Re: Clubs official view on RFL Appeal Decision : Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:49 pm  

Dreamer wrote:

You have a point. I suppose it depends if someone from the club staff is a regular poster and posted on that thread.
.
Anyway the legal people will know if it's worth keeping

Well, Haven4Ever knew about it and I presume he's a fan like the rest of us. If he knew, why did the Batley club not know?
.
Hope the legal people read this forum!

Re: Clubs official view on RFL Appeal Decision : Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:01 pm  

I'm sure Josh is keeping an eye on the forums and feeding anything useful back to the club.

Re: Clubs official view on RFL Appeal Decision : Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:20 pm  

this_cougar_outfit wrote:

Everyone's getting a bit carried away. Apparently Batley called the RFL 3 times to clarify Fairbanks was eligible in addition the match commissioner was asked........

To my mind it depends what information Batley presented when they called the RFL and spoke to the match commissioner. Did they tell them that Fairbanks earned more than the eligible amount therefore allowing the RFL to make the correct decision?

If the RFL had all the relevant and accurate details then those officials should be disciplined by the RFL and Batley should still be deducted 3 points, they still broke the rules that caused the demotion of an innocent team. It's up-to Batley to then seek financial compensation from the RFL for their error.

We are the innocent party in all this no matter what excuses Batley or the RFL give.

There is only one just decision in all this, our reinstatement, and it's up to the RFL to sort out the fall out after.

If the the Rfl are prepared to have one extra team in the division then so be it, but we should not suffer because of their poor administration of the issue.

Re: Clubs official view on RFL Appeal Decision : Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:30 pm  

this_cougar_outfit wrote:

Apparently Batley called the RFL 3 times to clarify Fairbanks was

Does anybody seriously buy that? " We've got this DR player but the rules say he's ineligible. But can we play him anyway as we're a bit short of players?
RL: "Yes. that's fine"
2nd phone call:
"You said he can play, but just checking you meant it"
RL " yes it's fine"
3rd phone call
" we've phoned twice already and you've said yes twice, but just thought we'd ask again"!

No. It's nonsense. Not really interested in the precise question that was supposed to have been asked but it would be relevant if anybody took it seriously.

In any event, the rule was broken. So points should be taken off them.

If Batley wanted they could try to get compensation from the rfl if they believed an administrator rather than the documented rules.

Re: Clubs official view on RFL Appeal Decision : Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:39 pm  

Cross Hills Cougar wrote:

Does anybody seriously buy that? " We've got this DR player but the rules say he's ineligible. But can we play him anyway as we're a bit short of players?
RL: "Yes. that's fine"
2nd phone call:
"You said he can play, but just checking you meant it"
RL " yes it's fine"
3rd phone call
" we've phoned twice already and you've said yes twice, but just thought we'd ask again"!

No. It's nonsense. Not really interested in the precise question that was supposed to have been asked but it would be relevant if anybody took it seriously.

In any event, the rule was broken. So points should be taken off them.

If Batley wanted they could try to get compensation from the rfl if they believed an administrator rather than the documented rules.

On top of that, the rule is clear. Batley should have been able to read it and thereby know he could not play. Smacks of "trying it on" to me.

To state it again, we are the innocent part and should not be penalised. It's up-to the RFL to sort out the collateral damage THEY have created.