Points Reduction!!!

[Fraggle]

Alex the Warrior posted:
So, St. Helens get a minor fine for their second breach of the rules in 3 years! Doesn't look like they have any desire to comply.

You would like to think they might hit a team harder if they've had previous breaches of the cap.

But also, perhaps the league need to look at the fact that half the league has been involved in this, and London are probably only not there because of the fact they were bailed out halfway through the season. Is it just me that thinks that rules are perhaps not appropriate if half the clubs are not able to abide by them? Is it not time to think of a different way of running a salary cap, since the current regulations seem to be very difficult to comply with?

[mike binder]

do i take it all the talk of a top 6 finish now out the window

[Fraggle]

mike binder posted:
do i take it all the talk of a top 6 finish now out the window

Is this an appropriate time to remind everyone that, as of 2:45 this Monday afternoon, we've not been found guilty of anything yet. People always want to think the worst before anything has ever been decided...

[mike binder]

Fraggle posted:

Alex the Warrior posted:
So, St. Helens get a minor fine for their second breach of the rules in 3 years! Doesn't look like they have any desire to comply.

You would like to think they might hit a team harder if they've had previous breaches of the cap.

But also, perhaps the league need to look at the fact that half the league has been involved in this, and London are probably only not there because of the fact they were bailed out halfway through the season. Is it just me that thinks that rules are perhaps not appropriate if half the clubs are not able to abide by them? Is it not time to think of a different way of running a salary cap, since the current regulations seem to be very difficult to comply with?

its time to scrap it as a restraint of trade if you took it to the european courts as it is the european super league they would throw it threw the window saying it is illegall as i have said b4 :doz:

[mike binder]

i know no news is good news but tyhe club are a little queit 4 my likeing ,i know they will say there is know case to answer ,but didnt the rfl come in aqnd look at our books b4 they would let fielden play against warrington

[thegimble]

warrior till i die posted:
I cannot see us of breaking it in anyway last year. We released farrell and I think we brought in Guissett. I really cant see it to be honest.

Face it pal were buggered.

Disciplinarys are never about ascertaining guilt its about the punishement

[adrenalinxx]

What I want to know is why has it taken almost a year for the RFL to work out that clubs were over the salary cap have they been adding it up on their fingers?

Surely at the end of last year when RFL looked at the salary cap they should have spotted it then and dealt with it in the off season not drag it up at an important time in the season after.

I see that Castleford and Wakefield were both only given minor punishments for breaking the salary cap.

[Fraggle]

mike binder posted:
i know no news is good news but tyhe club are a little queit 4 my likeing ,i know they will say there is know case to answer ,but didnt the rfl come in aqnd look at our books b4 they would let fielden play against warrington

It's relating to last year Mike, nothing to do with Fielden or anything else that's happened this year. Some speculation around that these hearings might be about the Newton/Higham saga, Higham being on Bradford's books for 30 seconds before going to Wigan. It's got to something unusual like that, rather than just a straight breach otherwise it would have been dealt with along with all the other breaches. If *we* had been the team signing Joey Johns and Mozza at the end of last season, then I could see us having a significant cap breach, but we didn't have a mass of expensive players in the squad to dent the cap otherwise.

I hope the league are going to be transparent with all of this. Whatever happens to Wigan and Bradford is going to get lots of media coverage, but surely it's right for us to know what (for example) Saints did to get a mostly-suspended fine ("don't do it again, if you have a third breach we'll have to tell you off a bit more forcefully"?) when there is so much speculation surrounding this first breach by us.

