Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:05 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

I don't expect there would be many instances at all. In-season transfers aren't all that common these days.

Most of the movements seem to be "dual registered" players, by the way are dual registered players eligible to play for either team in any round?

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:15 pm  

spanishbob wrote:

Most of the movements seem to be "dual registered" players, by the way are dual registered players eligible to play for either team in any round?

No you can only play for one. Hence Alex Brown is now cup tied for Hudds as he played for Batley against Siddal. Kyle Wood and Josh Griffin were not allowed to play against Siddal incase of any injury issues with Hudds however, were allowed to play against Fax meaning they too would have been cup tied for Hudds. Not that Hudds need to worry about the cup anymore either.

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:30 pm  

billyfax wrote:

The £100k fine of which £40k was suspended was because Hull could not be kicked out of the competition. So I believe the fine was this high due to the RFL not wishing Hull to profit from the fact that they remained in the tournament.

But hull were fined for a different offense. They didnt register thackray on cup player register after his late move from leeds which was basically an administrative error which its quite feasible player knew nothing about. Also at the time there was no clear cut penalty specified in cup rules for this offense.

If allegations about Ostick are proved your case is different in 2 ways. Firstly Ostick must have been aware he was cup tied and should have made club aware plus the previous cup game he played in was just before you signed him so I'd imagine its quite likely that someone from fax was at game scouting him. secondly the rules are pretty specific as to punishment for fielding a player whose already turned out for another team in cup and leave RFL little room for wriggle room, so I doubt they can give you a fine.

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:43 pm  

wereutherein1987? wrote:

its all VIKINGMANs fault!

Apparentley he's the one who emailed the RFL, he's been awfully quiet on here since this thing erupted

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:44 pm  

Off! Number Seven wrote:

Well this one certainly didn't slip through the net, the fact that it took 3 weeks and was raised on this forum is not proof that it would not have been realised at a later date, with potentially more significant and embarrassing consequences for the club and sport.

And I would say it is "cut and dried" as far as Fax are concerned as he played for Rochdale in the 3rd round and Halifax in the 4th round. No ambiguity there. I sincerely hope there are no more incidents at any other clubs and to be honest I don't expect any either, it isn't rocket science.

The RFL have handled this disgracefully and have raised the hopes of both Swinton and Batley when no comment should have been made further than 'this is being investigated'.

Common sense should prevail - the lad had virtually no impact on the Swinton game and I am certain that he was allowed to play in error thus giving no grounds for 'willfull or known negligence' on Fax's part.

Do the right thing RFL and do not hammer an uneccesary nail into the coffin of another heartland club who deserve a place in your mighty Super League.

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:53 pm  

deserve? Please explain how or why?

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:55 pm  

The Sleaze wrote:

Apparentley he's the one who emailed the RFL, he's been awfully quiet on here since this thing erupted

Well that isn't fair is it? Not least because it is not true.

Fax played an ineligible player. Would you have won at Swinton without him of course you would.

Have your club made a mistake ...you know they have. Could you win this competition ........... come on get real.

It is an embarrassing mistake move on.Concentrate on the Championship and support your club.

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 6:57 pm  

Encouraged wrote:

The RFL have handled this disgracefully and have raised the hopes of both Swinton and Batley when no comment should have been made further than 'this is being investigated'.

Common sense should prevail - the lad had virtually no impact on the Swinton game and I am certain that he was allowed to play in error thus giving no grounds for 'willfull or known negligence' on Fax's part.

Do the right thing RFL and do not hammer an uneccesary nail into the coffin of another heartland club who deserve a place in your mighty Super League.

I once received correspondence from West Yorkshire Police, detailing their intent to prosecute me for breaching the 30 m.p.h. speed limit on a road in Dewsbury. I was slightly shocked, as I never even realised there was a speed camera in the location where I was caught.
Needless to say, despite my protestations of ignorance and stupidity, I was still punished with a £60 fine and a 3 point licence penalty.

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 7:03 pm  

frankb wrote:

Well that isn't fair is it? Not least because it is not true.

And you know its not true because????

Please have a look at the Michael Ostick thread where this came to light, Vikingman clearly states that he's emailed the RFL. Even one of the fax players told my mate today that when the RFL contacted the club they told them that he was the one who allerted them to the problem.

Re: BATLEY GAME IS OFF : Mon May 10, 2010 7:05 pm  

At least I am not throwing in the towel just yet like everyone else.

A good solicitor could bring this round and I have every confidence in those remaining on our BOD to do so