www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 24,00.html how many back handers have they paid for this one ( and that is a tounge in cheek remark by the way )

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 24,00.html how many back handers have they paid for this one ( and that is a tounge in cheek remark by the way )

it was obvious that they wouldn't get a fine that was generally considered to be unfair.

Less than £1000 a player. Its almost worth it to cheat as one game in Super League could get us the five grand to cover it!

If you've ever seen the fly on the wall documentaries about the UK Boarder Force, for catching a guy trying to earn his crust in the back of a takeaway, the owner gets fined £10k per employee. I would have thought that a high profile situation like this would prompt the maximum fine to send out a message. Obviously not.

Absolutely agree with this,£60,000 fine would have been the order of the day

They were only found guilty of not making checks on one player , I would assume they made checks on the others and having got clearance didn't think there would be a problem

The real question is what were these checks ?

I'd guess that they quite possibly were asking the sports governing body if they thought these players were of the acceptable quality

So who wasn't telling the truth in all this ?

Lets also assume that the people or organisation that made the decisions on these players can not be fined by the UKBA

Quite a smell round this subject , and it isn't coming from South Wales , I'd look further north and a bit to the east for the source

Basically they've got away with it again

Why , they were found guilty of not making the correct checks on one player , the maximum fine could only have been £ 10,000 , you would have to assume that there were some mitigating circumstances for it to nbe reduced , also are THE Crusaders the same company as the Celtic Crusaders ?

If not then who can they fine ?

You make a very valid point here Starbug

Surely if The Crusaders and Celtic Crusaders are not the same company/club they should have had their SL licence revoked?

Yes , but we already knew that

from what i recall the RFL board have absolute discretion with what happens after an insolvency event - and in this case they have allowed a 'pheonix club' to be established to take over the Celtic Crusaders share - another company and therefore legal entity.

I very much doubt they will have fined the new outfit but the old company at the time that is probably being wound up or struck off.

This is also allowed in Rugby Union but the FA would require a football club to come out via a CVA with a points deduction or a more serious points deduction if a CVA is not possible...

The ironic thing is, that they probably saved money through the whole thing as the players were sacked immediately, therefore 6 players off the wage bill.

dprl.blogspot.com/ I've done a blog posting about "Visagate"

dprl.blogspot.com/ I've done a blog posting about "Visagate"

Boo freaking hoo.

Birmingham???

I've always thought it smelt a bit funny round there?!

Useful contribution as ever. No, really.

Leigh fans moaning about the RFL as ever. No, really.

Yet you still come back for more. Bored are you?

It has something to do with a perception that the RFL treats some professional clubs different from others.

You should ask yourself is that perception correct. I think you probably have thought about it and have come to the conclusion that we are wrong. Fair enough.

warrington fans still believing they are were they are because they've earned it & not because theres more millionaires on the wire board than there is in saudi arabia, NO, REALLY.

You have set foot in warrington haven't you?


It's a salary capped sport, better run teams are better than badly run teams, the way it is

The perception is wrong. I thought that was a decent article in RLW this month and the Chp chairmen interviewed all agreed the RFL do everything they can to help Chp clubs

Are you "sam" on TOTALRL by any chance.....

Considering I don't know what TOTALRL is then no, no I am not.

i think its more a case of some clubs get caught & some dont.to be honest.
dont get me going on the 21 chairmen of the CHP'S,if some of them grew some balls the clubs would'nt be scratching round for scaps of the TV deal.instead they'd be banging on the door of the RFL demanding there own TV deal.cos let face it after watching the brad v cas & hull v quinns lei v barra games you could'nt say the champ game was any less entertaining the the SL games was it.

It was actually a decent game on thursday.
The problem you face, and I cba getting into a debate on this, what are you actually worth to SKY/whoever? Probably nothing really financially and imo you do well to get what you get. FWIW I reckon come the next deal Sky will appreciate that the Chp has developed a TV market and increase your amount depending on future viewing number increases.

I don't know about the Chp but it's not possible to cheat the cap in SL anymore, it's a live audited system, can't be cheated really unless chairmens little henchmen are backhanding brown envelopes illegally, not just breaking SL rules but breaking the law too. Why would they.