Rugger off ...

[Snake]

By far the most significant result at Minchery Farm all season, and I wonder how long the stadium lease with Firoka is for?

Is there any kind of petition going around to support Sale Sharks should ‘London’ or ‘Welsh’ or wherever they are from contest the appeal - just point me in that direction please..

p.s. an excellent title to this thread.

[A-Ro]

Five point penalty and a fine. They are appealing. Well, in one sense, anyway.

Five points puts them bottom of their league and with five games left it looks like they are for the drop.

I can't help thinking that rugby, a game that views football and footballers as being soft, have been very soft themselves in the punishment meted out in this case. The offending individual played ten games this season for the Welch and under football rules they would have been deducted all the points gained in the games he played and considering he played in all the games that they earned any points then five deducted and five suspended seems a little lenient to me.

[Ancient Colin]

Technically, it is a ten point penalty (with five suspended).

[Myles Francis]

Five points puts them bottom of their league and with five games left it looks like they are for the drop.

I can't help thinking that rugby, a game that views football and footballers as being soft, have been very soft themselves in the punishment meted out in this case. The offending individual played ten games this season for the Welch and under football rules they would have been deducted all the points gained in the games he played and considering he played in all the games that they earned any points then five deducted and five suspended seems a little lenient to me.

I think they had some fairly strong mitigation in that the situation arose as a result of the criminal actions of a club official who subsequently accepted a police caution over his actions and the club as an entity were unaware of what had gone on. As soon as they were aware they raised it with the RFU - they blew the whistle on themselves.

[Kernow Yellow]

I think they had some fairly strong mitigation in that the situation arose as a result of the criminal actions of a club official who subsequently accepted a police caution over his actions and the club as an entity were unaware of what had gone on. As soon as they were aware they raised it with the RFU - they blew the whistle on themselves.

I'm not sure I'd call that particularly strong mitigation. As I understand it, London Welsh accept that one of their club officials acted fraudulently and deliberately to enable this player to play for them, and he has since played in ten games. How many points did LW gain in those matches? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere.

It's not as if it was a mere technicality like Hutchinson and the fax machine - this guy would not have been eligible to play in these games if the fraud hadn't taken place. That's pretty serious - LW have to take responsibility for the actions of their employees. The fact that they came clean over the deception when they discovered it is of course a good thing, but only in the sense that it would have been a really bad thing had they not done so. That doesn't alter the seriousness of the initial offence.

PS I can't believe I'm using this forum to talk about Rugby! See you all at Plainmoor tomorrow? It's lovely and sunny in the Westcountry...

[A-Ro]

How many points did LW gain in those matches? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere.

considering he played in all the games that they earned any points then five deducted and five suspended seems a little lenient to me.

[Mooro]

Five point penalty and a fine. They are appealing. Well, in one sense, anyway.

Five points puts them bottom of their league and with five games left it looks like they are for the drop.

I can't help thinking that rugby, a game that views football and footballers as being soft, have been very soft themselves in the punishment meted out in this case. The offending individual played ten games this season for the Welch and under football rules they would have been deducted all the points gained in the games he played and considering he played in all the games that they earned any points then five deducted and five suspended seems a little lenient to me.

Personally, I think it is the football approach to these things that is overly harsh, rather than rugby being soft - I've never agreed that clubs should lose all points gained in games where the player features, particularly where the error has been more oversight than deliberate. I've always thought that a single deduction (probably 3pts) should apply in all cases (regardless of games played and points gained) because in most cases it is a single error/'crime' that has occurred - each player is only registered once per season - rather than numerous, which would be the equivalent to having to freshly register all players prior to each game. Often, the player in question only plays a series of games because no-one looks at the registration forms in the mean time, so it isnt picked up - often it is the club rather than the league that does discover the 'error', so to then penalise the club for all those games seems unfair.

The exception would be in cases where there was deemed to be a deliberate act to gain an advantage (rather than most cases which are errors and oversights) in which case the penalties should be harsher, with perhaps attention focused on the individuals involved in the 'fraud' rather than just a massive points penalty.

In the case of LW, it does appear to have been a deliberate act, hence it is right to be charging the individual concerned, but at the same time one taken (alledgedly) without the knowledge of anyone else at the club and again one the club brought to the attention of the league. Now I don't know the background to this individual, when and why he left the club, but the circumstances to do cloud the picture somewhat. It does seem harsh to penalise the club for the fraudulent actions of one individual they were unaware of, but at the same to not do so would be unfair on the other teams in the league and leave the RFU open to clubs deliberately using this argument to cover up cheating.

The other element of course is the question of allocating a points fine without being influenced by the league table. It must be incredibly tempting to almost do it in reverse and say, 'OK, we'll set them a fine so that are 'x' points behind or 'x' wins behind second bottom/playoffs' or whatever. The example of West Ham and the Tevez situation comes to mind here, where it appears that a number was plucked out of the air to put them far enough behind so as to ensure relegation without appearing to be too harsh, but that they didnt make it big enough.

