Boots N'All : Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:06 pm  

I'm disgusted by the coverage of Batley's 'Great Escape' (as dubbed by Eddie) on Boots N'All tonight.

It was on a par with them winning Super League and if Hemmings was any further up Kear's backside he'd see the sunset through his eyes.

But, Kear's attitude towards the situation and his quotes both made me feel ill and left me questioning the Bulldogs and RFL's role in it all. Here's a selected few:

"We're a honest club full of honest people which made a honest mistake."

"We were unaware Fairbank was illegible under dual registration but if we had submitted loan papers for the lad, the RFL told us he'd of been fine to play."

"The RFL have now made a final decision on the matter, and have acted honestly and with dignity throughout."

Take what you will from all this.

Re: Boots N'All : Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:52 am  

Must admit I agree. I thought Kear gave very political answers and never really commented on the Keighley case, whether deliberate or otherwise. It was in contrast to the Super League backchat show which was fully supportive. Fair play to Cullen though, I think he gave a honest assessment of how difficult the RFL are making this. I bet Kear was told what he could and could not say in light of the Keighley case.

Re: Boots N'All : Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:05 am  

Hello Trouble! wrote:

I'm disgusted by the coverage of Batley's 'Great Escape' (as dubbed by Eddie) on Boots N'All tonight.

It was on a par with them winning Super League and if Hemmings was any further up Kear's backside he'd see the sunset through his eyes.

But, Kear's attitude towards the situation and his quotes both made me feel ill and left me questioning the Bulldogs and RFL's role in it all. Here's a selected few:

"We're a honest club full of honest people which made a honest mistake."

"We were unaware Fairbank was illegible under dual registration but if we had submitted loan papers for the lad, the RFL told us he'd of been fine to play."

"The RFL have now made a final decision on the matter, and have acted honestly and with dignity throughout."

Take what you will from all this.

To be honest I think sky are giving Batley the right of reply after the shredding the whole sorry incident got on their earlier programme.

But, with reference to this:-

"We're a honest club full of honest people which made a honest mistake."

Making a mistake due to ignorance of the law/rules is no defence.

....And this.....

"We were unaware Fairbank was illegible under dual registration but if we had submitted loan papers for the lad, the RFL told us he'd of been fine to play."

Again, ignorance of the rules is no defence. Submitting loan papers and having them approved is not the same as saying he has been approved to play in a match where he has now become illelligible" according to the rules.

.....and this......

"The RFL have now made a final decision on the matter, and have acted honestly and with dignity throughout."

How would he know that this is the final decision? In fact how would the RFL know? Good legal action may reverse this. What he is really saying is "I'm putting on a front and hope I'm right"

It's all political shenanigans designed to sway the opinions of the viewer, and possibly dis-hearten Keighley. Don't fall for it guys.

Re: Boots N'All : Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:35 am  

According to the operational rules Keighley are a bit stuffed.

D1:37 The decision of the Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal shall be final and shall be communicated to all parties affected by its decision within 48 hours. There shall be no further right of appeal.

An unbelievable decision by the RFL but it looks like Keighley are stuck with it.

Re: Boots N'All : Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:45 am  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

According to the operational rules Keighley are a bit stuffed.

Of course its breaking of the rules that makes all of this quite unfair. Paul March broke the rules and was banned from the stadium for 2 months. Keighley went into administration in 2009 and broke the rules and were deducted 9 points.

Batley and Doncaster (and yes teams before them) broke the rules and.....oh wait no punishment at all. In fact an advantage by now being immune to further appeal.

The high court/arbitration court could in theory challenge the rules. I think that's what is being looked into at the moment. I agree we are a bit stuffed and the RFL are unlikely to budge on anything. If the case is considered goodf enough, maybe the lawyer will do no win no fee. After all 'win' could be constituted as out of court settlement.

Re: Boots N'All : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:06 am  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

According to the operational rules Keighley are a bit stuffed.

D1:37 The decision of the Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal shall be final and shall be communicated to all parties affected by its decision within 48 hours. There shall be no further right of appeal.

An unbelievable decision by the RFL but it looks like Keighley are stuck with it.

I would have thought that there would be many ways that could be challenged by a good legal eagle, not least that the appeal was conducted in a proper manner, the evidence presented was true and correct, the use of precedent was applicable to this unique situation and they gave due consideration to all parties affected.

I would have thought a lawyer would have a field day if the decision was based on incorrect evidence.

There are many things that have been written into bodies operating rules that are open to legal challenge. Just because someone writes it down doesn't make it above the law of the land.

I get your point though, it might make it hard for us.

Re: Boots N'All : Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:06 pm  

There is difference between suing and appealing though