Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:52 pm  

talulah wrote:

Many items in law are subjective, being decided ultimately by tribunals, majistrates, and judges. That doesn't lessen their validity.

Correct, only one incy wincy problem mate, the RFL are not the judicery are they? So their findings are subjective and hopefully will be decided by judges

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:13 pm  

Lawrie L wrote:

Disagree, the club could have controlled the fans, stewards and tannoy systems could have been used to give annoucements out

however dont you think the rfls fine also takes into account the disgusting scenes at the end of the Catalan home game last season?

Mmm so what have you got to say about the old whino's disgusting scenes then ie...............

This incy wincy little thing, but hey dont let that stop you spouting your usual sh!te eh

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:43 pm  

lefty goldblatt wrote:

Let me remind you, Pieman, I've been on your website this season, and seen posts from your own speccies, saying the behaviour of some of YOUR scummier "fans", has been appalling. People in glass houses.........etc

Yup, as a Saints fan I can vouch for that. One of our stewards was beaten up by a Wigan fan and then they wrecked some of Knowsley Road's classiest corrugated iron wall and then to top things off they threw beer and other debris at our players after we beat them at their pad. So Pieman and his lot are in no place to comment upon the weirdos in other fanbases. They have a troublesome number of their own that they should worry about first. We have no trouble with any other fans. Hull KR fans are fun though - they sometimes fight each other!

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:49 pm  

Disco wrote:

Sexuality essentially boils down to which orifices you choose to stick your reproductive organ into. Race is pretty much down to where your dad was when he made his choice. So one's a conscious personal choice, the other isn't.

Is this some sort of right-wing christian nutters' board, or what?

Pathetic.

The fine's too low, if you all think like that.

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:52 pm  

RebelRebel wrote:

Is this some sort of right-wing christian nutters' board, or what?

Pathetic.

The fine's too low, if you all think like that.

Anti scemetics are against the RFL rules, so why have you got a religious hate on Right Wing Christians ?

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:09 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Yup, as a Saints fan I can vouch for that. One of our stewards was beaten up by a Wigan fan and then they wrecked some of Knowsley Road's classiest corrugated iron wall and then to top things off they threw beer and other debris at our players after we beat them at their pad. So Pieman and his lot are in no place to comment upon the weirdos in other fanbases. They have a troublesome number of their own that they should worry about first. We have no trouble with any other fans. Hull KR fans are fun though - they sometimes fight each other!

Hull KR fans fight each other ? How strange.

[Kosh]

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:49 am  

Speedy wrote:

Correct, only one incy wincy problem mate, the RFL are not the judicery are they? So their findings are subjective and hopefully will be decided by judges

As a matter of interest, does anybody know the basis for a legal challenge to this fine?

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:33 pm  

Speedy wrote:

Correct, only one incy wincy problem mate, the RFL are not the judicery are they? So their findings are subjective and hopefully will be decided by judges

The tribunal was chaired by a Crown Court Judge

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:41 pm  

Sarf Essex Taff wrote:

The tribunal was chaired by a Crown Court Judge

Still not a judiciary if it's an RFL panel though, is it? it could have been chaired by the Queen and it wouldn't have mattered.

Re: Tigers handed £40k fine : Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:45 pm  

Disco wrote:

I suppose you could argue the point is moot, but given that we're on 12 pages already, it's certainly not 'mute'.

You caught me out me there!