Tommygilf

Its just abdication of responsibility I think, which I understand why it will not go down well with the RFL if Aston is coming out vociferously denying all responsibility in this case.

I believe the RFL have learnt, new medical protocols are in place and a new database system has been put out to tender.

Having listened to that podcast, the chap on there is an agent who has been working as a sort of go between on behalf of Aston in liaising with the RFL. His argument seems to be that the RFL "knew" MM wasn't passed fit to play against Wigan and they should have done something. That Aston had been told MM was "good to go" by MH (a point recognised in the original decision but superceded by the context of that conversation being how he was "good to go" physically but hadn't been signed off by the HCP). And finally that Aston did not know. He then says the Sports Resolution Arbitration would have been a review of the original Tribunal decision, not a rerun of the tribunal, which is not what the Aston camp wanted. I can see why on balance of probabilities this case failed originally, and then was dropped at the 11th hour due to costs.

Uh oh, "FACTS" are starting to not add up...

Not listened to this but its topic is relevant here:

That gasworks site will sit empty for another decade then

Another year!!

And, as stated in the ORT, him not knowing for sure and still playing him is still a dereliction of his duties.

Ownership of those shares is what allows the land to be transferred.

Slight bit more expectation than hope for Leeds with this. The first of a big set of 4 matches. Take 6 or 8 points from them and it cements us in the top 2. The opportunity is certainly there.

The Giants are Huddersfield Sporting Pride (just as the Rhinos are Leeds CFA).

The Giants (through their operating company HSP) own 20% of that asset through their 20% ownership of KDSL. That asset has a value, which one presumes is being used as part of the deal in overall share transfer of KDSL to HTAFC. If the council want the Land, they at least in some part need the Giants on board with that transfer. It hasn't been made crystal clear on what basis the site would be secured for the Giants according to them. There's a whole range of ways it could be done. As far as I can tell, the suggestion is that the council could retain the freehold, as it has done with the JS Stadium. £3.8 million is the reported loan figure. The council are saying they will write off the majority of those loans. In return they gain the freehold of the Gasworks site and give up liability on other aspects of the KDSL portfolio such as a swimming pool. The council are also maintaining their control of the freehold of the JS Stadium. FWIW, they are "gifting" their shares in KDSL reportedly, so clearly there is a lot of quid pro quo going on here. I don't blame the Giants for trying to get in on that.

Just pointing it out.

Sports Resolutions Arbitration Rules (which one assumes is the applicable set in this case) suggest that each side covers their own costs and 50% of the arbitration costs regardless of outcome in almost all cases.

None of which is relevant to Aston breaching the rules.

His case is set out in the Tribunal report, linked at the bottom of this article. https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63922/mark-aston-–-sport-resolutions

110% everyone involved professionally in management of RL clubs is aware of this. The insurance for the sport increased 4 fold in a year.

He appears to have fallen into the trap of believing his own case far too much. Whether that is because he has been promised the world by whatever lawyer he has had who knows. First it was an argument over procedural technicalities. That may work in a criminal court, where the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. But the RFL ORT work on balance of probabilities, for which whilst process is important, an issue in this field is not critically undermining. Fundamentally, Aston's story didn't add up. And even where it did, as the RFL document explains, it would have still been a breach anyway - just for neglect of duty rather than an intentional act. In a case such as this, balance of probabilities is all that is considered with regards to which story is most likely. Everything I have seen suggests Aston has failed to breach the 50+1 needed to make his version of events appear the most likely. Then this affadavit turned up, following the Tribunal. I'm not surprised that was not accepted to be included post investigation and Tribunal hearing frankly. The costs involved are significant, but the RFL are clearly prepared to die on this hill. The cost to the game, currently and in future, of not taking head injuries seriously are huge sums of money. Its also bigger than Aston, who by fighting so unnecessarily on this case, has made himself the fall guy for this much larger issue. You should always know the limitations and weaknesses of your own case, so that you don't inadvertently spend 10s of thousands on a case you are going to lose.

I assume he means that they have not found in favour of him covering the RFL, so its just his own costs he is responsible for?

Presumably a relative of Ian has been fairly vociferous in her support for Mark Aston. This from a few weeks ago. She is the one posting his statement up on Twitter too.

Last I heard it had been King paying the bills, as he is already down as collateral. Its king who has the relationship with a finance company too. No idea what it could be against though.

You get a bridging loan because for example, you are wanting to buy something, dependent on selling something else, but the sale is taking longer than expected so you bite the bullet to get a bridging loan to purchase the new asset before you have completed the sale. You then pay off the bridging loan (which are usually at very high rates), upon the completed sale of the old asset. Hence the bridge is to get you from where you are to where you want to be. Salford's new bridge leads them nowhere.

Exactly, bridging to what exactly!

Is that this loan being referred to?