Why do you say "investigation"? Are you suggesting UKBA are in cahoots with the RFL to cover up something they have brought into the open themselves?

No I didn't say such anything like that.

The RFL have stated that they are waiting for the results of an investigation. I simply said they might be waiting a long long time.

I wasn't assuming that as I deal with HMLR on a daily basis. Generally I do find even if they are not particularly "joined up" the staff know their own area of expertise well and it is difficult to get much past them.

Iae thanks for the interesting reply. It is good to read from someone with expertise and who has seen visas (which I guess most people on this forum including myself have not)

Another cretinous post from our resident VT Lamebrain. Well done sir!

Unfortnuately for you (and i suppose the rest of us for having to read the crap you post on here) Widnes will be in SL in 2012 which will probably result in more vitriolic claptrap from you on here. I can only hope that within the next three years you are sectioned.

Why put it in apostrophes then? It read sarcasticallly

PS You've also changed to "might" on the timescale from "gonna".

It was supposed to read sarcastically. Doesn't mean the UKBA and RFL are in cahoots.

The RFL have indicated that they are waiting for the results of an investigation from the UKBA. 'Might' and 'gonna' mean essentially the same thing in this context if you read it sarcastically.

Don't understand the point you're trying to make then. Surely it's sensible for the RFL to wait for the report and surely it is reasonable for UKBA to take as long as is needed to properly investigate? If you were being investigated by the authorities would you want them to do a rush job?

no, it should say are,

there are 13 clubs who have used them,

but there isnt, there are thirteen other clubs who have used them, 14 in total

and why, if the UKBA had changed their rules nearly 4 seasons ago now, were there players who only found out at the beginning of this season they werent allowed to play?

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/dec/17/rugby-league-gateshead-thunder-dean-jamieson-lewis-mcphailThis[/url happened just prior to this season, and shows two Gateshead players doing exactly what celtic have been accused of

now how can 2 players and a club be surprised by a recent RFL ruling 3 seasons after they were told about it?

and why were whitehaven and workington trying to sign a player they had known for three years they couldnt sign?

surely a three year old ruling couldnt be causing trouble for whitehaven, workington and the skolars?

They might be investigating Celtic Crusaders separately with is another matter but the RFL have suggested that they are waiting for a report on the matter. I'm suggesting that from what I have been led to believe, the UKBA don't produce reports.

I doubt very much they are investigating the RFL as well. Whether or not they were involved it is impossible to prove. They can just play dumb and suggest it is nothing to do with them which of course might be the case.

this rule seemed to surprise your workington when it stopped them trying to register Michael Watton at the beginning of this season

Ah! There must be some paperwork at UKBA even if there is not a formal report, but it would be interesting to know whether the RFL have the right to request it. Are UKBA's files open to inspection? I doubt it. I'm not sure the RFL have any additional right of clarification if the limits of their own checks is whether a visa exists or not when registering a player.

to continue using them

" From that point onwards the RFL adopted a policy whereby it agreed to register some overseas players , while not encouraging the practice "

So the RFL knew that these players were using those visa's to play at Celtic

Basically an admittance of guilt

What happened before 2005 is not relevant

What happened after nov2008 is not relevant

Somebody at the RFL knew what was going on and they knew it was not legal

Quote ="SmokeyTA"this rule seemed to surprise your workington when it stopped them trying to register Michael Watton at the beginning of this season'" No, it didn't. We went through the proper channels and attempted to get Michael a full visa. He was turned down because the RFL refused to give him Governing Body Endorsement, which is an essential requirement to get a full visa and work permit since the start of this year. He didn't meet the RFL's criteria for giving the GBE, which can be found here......... www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... e_2009.pdf Although, funnily enough, looking at the criteria there is only Hannay out of the CC players who would have qualified without the 'discretionary' element.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"this rule seemed to surprise your workington when it stopped them trying to register Michael Watton at the beginning of this season'" No, it didn't. We went through the proper channels and attempted to get Michael a full visa. He was turned down because the RFL refused to give him Governing Body Endorsement, which is an essential requirement to get a full visa and work permit since the start of this year. He didn't meet the RFL's criteria for giving the GBE, which can be found here......... www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... e_2009.pdf Although, funnily enough, looking at the criteria there is only Hannay out of the CC players who would have qualified without the 'discretionary' element.

Strange isn't it

Normally there would be loads of criticism hurled back at us ' flatcap followers of licence losers ' , but this time there isn't anywhere near as much , is there ?

Why ?

Quite simply because everybody knows they know , this is another of those ' kings new clothes ' situations

All you lot are stood there saying , ohh it's just clerical error , UKBA being y , it's the players fault , just moaning flat caps again , storm in a tea cup , show me a link

,

Or maybe you are all scared sheetless of criticising the ' gods ' at the RFL in case they spot who you support and ' persecuit your club



Brilliant

sorry starbug sometimes its hard to know exactly what you are talking about. don't you ever get tired of this?

:173ibvcw

No

The UKBA may not produce reports as such, but what they [iwill[/i do at the end of their investigation is take action against CC or not depending on whether they deem them to have done anything wrong. I suggest that this is what the RFL is waiting for, which seems entirely logical.

As the situation stands at the moment, CC have not been proven to have breached either RFL regulations or the law of the land. They therefore cannot be penalised by either the UKBA or the RFL. Should the UKBA investigation find them to have been complicit with the deception carried out by the 6 players then I imagine they will receive sanctions from both bodies.

The entirely sensible thing for the RFL to do at the moment is what they are doing - wait and see if the club has done anything wrong.

All you've done there is jump to a number of conclusions based on little or no evidence, coloured by your personal prejudices. You may be right, you may not be, so complaining about people putting forward alternative scenarios seems a little premature TBH.

I'm in favour of expansion, and I want CC to do well. But if either they or the RFL have been guilty of bending or breaking the rules in this matter I will quite happily criticise them for it. At the moment there is no conclusive evidence that this has happened, however.

yet if everything you were to have put here was the case, If all amateur migrant players who were playing on holiday or student visas for NL1/NL2 teams in 2008 were playing out their contracts then these players must have been amateur players signed to 4 year contracts to take them through the season from when the rules changed in 2005, the 2006 season, 2007 and 2008 only to be surprised they couldnt be re-registered in 2009

but thats not what happened, what happened was Mcphail and Jamieson were allowed to play as amatuers on a holiday visa because the had jobs in the local area, the same as celtic did, then a change in the rulings before the beginning of THIS season, meant that any player who received any payment at all for playing RL, even if it wasnt their main source of income now needed a tier 2 visa rather than a standard one, and a ruling by UKBA before THIS season that [ino overseas migrant may play rugby league with a professional or semi-professional club as an amateur.[/i

hey simple . dont sign overseas players . stop doing corupt things you crazy ass poms

It never ceases to amaze me that there are some who adopt this defence mechanism at the moment some ill thought out scheme has gone amiss.

Maybe they adopted it when the RFL planned a world cup game between NZ Maori and Lebanon at Reading on a cold Tuesday evening.

I despair at those stuck in a pscychosis that any criticism of anything that is out of the so called Rugby heartland is a besmitchment to the game.

Let me spell this out. Celtic are guilty of a gross oversight, and their operations this season have been simillarly devoid of substance.

If they were an employee in an a company they would be on some sort of perfromance management.

Nah everybody who raises a point that makes Celtic look bad has an agenda, quite simple really.

I've figured out the Phil Clarke one, apparently he turns out for Orrell RU these days so he's clearly trying to bring down RL from within.

I'll let you know when I've figured out Hadfield and Wilson's agenda's.

I love that this thread is here.

It keeps the knobs off our board.