'll said sir.

[Exiled Wiganer]

8 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It is utterly unprofessional. He should have these discussions in private. The following only reason to go public is either to try and put pressure on the RFL or to curry favour with the SL clubs. Pathetic either way.

No it isn’t, it could have been done better, but the RFL put this in the public domain, and there has been widespread discussion as to the timing - not just on here but in the press. So, clarifying the SL’s position, and thereby making his position clear publicly, is justifiable. I have though been convinced that saying nothing would have been preferable. Pathetic is far too strong.

[M j M]

31 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

the RFL put this in the public domain, 

No.

Wigan put this into the public domain by the fact of breaching in the first place.

The tribunal decided the timing.

Enforcing rules and applying penalties is one of the ###### tasks SL were happy to leave behind and this attempt to blame the RFL is annoying.

[Wakefield Ram]

Exactly

[Exiled Wiganer]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

No.

Wigan put this into the public domain by the fact of breaching in the first place.

The tribunal decided the timing.

Enforcing rules and applying penalties is one of the ###### tasks SL were happy to leave behind and this attempt to blame the RFL is annoying.

Well, you certainly find the criticism annoying.

Others find the timing of the announcement - which is the main point I struggle with - annoying. Elstone seems to be in that camp. I can understand his annoyance as to the timing of the announcement, which clearly blind sided him. I also agree now with Dave T’s suggestion that expressing public concern about it was unnecessary, and that he could have better spent his time discussing the timing with the RFL. We have very few people who are employed to do things in our game, it should not be beyond them to be on the same page when it comes to announcements about Super League, particularly when the league season is about to start. 

The same could go for the RLWC and RLIF, by the way. Why not announce the World Cup venues a couple of weeks earlier or later, so that it was a self standing good news league story for the press to cover? Especially in the weeks leading up to the union’s winter mud wrestling comp.

A coordinated approach to marketing the game to give the best possible exposure would benefit us all. 

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Well, you certainly find the criticism annoying.

Others find the timing of the announcement - which is the main point I struggle with - annoying. Elstone seems to be in that camp. I can understand his annoyance as to the timing of the announcement, which clearly blind sided him. I also agree now with Dave T’s suggestion that expressing public concern about it was unnecessary, and that he could have better spent his time discussing the timing with the RFL. We have very few people who are employed to do things in our game, it should not be beyond them to be on the same page when it comes to announcements about Super League, particularly when the league season is about to start. 

The same could go for the RLWC and RLIF, by the way. Why not announce the World Cup venues a couple of weeks earlier or later, so that it was a self standing good news league story for the press to cover? Especially in the weeks leading up to the union’s winter mud wrestling comp.

A coordinated approach to marketing the game to give the best possible exposure would benefit us all. 

Agree with some of this. The World Cup announcement was a great one, but I feel if it needed to be done early this year, maybe it should have been done a few weeks later, where we could have given RL a boost in the media once it dies down after the season launch.

The sooner they get on the same page, the better for all.

[Wakefield Ram]

To the outside world, RFL and SL are the same sport, having a coordinated media strategy shouldn't be too hard if they stop the pointless infighting. 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 2/6/2019 at 10:28 AM, Rupert Prince said:

The general public dont know anything about rugby league, never mind the start of the superleague. 

But bare in mind the general public would not know anything about rugby union either, except for the fact that there was wall to wall television on 2 free to view terrestrial channels last weekend, followed by the massive hype, on free to view terrestrial tv, of the super bowl.

Rugby league fans are just talking to themselves in an echo chamber.  We should be grateful I suppose for a 14k minor misdemeanor that flittered across the firmament and some unsavoury antipodean fisticuffs. In other respects the great unwashed public are incapable of taking any notice. 

Sorry but define 'general public'? I bump into people from all around the country and the vast majority of the 'general public' know about RL, they just don't watch it either on TV or live matches. I could ask you how many of the general public know anything about the premier league and actually bother to watch a match or MOTD on FTA?? In the worlds biggest sport in (arguably) the birth country of said sport, 340,000 go watch live top flight soccer every week, in a season that's not far off what RL was attracting in the late 40

Viewing ratings for Premier league matches on SKY and BT are circa 0.9M and 0.6M per game respectively, that's not households I believe

MOTD gets an overspill/crossover of subscriber.punters. So maybe 1 in 40 either watch or attend top flight soccer, hardly in the general public's hearts and minds is it?