Tribunal Decisions

[Poster]

Has anyone noted the inconsistency .Bradford -2pts and costs,no fine.
Saints no points 18k fine plus 4k suspended from before in 2005.
The rules are clear on points but why do Bradford not get hit with their suspended 15k from 2005? Has their well known financial position influenced this?

Are we sure that they have not given Saints some points? we need to check the small print.

[shawcross da warrior]

no they havnt no points deducted because they are saints and the r.f.l loves them we will get a 4 point deduction i feel so good job we beat the bradford then leeds last night.......


itt has been said saints only went over the cap becuase of the bonuses given to gardener and graham making there g.b debuts in the new zealand friendly half way through the season.........

chechk there overseas accounts that will tell you the full story.....

[DaveO]

Poster posted:

The rules are clear on points but why do Bradford not get hit with their suspended 15k from 2005? Has their well known financial position influenced this?

No. The reason they got fined in 2005 was down to actions deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of the game. The suspended part would only be levied on them if they once again did something deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of the game,

The RFL's official statement on this is "The panel also found that in Bradford 's 2006 case, there had been no conduct prejudicial to the bests interest of the game therefore the fine from last season remains suspended."

What this means is that in Saints case they committed the same offence they were fined for last year hence the suspended bit was levied on them this time whereas Bradford did not so the suspended part remains suspended.

So the penalty of 2 points and costs is for breaking the cap but, if you like, because they did it in a nice way and kept the RFL informed they were deemed not to have not done anything prejudicial to the bests interest of the game. So the suspended fine was not levied.

Dave