O/T salary cap BRADFORD

[jammie]

the word double standerds springs to mind,the whole saga stinks,surely all the clubs finances should be on the table then everyone can see who has done what.from what has been written i understand that rule 14.1 says something like a breech of the salary cap will only be taken into account in exceptinal circumstances,how more exceptinal can our plight be than what happened last season.we admitted what we did and why we did it ,bradford have done it and said nothing and get half the fine of us,and then go on and win the grand final & get prize money,it'll help pay the fine for them.the SL's own rules say and injured player on the 20/20 rota must have there wages entered on the salary cap accounts.LOAD OF CRAP IF YOU ASK ME.

[ultimate warrior]

Bradford have been deducted two points and fined £25,000, £15,000 suspended for two years. They breached by 52 - 55%, which is the same as us I believe.

Whats the differnce or is it double standards by the RFL again..

This has been confirmed on the official RL website.

Moved into existing thread. Please don't start new threads that say the same as an existing thread. Thanks, Fraggle

[Mike]

As I undertand it (so no lawyers please), the reason the Wigan fine was so high is because we asked for dispensation before we breached the cap and were not granted it. We then went on to break the cap anyway, despite being told explicitly that our stituation would not fall under the exceptional circumstances rule. The size of the fine reflects our deliberate descision to defy the RFL.

Bradford on the otherhand probably argued that they breached the cap accidentally, or considered that they would definitely fall under an exceptional circumstances situation. They obviously did not directly defy the RFL, so the fine would be lower.

I really don't think there is any double standards at RFL HQ, which finally seems to be run on a sound professional basis. (The same can't be said of the disaplinary panel, which is full of inconsistent penalties and requires a major shake-up (IMO))

Please note, this is my opinion from reading the relevent statments and news articles, not a statement of fact.

[mike binder]

mike the old farts dont know what there doing and thats my opinion ,which i am leggaly bound 2 ,double standard and smelling rats does come to mind

[Fraggle]

jammie posted:
the word double standerds springs to mind,the whole saga stinks,surely all the clubs finances should be on the table then everyone can see who has done what.from what has been written i understand that rule 14.1 says something like a breech of the salary cap will only be taken into account in exceptinal circumstances,how more exceptinal can our plight be than what happened last season.we admitted what we did and why we did it ,bradford have done it and said nothing and get half the fine of us,and then go on and win the grand final & get prize money,it'll help pay the fine for them.the SL's own rules say and injured player on the 20/20 rota must have there wages entered on the salary cap accounts.LOAD OF CRAP IF YOU ASK ME.

Without the details available, I think I'll have to stand by my suggestion that Ryan Hudson is the reason they've gone over the limit. They perhaps assumed that he didn't count on the salary cap because they fired him before the season started, but he wouldn't have made any difference to their efforts and successes on the field. They didn't win the title by Hudson's contribution, but as a squad member on 1st February or whenever the initial squads have to be submitted to the league then his salary is deemed to be counted. If I'm right, then I think it's another anomoly in the salary cap. It's ridiculous that if a player takes no part in the SL campaign, for whatever reason (injured, sold, sacked) that his salary still counts. Would we have gone over the limit if Davico had not been considered in our salary for 2005 (his name has been mentioned by ML in relation to the salary cap so I'm assuming he was in there as well, despite contributing nothing to our season).

[Wayne's World]

im sure we didnt pay davico for a season :conf: and as people say everbody knows our buisness ,i want to see your books supposed to be an equal playing fiels,you know our buisness let us see yours :doz:

[Fraggle]

Wayne's World posted:
im sure we didnt pay davico for a season :conf: and as people say everbody knows our buisness ,

His name was mentioned in ML's public response as being one of the players who was costing us money despite being injured. It may be that we didn't pay him for the whole season, we effectively released him part-way through the year, but I'm pretty sure at least part of his wages have been included. There's a deadline by which the initial squad has to be submitted to the league, and that will have been before his two minute appearance at Salford. Therefore he'll have been considered part of our squad and his salary included. At the earliest, I think we'll have had to pay him for 3 months after it was determined he wasn't going to play again and that we needed to let him go, I'm pretty sure there's a notice period in all the contracts.

i want to see your books supposed to be an equal playing fiels,you know our buisness let us see yours :doz:

Um, I presume you mean Bradford's books, mine are pretty boring unless you like Star Wars novels...

[jammie]

we were in a no win situation then,more than half the first team out injured,so its a case of bring in replacements and risk breaking the salary cap or play with what you have left and run the risk of being relegated with all the financial implications that would bring.so the old farts that run SL have it both ways.

[DaveO]

Mike posted:
As I undertand it (so no lawyers please), the reason the Wigan fine was so high is because we asked for dispensation before we breached the cap and were not granted it. We then went on to break the cap anyway, despite being told explicitly that our stituation would not fall under the exceptional circumstances rule. The size of the fine reflects our deliberate descision to defy the RFL.

Bradford must have known signing Morely would make then break the cap or make them break it by a larger amount. And why they would have thought they had "exceptional circumstances" is beyond me. What exceptional circumstances?

Bradford on the otherhand probably argued that they breached the cap accidentally, or considered that they would definitely fall under an exceptional circumstances situation. They obviously did not directly defy the RFL, so the fine would be lower.

The moral of the story seems quite clear to me. Don't ask the RFL for a dispensation, plead ignorance having done what you liked and get off with a lesser punishment.

As far as I can see both clubs broke the cap the difference being we were open about it in asking if we could (but still doing it when told no as we saw no alternative) whereas Bradford did it and told no one. Who is being the more underhand?

Bradford also went on to pocket a large prize money purse for the GF and take part in the WCC so benefited hugely from their win so this fine seems a cheap price to pay for all that.

If this were the NRL thy would probably be stripped of the title and the prize money never mind 2 points and a pathetic fine.

I really don't think there is any double standards at RFL HQ, which finally seems to be run on a sound professional basis. (The same can't be said of the disaplinary panel, which is full of inconsistent penalties and requires a major shake-up (IMO))

If it isn't double standards it is naivity or incompetance on the RFL's part IMO. How could they possibly accept Bradford didn't know what they were up to and that is thus a lesser offence than Wigan's?

Please note, this is my opinion from reading the relevent statments and news articles, not a statement of fact.

Alas due to the vagueness of the RFL all we can do is speculate.

Dave

[DaveO]

Fraggle posted:
Without the details available, I think I'll have to stand by my suggestion that Ryan Hudson is the reason they've gone over the limit. They perhaps assumed that he didn't count on the salary cap because they fired him before the season started,

That doesn't wash. You can't assume anything like that in a complex set of rules like the salary cap.

Also given Wigan's attempt to get a dispensation and its refusal by the RFL was well publicised Bradford have no excuse to not question their assumption if thay had made one over Hudson.

They have even less of an excuse to then go on and sign another player given what had happened to Wigan.

If I'm right, then I think it's another anomoly in the salary cap. It's ridiculous that if a player takes no part in the SL campaign, for whatever reason (injured, sold, sacked) that his salary still counts.

I agree but that is no excuse for Bardford not knowing the rather stupid rules. They are suppoised to be a profesional club yet if you are right their defence is ignorance.

Dave