Re: GH Charged : Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:00 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

So... let me get this right, you believe that if a high profile Rugby League CEO (a giant of RL) suspects corruption from it's governing body, they have no right to air that opinion?

How should he have gone about it, he obviously couldn't confront the RFL directly so what should he have done in your opinion?

If GH believed that the RFL were involved deliberately and corruptly in trying to frame one of their players for a serious charge then the first point of contact should have been a meeting with the head of the RFL. IMO Leeds' stance would have been that anyone proved guilty of corruption would be banned from the game for a long time, and that the RFL having being involved in this would be in a position that it probably could not survive.

That's not what GH did though. He just went to the press and threw mud all over the RFL and all over a few RFL officials, including Silverwood.

GHs actions were not of a chief executive who suspects high level corruption in the game, they were the actions of a powerful man using force and media spin to probably get his man off.

Re: GH Charged : Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:19 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

My point is that there was seemingly no initial report of homophobic language, there then was a sh*t storm on social media which prompted the RFL to engineer a report post match. You kind of wash over this by saying it was a mere procedural error but I believe the RFL instigated the alleged 'witch hunt' not based on a report from the referee (or anyone connected with the game) but on the hysteria and faux outrage from other team's supporters on Twitter/Facebook.

So you believe the RFL made up the report from the match officiais? Based on what?

Other than rampant "everyone is against Leeds" paranoia.

Re: GH Charged : Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:26 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

So you believe the RFL made up the report from the match officiais? Based on what?

If the match officials report said Hardaker had used homophobic language how come they came up with a lack of evidence conclusion?
It surely couldn't have said that, so then what did it say? What could Silverwood have reported that was grounds to launch an investigation yet not enough evidence when it came for a guilty verdict?

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:10 pm  

If you told the police that someone had punched you in the face but there wasn't a bruise, wouldn't you at least expect them to investigate?

That is why they call it an investigation, to establish the facts and see whether the allegation had any/enough evidence to support it.

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:18 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If GH believed that the RFL were involved deliberately and corruptly in trying to frame one of their players for a serious charge then the first point of contact should have been a meeting with the head of the RFL. IMO Leeds' stance would have been that anyone proved guilty of corruption would be banned from the game for a long time, and that the RFL having being involved in this would be in a position that it probably could not survive.

That's not what GH did though. He just went to the press and threw mud all over the RFL and all over a few RFL officials, including Silverwood.

GHs actions were not of a chief executive who suspects high level corruption in the game, they were the actions of a powerful man using force and media spin to probably get his man off.

He did nothing of the sort with Silverwood. Silverwood told Leeds, and indeed spilled the beans on his twitter, that he was instructed by the RFL to amend his report to include that something may well have been said by the players.

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:07 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

So you believe the RFL made up the report from the match officiais? Based on what?

Other than rampant "everyone is against Leeds" paranoia.

is it beyond the realms of possibility that Silverwood didnt hear it, didnt see it and had no idea it had happened (of which there is still no evidence it ever did, hence lack of charge and punishment) so didnt include it in his report. RFL higher up person A saw it on tv and the subsequent outcry so told him to stick it in there expecting the quick open and shut case that the previous one was.

Leeds/hardaker then said hang on a minute we arent admitting anything this time, you got it wrong.

RFL then desperately scramble around looking for alternative sources of evidence so they dont have to rely on Silverwood, can't find one, can't rely on Silverwood to lie for them (probably dont really want to) so are left with no other option than to let hardaker off.

There are numerous questions to be answered about the process and the actions of those in it.

Why did the match official, to the match commissioner confirm he hadnt heard/seen anything, then include it in his report?

What could he have possibly put in the report that would confirm he saw/heard something but that didnt lead to a charge?

One thing to bare in mind, the RFL havent at any stage contested the validity of what GH said. Simply that what he said brought the game in to disrepute.

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:51 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

He did nothing of the sort with Silverwood. Silverwood told Leeds, and indeed spilled the beans on his twitter, that he was instructed by the RFL to amend his report to include that something may well have been said by the players.

I think I've read most of this thread. I think I've paid pretty good attention. I haven't actually seen this before. I think there'd have been 20 pages of outrage on this very subject and Rhinos fans and all fans would be demanding many RFL heads roll.

I don't think it happened though.

I think you're one of the utter loons that hear "There's a rumour that Steve got arrested" and then instantly goes and tells someone "Steve's been convicted of fiddling with kids" for some reason that would take a shrink to explain.

If this has been discussed before I'm quickly going to look like an idiot (well, more than usual). But I'll take that risk. I think you're making this 5hit up, have nothing to back it up, and should have just earned yourself a permanent ban from RLfans for a blatant libel on the boards.

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:32 pm  

Gotcha's post seems plausible enough, particularly if silverwood has indeed put it on twitter.

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:48 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Gotcha's post seems plausible enough, particularly if silverwood has indeed put it on twitter.

He did put it on Twitter, and Jose Mourinho is been an idiot like he has since the allegations first came out. Why else does he think GH took such a strong stance on it?

I said what had happened on this board the day before Leeds statement, when Silverwood himself first came out and said there was two sides to every story. Which referred to him been told to change his report, which was confirmed by Silverwood a few days after GH statement.GH himself had already spoke to Silverwood, and why he was so clear on the position. His statement was clear he wasn't blaming Silverwood.

Re: GH Charged : Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:02 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Gotcha's post seems plausible enough, particularly if silverwood has indeed put it on twitter.

So Silverwood put it on twitter, Gotcha saw it but nobody managed to actually link to it?

It's effing BS. Gotcha's making it up.

I did see Silverwood's twitter at around the time. He made a comment along the lines of "You shouldn't believe everything you hear".

That IMO is what Gotcha is refering to. He's an effing moron and he needs banning if he can't back up the allegation against Silverwood and the RFL.