Sheffield

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Hopefully nobody reports them if what you have said is true then.

Companies House is toothless.  But that's way off-topic.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Companies House is toothless.  But that's way off-topic.

Possibly so but it would be an interesting argument trying to prove that Aston is not the CEO if the need ever came up. Its part of what makes this a bit of a strange case from a legal point of view.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

4 hours ago, M j M said:

Fearless Leader says 18 months is far too harsh!

https://www.totalrl.com/rfl-non-intervention-uneasy-decision-and-lack-of-email-trail-revelation-in-mark-aston-investigation/

Given the importance the game has placed on the concussion issue this perspective is very difficult to agree with.

If the club doctor says the player wasn't signed off and the coach knew this but still played him then anything else is immaterial. Expecting the RFL to micromanage a club to the degree of picking their team for them because the club can't follow basic, easily-understood protocols is ridiculous.

Good grief..... 

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Possibly so but it would be an interesting argument trying to prove that Aston is not the CEO if the need ever came up. Its part of what makes this a bit of a strange case from a legal point of view.

Lovely - what difference does that make?

[Click]

19 hours ago, M j M said:

Fearless Leader says 18 months is far too harsh!

https://www.totalrl.com/rfl-non-intervention-uneasy-decision-and-lack-of-email-trail-revelation-in-mark-aston-investigation/

Given the importance the game has placed on the concussion issue this perspective is very difficult to agree with.

If the club doctor says the player wasn't signed off and the coach knew this but still played him then anything else is immaterial. Expecting the RFL to micromanage a club to the degree of picking their team for them because the club can't follow basic, easily-understood protocols is ridiculous.

What an awful take on the situation by someone who should be more in the "know"

[Blind side johnny]

18 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Good grief..... 

Well, he does say that they sell a lot of copies of LE in Sheffield, so.........

[The Blues Ox]

19 hours ago, Griff said:

Lovely - what difference does that make?

You said Aston isnt the CEO right? Yet he is still legally listed as the CEO? The person who is now recognised as Sheffields CEO sacks Aston for gross misconduct, Aston launches a legal challenge that he is still the CEO. Its not really rocket science which is why it could become quite messy at this point as it seems Aston really has very little grounds to think he would win an appeal so seems strange to even try.

As for that article, its laughable to think that Aston does not deserve a lengthy ban for putting a players health at stake knowing fulwell that the player should not be allowed to play.

Edited October 29 by The Blues Ox
Sorry put snake instead of stake. Force of habit.

[M j M]

Being CEO doesn't really have any legal importance.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

You said Aston isnt the CEO right? Yet he is still legally listed as the CEO? The person who is now recognised as Sheffields CEO sacks Aston for gross misconduct, Aston launches a legal challenge that he is still the CEO. Its not really rocket science which is why it could become quite messy at this point as it seems Aston really has very little grounds to think he would win an appeal so seems strange to even try.

Doubt it.  But thanks for the warning.

The Board of Directors does the hiring and firing.

Edited October 29 by Griff

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

The Board of Directors does the hiring and firing.

Mark Aston is listed as being on the Board of Directors - regardless of the title of CEO.

Is that not correct?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/_X1cws6oXqmqFMyTV52IcnRypIQ/appointments

[Griff]

Coincidence?

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63245/rugby-league---note-taking-app

[Griff]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Mark Aston is listed as being on the Board of Directors - regardless of the title of CEO.

Is that not correct?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/_X1cws6oXqmqFMyTV52IcnRypIQ/appointments

Yes.  So what ?

[Griff]

Edited 2 hours ago by The Blues Ox
Sorry put snake instead of stake. Force of habit.

To be fair, I thought that was funny.

[JohnM]

Watch current  League Express YouTube podcast to see their take on this. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Watch current  League Express YouTube podcast to see their take on this. 

I assume it's the same bizarre take as linked to above?

[Rene_Artois]

I really question their take on this. I'll freely admit I've disliked Aston for the last 30 years. Regardless, the punishment seems lenient. The funding page for him seems in particularly poor taste 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Rene_Artois said:

I'll freely admit I've disliked Aston for the last 30 years.

Who'd've thought it?

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

Worth remembering that Des Johnson was banned from the game for 8 years for breaching salary cap rules. Aston's punishment for putting a player's 'life' at risk seems particularly lenient......

[JonM]

11 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Worth remembering that Des Johnson was banned from the game for 8 years for breaching salary cap rules. Aston's punishment for putting a player's 'life' at risk seems particularly lenient......

