IAN SWIRE, who was the Chairman of Sheffield Eagles from 1999 to 2016 and is now a member of the club’s Role of Honour, has played an important role in persuading the RFL to reverse its stance on referring the RFL Tribunal’s decision to ban Mark Aston from coaching for 18 months, gives his take on that dispute and the current status of Rugby League in France.
The last four weeks have taught me that the RFL disciplinary procedures for off-field matters are simply not fit for purpose.
Having not been directly involved in the game since retiring from the Sheffield Eagles board eight years ago, a text I received on 24th October changed all that. It simply read “18-month ban.”
“Bloody hell, that’s excessive” was my initial response as I opened the RFL site to read the tribunal report.
While my first swift read-through suggested culpability, the punishment seemed totally arbitrary and unprecedented.
During a second detailed reading, more inconsistencies emerged, along with the clear culpability of the RFL for not preventing the breach in the first place.
One thing troubled me from the start.
When news broke that Sheffield Eagles had suspended Mark Aston and Mick Heys, I understood the rationale but questioned why the RFL was conducting the investigation. Why wasn’t the club itself investigating and reporting its findings to the RFL?
When John Whaling and I ran the club, we wouldn’t initially have given RFL investigators access to our employees. As directors, we were responsible for their actions and would hold them accountable. The club would report its findings to the RFL, who could then decide whether to charge the club.
Why does the RFL think it has the right to pierce the corporate veil when that wouldn’t be allowed in any other business?
“This isn’t business, this is sport,” I am told – yet I don’t see the FA charging accountants when financial discrepancies arise at their member clubs!
Everyone in this country is entitled to a fair trial where their defence can present evidence and call witnesses before truly independent judges. But these basic rights appeared absent in Aston’s case, so together with other former directors and sponsors of the Eagles, I formed an independent action group to ensure justice was done transparently. This required allowing Aston a truly independent appeal with the right to present evidence and call witnesses. The RFL appeals process specifically prevents this, only allowing a review of the original tribunal for inconsistencies – essentially the RFL marking their own homework.
The RFL board dismissed our concerns, misjudging the abilities within our group.
We leveraged our contacts and family member skillsets to produce a media and public affairs campaign that culminated in an article by The Times’ chief sports investigative reporter.
The RFL, having dismissed questions from Rugby League journalists, was forced to respond to The Times, revealing their own culpability.
They stated: “To describe it as ‘an administrative error’ reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons the charges were brought, and why the suspension was imposed – knowingly fielding a player without the necessary medical clearance is considerably more serious than that.”
Yet the tribunal makes clear that the RFL was twice informed on match day about potential issues with Matty Marsh playing that evening but it made no effort to alert the match commissioner. If knowingly fielding a player is considerably more serious than an administrative error, then why aren’t the RFL themselves in the dock for knowingly allowing the fielding of a player without the necessary medical clearance?
Following our success in moving Mark’s appeal to Sport Resolutions, I met with the Eagles’ current owner this week and we discussed the difficulties that the club is encountering in the absence of Mark. I do not envy the challenging position the directors find themselves in with pre-season approaching.
My solution would be to persuade John Kear to return to the scene of his greatest triumph and hold the fort until Mark is cleared to resume his coaching duties. To make such a temporary appointment would potentially excite and motivate the supporters, the sponsors and, just as importantly, the players.
In my 17 years as Eagles Chairman, administrative discrepancies were typically handled behind closed doors with agreed sanctions if necessary.
We witnessed instances of this a couple of times with ineligible players playing against us and a club going into liquidation the day after playing us. To our amazement no sanctions were made against the offending clubs in either of those cases.
I am informed that the RFL would not countenance any compromise in the Mark Aston case and insisted upon a tribunal, presumably as they wanted to send a clear message to the game.
I would respectfully state that we have more than achieved that on their behalf with all the publicity that our campaign has generated. When was the last time Rugby League had two articles in The Times?
As Tim Butcher succinctly stated in this column last week: “The RFL should just apologise now and settle with a suspended fine for the club”.
Click here to get the digital edition of League Express
Click here to subscribe to the print edition of League Express
League Express is also widely available from local newsagents across the north of England.
