WiganWarriorsFans.com

Salford Red Devils have been fined £15,000 for failing to fulfil a Super League fixture in October.

Half of the imposed fine, £7500, has been suspended.

Salford were forced to withdrew from their clash against Warrington Wolves on October 30th due to having only 13 players available for selection.

The Red Devils were expected to participate in four games within just 11 days, a schedule which doesn’t allow for substantial rest and recovery.

Due to Covid-19, the RFL released specific requirements for withdrawing from a fixture; a minimum of seven players ruled out as a direct result of Coronavirus, either through a positive test or track & trace.

As Salford did not meet these requirements, Warrington were awarded a 24-0 victory, a result which allowed the Wolves to finish third in the competition.

Salford released a statement on their website elaborating on the club’s disappointment regarding the decision: “The Club made every effort to fulfil all fixtures, with additional recruitment to the squad despite no threat of relegation, and strict adherence to Covid-19 protocols, which prevented rescheduling as a consequence of outbreaks.”

“At a time when other sports have been criticised for their approaches to player welfare, Salford Red Devils are disappointed that the RFL have not supported the stance taken by the Club.”

“This will not alter the Club’s priorities and approach going forward.”

https://www.totalrl.com/salford-given-f ... e-fixture/

Just another example of showing they couldn't run a bath let alone our great game. Another backward step as long as these muppets run the game we will continue to go backwards.

Didn’t Leeds & Saints refuse to play a game each due to COVID?

josie andrews wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 3:44 pm Didn’t Leeds & Saints refuse to play a game each due to COVID?

That doesn’t count.

All Salford had to do was say COVID and they wouldn't have got the fine. Saints refused to go, not because they had any cases but because they didn't want to travel. Salford could have said they didn't want to play because of COVID.

Mike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:54 pm All Salford had to do was say COVID and they wouldn't have got the fine. Saints refused to go, not because they had any cases but because they didn't want to travel. Salford could have said they didn't want to play because of COVID.

I thought Salford didn't play because they couldn't raise a team because of covid and did not want to subject the 3 teens they had to put in to covid surely .that boils down to same as saints not wanting to travel because of players welfare. Or am I missing something

I said on Facebook they should tell them to sod off,like it or not Salford where on their bones on their backside squad wise to think they’d just pull out of a game for the hell of it is beyond stupid.

The morons at the RFL bleat on about player welfare then so this,ridiculous it really is

keptinthedarkfans wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:16 pm

Mike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:54 pm All Salford had to do was say COVID and they wouldn't have got the fine. Saints refused to go, not because they had any cases but because they didn't want to travel. Salford could have said they didn't want to play because of COVID.

I thought Salford didn't play because they couldn't raise a team because of covid and did not want to subject the 3 teens they had to put in to covid surely .that boils down to same as saints not wanting to travel because of players welfare. Or am I missing something

It obviously does IMO. For some reason Saints were allowed to just unilaterally say they weren't going to play an official fixture and that was fine. Salford had real reasons they couldn't play caused by the schedule they'd been asked to fulfill and apparently that is not fine. IMO Saints should have been ejected from the league for their flat refusal to play a fixture that there were no government regulations against, the league had agreed should be played and that other teams had fulfilled. Salford just couldn't raise a team.

Mike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:04 am

keptinthedarkfans wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:16 pm

Mike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:54 pm All Salford had to do was say COVID and they wouldn't have got the fine. Saints refused to go, not because they had any cases but because they didn't want to travel. Salford could have said they didn't want to play because of COVID.

I thought Salford didn't play because they couldn't raise a team because of covid and did not want to subject the 3 teens they had to put in to covid surely .that boils down to same as saints not wanting to travel because of players welfare. Or am I missing something

It obviously does IMO. For some reason Saints were allowed to just unilaterally say they weren't going to play an official fixture and that was fine. Salford had real reasons they couldn't play caused by the schedule they'd been asked to fulfill and apparently that is not fine. IMO Saints should have been ejected from the league for their flat refusal to play a fixture that there were no government regulations against, the league had agreed should be played and that other teams had fulfilled. Salford just couldn't raise a team.

Saints needed to be fresh for the playoffs

Can totally understand why Salford feel aggrieved with this fine. It reads harsh and unjustified IMO.