The Johnston case was deliberate cheating over a period of 4-5 years (and various players have revealed more things since that weren't known at the time).

[Hopie]

15 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I assume it's the same bizarre take as linked to above?

The things they mentioned in the podcast - and my opinion on those things:

Admit the rules were broken - can't see any other logical opinion on this

Punishment too harsh as it ruins someone's career - someone playing with a head injury can lead to them ruining or shortening their life so the punishment seems at the right level to me.

Player had waited the normal length of time to not play for the protocol but the doctor said they were still not cleared - this seems to be an aggravating factor for me, as if the doctor wanted a longer time of rest than normal this points to the injury being more severe than average, so to pick the player in this case seems to be very dangerous.

Miscommunications? Physio said yes at first but then changed to a no later on if player was fit to play. Also, physio can have delegated responsibility in some cases - not sure how a mistake in saying fit to play overrules a later statement saying he player is not fit to play? Obviously a doctor overrules a physio in this situation.

Doctor emailed RFL before the game so the RFL should have stopped this - if the RFL saw the email before the game then there may be an issue that they didn't step in and safeguard a player's safety, but it would still mean the person who decided to ignore doctor's advice would have to be punished if the only thing that stopped the player playing was an external force, and not the club who have a duty of care for their players.

Player was man of the match in the game - Are they saying that if someone plays well they are not injured? Bizarre take if so.

Tribunal is not independent as it is appointed by the RFL and the RFL didn't present the email chain that followed the doctor's email as requested by the tribunal - First point doesn't stand up as its always the case and the appointees are independent, however there is an element of a question about transparency and competence from the RFL side on the latter, however this would be a small mitigation to the punishment at best.

Crowdfunder is for an appeal to an external sports body - seems reasonable if they have a good reason to do so, not sure what it is?

[Tommygilf]

That article is a job for a mate, fair enough, but let's not pretend it is much more than that.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Hopie said:

Miscommunications? Physio said yes at first but then changed to a no later on if player was fit to play. Also, physio can have delegated responsibility in some cases - not sure how a mistake in saying fit to play overrules a later statement saying he player is not fit to play? Obviously a doctor overrules a physio in this situation.

That's not what was said at all.  The physio said the player had passed all his tests and was good to go.  The following day, he said the doctor hadn't signed him off.  Which is not the same thing as the physio changing his mind.  

2 hours ago, Hopie said:

Doctor emailed RFL before the game so the RFL should have stopped this - if the RFL saw the email before the game then there may be an issue that they didn't step in and safeguard a player's safety, but it would still mean the person who decided to ignore doctor's advice would have to be punished if the only thing that stopped the player playing was an external force, and not the club who have a duty of care for their players.

It's an unusual scenario.   Given the urgency, the RFL employee could have stopped it - it would have been a simple matter to call the match commissioner and tell her that Marshy wasn't cleared to play. We'll never know why that wasn't done - the employee no longer works for the RFL and the investigator's notes have been "lost".

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's not what was said at all.  The physio said the player had passed all his tests and was good to go.  The following day, he said the doctor hadn't signed him off.  Which is not the same thing as the physio changing his mind.  

It's an unusual scenario.   Given the urgency, the RFL employee could have stopped it - it would have been a simple matter to call the match commissioner and tell her that Marshy wasn't cleared to play. We'll never know why that wasn't done - the employee no longer works for the RFL and the investigator's notes have been "lost".

Interesting, probably indicative of lots of problems, none of that changes what Aston did though...

[Hopie]

41 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's not what was said at all.  The physio said the player had passed all his tests and was good to go.  The following day, he said the doctor hadn't signed him off.  Which is not the same thing as the physio changing his mind.  

I didn't say the Physio changed their mind, I said they gave information that said the player was able to play on one occasion and subsequently there was information that said the player was not able to play.

I was just summarising what I heard in a podcast, which itself is at best a second hand account of what happened. What doesn't appear to be in dispute is that a player who was not eligible to play for health reasons, played in a game of Rugby League, and those in charge at his club did not prevent it.

[Dave W]

6 hours ago, JonM said:

The Johnston case was deliberate cheating over a period of 4-5 years (and various players have revealed more things since that weren't known at the time).

It wasn't just Johnston that got punished either: The RFL docked all Barrow's points for the 2011 season thereby relegating us and having to start from scratch with a new BOD. It's taken us a decade to recover.

Sheffield supporters should count themselves lucky that individuals have been punished rather than the club itself.