Jump to content

Salford fined for failing to fulfil a fixture


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I agree ... it's is cheeseparing from some commentators to criticise Salford.  There is no parallel or TWP in my opinion.

I think the league have been harsh.

But rule are rules man and where would we be without them .... France!

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, Oxford said:

But rule are rules man and where would we be without them .... France!

And the whole 15k could have been suspended instead of just half.  There are rules and consequences and the sanction against Salford is harsh.  It's a question of applying the rule and the circumstances.     A bit like the disciplinary only giving Makinson 5 games and not 8, just because he is a poster boy and is good to his mum.  He broke the rule but got away with it compared to the same offence that others did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

It's a question of applying the rule and the circumstances.

And this is what people, especially those with an axe to grind, like to ignore.

The truth is this year, of all years, the RFL doesn't need to act like it's got something stuck up its bum.

I forgot to mention they'll be along in a  minute.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Tough on Salford but this was nothing to do with COVID and you can't pull out of fixtures because of injuries.

It was a precedent that the RFL just couldn't allow.

The fine amounts to a slap on the wrists and that's about right.

You can’t say it had nothing to do with covid. A normal fixture list would more than likely lead to less injuries

No it wasn’t directly to do with covid. But absolutely it indirectly was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Spidey said:

You can’t say it had nothing to do with covid.

I think people can and will.

 

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

But absolutely it indirectly was

Yes  of course it was but whatever you do, don't suggest the club were right to look after their players first and foremost.

 

13 minutes ago, Spidey said:

A normal fixture list would more than likely lead to less injuries

You'll have to do much better than facts.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

It was a precedent that the RFL just couldn't allow.

They just couldn't allow in the middle of a pandemic?

 

44 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

you can't pull out of fixtures because of injuries.

Well ask yourself this at what point does the team you can put out become dangerous to those involved?

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunedan said:

Hull KR *did not* unilaterally end their season. They had a COVID-19 outbreak and the quarantine period took them past the end of the season.

It's remarkable how often this particular lie is trotted out.

I agree it's great concentrating on the things you like rather than the facts.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Did Toronto still owe Salford money for the O'Brien transfer, or was that settled?

Just asking.

no idea.

Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

Don't post at 3am kids

I live in America so I was in bed at 3am, but thanks for the advice. 

Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It was only 3, we kept taking the 2 actually. 

That says several  things you  had little confidence even when't committee were commited to you and the virtual ref was one of a small number of candidates and clearly  bent.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oxford said:

That says several  things you  had little confidence even when't committee were commited to you and the virtual ref was one of a small number of candidates and clearly  bent.

Even with a fictitious game you are arguing against the penalties 😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Even with a fictitious game you are arguing against the penalties 😜

Not me even in a virtual game my team will come back at you, they have to play you and the ref and in case you haven't noticed the whistle's not gone yet!

Sorry morning Prof T I hope you're well.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Even with a fictitious game you are arguing against the penalties 😜

My fellow SRD fan Oxford is much more imaginative than that. He is actually disappointed that you didn't take the dg when it was 0-0.

 

Sorry Spidey. Only just spotted your dg reference.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society

Founder (and, so far, only) member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Oxford said:

And this is what people, especially those with an axe to grind, like to ignore.

The truth is this year, of all years, the RFL doesn't need to act like it's got something stuck up its bum.

I forgot to mention they'll be along in a  minute.

To be clear. The rule is there.  It is a question of the appropriate penalty to apply .

I am out of this one.  Some comments are pathetic and one eyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

To be clear. The rule is there.  It is a question of the appropriate penalty to apply .

I am out of this one.  Some comments are pathetic and one eyed.

So you had your say and you're out of here, fair enough.

We all know the rule is there but it's not a good when except when things are normal. It is not there to put players at risk and although they have shipped the work involved onto RLcares.

"The RFL continues to drive and set the Welfare Policy."

that either means looking after players or it doesn't. If this is not the case they need to stop wasting money on RLcares.

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/welfare/player_welfare_policy_and_standards

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tonyXIII said:

My fellow SRD fan Oxford

I thought you were about to accuse me of being a virtual SRD fan for a moment then.

Do you have a view on the fine Tony? I've honestly never seen the Salford fans as angry even though they sort of expect this kind of thing from the RFL to be some kind of bianual  event!

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I thought you were about to accuse me of being a virtual SRD fan for a moment then.

Do you have a view on the fine Tony? I've honestly never seen the Salford fans as angry even though they sort of expect this kind of thing from the RFL to be some kind of bianual  event!

 

I believe that Ian Blease and Paul King are quite sanguine about the fine. If that is so, then I'm not going to rise to the bait of those on here who love to pile in on an anti-Salford story.

AFAIK, the main losers are the Council and Peel Holdings, who still own the stadium and need a tenant whatever, Marwan Koucash, who has gone on record as saying he doesn't want his money back, John Wilkinson, for whom I do feel some sympathy, and, finally, a number of small creditors for whom I do feel sorry, but can do nothing about. But, hey! Check out the headline! Nasty Salford! That's all some people care about. If it makes them feel good, let them fill their boots.

Sorry, I almost forgot. The fine could have been worse and could have been a whole lot better, so I don't really have a view on it.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society

Founder (and, so far, only) member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

You honestly think people give Salford a hard time? That people shouldn’t comment about them leaving people in the lurch financially? What was the figure they didn’t pay back again? I’ve never slagged off Salford in all my time on here, it’s not some sort of persecution to raise awkward issues.
As for the people they didn’t pay the money back to...hey! Right? Who gives a damn.

To put the tin lid on it, this was a few days after they had a say in whether another club were fit for purpose. You honestly couldn’t make it up. 

Oh, but you do.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society

Founder (and, so far, only) member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.