I dont have this massive anti-LW feeling that many do on here, so to me I would say, in the absence of a set formula, the RFU have just about got it right with 5pts (and another 5pts suspended, which is presumably to test the claim that this was a one-off courtesy of a now-ex employee which will not be repeated) and hopefully ensuring that the official in question is taken out of the game for some time.

[A-Ro]

Disagree, every time he played the opposition was at a theoretical disadvantage.

Which is why, when Slumdon got relegated one division for long term financial irregularity, I suggested that they should in fact have been relegated from the division they were in when they started their nefarious dodgy dealing rather than where they were at the successful end of their fraud.

Which would have meant relegation from the fourth division for those of you that don't remember that far back.

[Ancient Colin]

But sports set their own rules: it's consistent with prior punishments for similar registration incidents in RU, I think. Although most of those didn't involve a string of games, admittedly.

[Mooro]

Disagree, every time he played the opposition was at a theoretical disadvantage.

Which is why, when Slumdon got relegated one division for long term financial irregularity, I suggested that they should in fact have been relegated from the division they were in when they started their nefarious dodgy dealing rather than where they were at the successful end of their fraud.

Which would have meant relegation from the fourth division for those of you that don't remember that far back.

It is about the proportional seriousness of the 'offence' isn't it: a club that deliberately overspends on salaries compared to the wage cap, only gets a transfer ban, clubs that systematically fail to manage their finances to the extent they have to go into administration only lose 10 points, yet a club who are found a week before the end of the season, to have made a slight administrative error on a player registration form submitted at the start of the season for an ever-present player which has not been looked at once by anyone at the club or FA since August, should have all points for the season deducted, be relegated and start next season in the league below? Really????

As I said, if there is clear intent to bend the rules, as it appears there was by this individual (if not the club itself) at LW, or if a player is played under another's name or some deliberate financial irregularity, then penalties should be greater, but for the 99% of these cases where it is something procedural or irrelevant to what actually happens on the pitch, then clubs who have acted in good faith should not be punished for how long it takes someone official to be bored enough to check such things and find the error, or how well a team of XI including one person perform compared to how a different XI perform not including that person (If we played Christiano Ronaldo under Simon Heslop's name on the teamsheet then that would make a difference, but Eddie Hutch instead of whoever else we had at that time?).
One small mistake has been made, so one small and consistent punishment should be given, and it would take the subjectivity out of the decision and remove the need for appeals.

Similarly, just as administration has now been formalised as a ten point penalty (for each event), then I would be in favour of other fixed penalties for other financial issues that are deemed more deliberate, be that not sticking to salary caps, illegal payments to players, not meeting HMRC bills, multiple adminstrations in a set period (eg Luton), etc.

I cannot remember the exact extent of what went on at Slumdon, other than the strange promotion/demotion/not moving tangle that the League got themselves into, so cannot comment further on that.

[Kernow Yellow]

How many points did LW gain in those matches? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere.

considering he played in all the games that they earned any points then five deducted and five suspended seems a little lenient to me.

Thank you. My skim-reading skills obviously ain't what they were.

[Snake]

To be honest, I really canÔÇÖt be arsed to look into the minute technical details like I used to for too many years as OUFC are now my second club. However, I donÔÇÖt see any obvious advantage in London Welsh camping out on our side of Grenoble Road other than raising the value of the Stadium should a proper buyer (no, not you, Ian, and your nepotistic ÔÇÿboardÔÇÖ) come along. No Rugger next season means not only a better pitch, but lowers the asking price for someone to properly invest in Oxford United. FFS, we have the fanbase to move on.

[Hog]

To be honest, I really canÔÇÖt be arsed to look into the minute technical details like I used to for too many years as OUFC are now my second club. However, I donÔÇÖt see any obvious advantage in London Welsh camping out on our side of Grenoble Road other than raising the value of the Stadium should a proper buyer (no, not you, Ian, and your nepotistic ÔÇÿboardÔÇÖ) come along. No Rugger next season means not only a better pitch, but lowers the asking price for someone to properly invest in Oxford United. FFS, [b]we[/b] have the fanbase to move on.

FFS. LOL. 3CW. etc.

[slappy]

Just been reading more. They were trying for maternal grandparent. But then it was claimed the player was born Christchurch England instead of NZ. He'd &quotemigrated&quot at 2. Filled in a blank form which the manager filled in. Faked a passport. Not quite a dodgy fax machine.

[Dr Bob]

On what basis does everyone seem to be assuming that relegation will see LW depart? If they cannot afford the rent they are paying now, surely FK will see it better to take a lower second rent than no rent at all. LW are working to establish a stronger community presence. For sure, if they go down they may return to London, but what makes it a certainty?