[mike binder]

Fraggle posted:

mike binder posted:
i know no news is good news but tyhe club are a little queit 4 my likeing ,i know they will say there is know case to answer ,but didnt the rfl come in aqnd look at our books b4 they would let fielden play against warrington

It's relating to last year Mike, nothing to do with Fielden or anything else that's happened this year. Some speculation around that these hearings might be about the Newton/Higham saga, Higham being on Bradford's books for 30 seconds before going to Wigan. It's got to something unusual like that, rather than just a straight breach otherwise it would have been dealt with along with all the other breaches. If *we* had been the team signing Joey Johns and Mozza at the end of last season, then I could see us having a significant cap breach, but we didn't have a mass of expensive players in the squad to dent the cap otherwise.

I hope the league are going to be transparent with all of this. Whatever happens to Wigan and Bradford is going to get lots of media coverage, but surely it's right for us to know what (for example) Saints did to get a mostly-suspended fine ("don't do it again, if you have a third breach we'll have to tell you off a bit more forcefully"?) when there is so much speculation surrounding this first breach by us.

i know its last year but if they can check our books in 10 mins this year why as it took so long to do last years books,if you know you have lost pts at the start of the season ie newzeland warrriors you have a chance to catch up,but to do it with 5 weeks left they might as well give you a loaded gun and pull the trigger.if the arl cand do it b4 the start of the season why cant thew bungglers at rfl head quarters do it.Why tv audience and they need some publicity good or bad but this 1 is going to make them look like fools.Sack the lot and take the man who brought the sallary cap in with them the season is 26 weeks old if it took me so long to do my job i would get sacked so why not these old farts i was told recently that i would change jobs soon maybe this is the oppurtunity i have been waiting for

[Fraggle]

mike binder posted:

Fraggle posted:

mike binder posted:
i know no news is good news but tyhe club are a little queit 4 my likeing ,i know they will say there is know case to answer ,but didnt the rfl come in aqnd look at our books b4 they would let fielden play against warrington

It's relating to last year Mike, nothing to do with Fielden or anything else that's happened this year. Some speculation around that these hearings might be about the Newton/Higham saga, Higham being on Bradford's books for 30 seconds before going to Wigan. It's got to something unusual like that, rather than just a straight breach otherwise it would have been dealt with along with all the other breaches. If *we* had been the team signing Joey Johns and Mozza at the end of last season, then I could see us having a significant cap breach, but we didn't have a mass of expensive players in the squad to dent the cap otherwise.

I hope the league are going to be transparent with all of this. Whatever happens to Wigan and Bradford is going to get lots of media coverage, but surely it's right for us to know what (for example) Saints did to get a mostly-suspended fine ("don't do it again, if you have a third breach we'll have to tell you off a bit more forcefully"?) when there is so much speculation surrounding this first breach by us.

i know its last year but if they can check our books in 10 mins this year why as it took so long to do last years books,if you know you have lost pts at the start of the season ie newzeland warrriors you have a chance to catch up,but to do it with 5 weeks left they might as well give you a loaded gun and pull the trigger.if the arl cand do it b4 the start of the season why cant thew bungglers at rfl head quarters do it.Why tv audience and they need some publicity good or bad but this 1 is going to make them look like fools.Sack the lot and take the man who brought the sallary cap in with them the season is 26 weeks old if it took me so long to do my job i would get sacked so why not these old farts i was told recently that i would change jobs soon maybe this is the oppurtunity i have been waiting for

It depends if they did actually check the books this year, or if they asked the club to explain how they could afford to sign a player who they know will be on big money when they already had a squad for 34 registered players (taking Rads and Moron off the original squad list). With an already huge squad, there was no way we could afford him without offloading some players, so I suspect the club had to give information about who it was planning to offload and details of any discussions to that effect that were ongoing. I think that if we had not demonstrated some efforts were already underway to reduce the size of the squad then the RFL would have blocked the transfer of the player's registration between the two clubs.

At the time Fielden was signed, we'd not finished paying the players, we hadn't won much so win bonuses weren't an issue, and other such payments could not be determined. So whatever checks were done were only very basic. The end of season audit covers all payments made to players in the 12 month period, we've not got there yet so the 2006 cap couldn't be fully checked!