Probably because we dont have wealthy owner. Read what he put!

First of all, Riley was catching a ball and your allowed to go to ground with the ball on a reception of a kick or a loose ball, Secondly he attemtped to move when he realised when they were waiting for him, which is when they tried to bundle them into touch. The player wasnt running with the ball then decided to fall over, he caught the ball and fell to ground. I bet he wasn't down for more than a second.

So:
1. Was he in possession? - Initially NO
2. Did he deliberately allow himself to be tackled? NO because he attempted to move cos he wasn't touched and luckily stayed in bounds
3. Was it necessary? - In accordance to the rules yes because he was attempting to retain possession, even though we know what he was doing
4. Did he voluntarily fall to the ground? - YES, but same as above.
5. Was it when not held by an opponent? - YES also same as above.

I will admit the spirit of the game bit was wrong in the way it was worded but no one would ever just lay there.

Good on you for the comeback

Strangely enough, I have done precisely that on occasions, and have sat on a board with the current chairman and CEO and others, and talk with the board members from time to time, especially the CEO. Not that you expected to hear that, of course?

But, as Eddievan observed, we do not have a rich owner. And, since you seemed unable to read the relatively simple English I used, I guess I'd better repeat the words:



Was there any part of that relatively simple sentence that you still don't understand?

they have been trying to unload platt and sykes for a bit now, the reason platt cant go is because of his high wage demands simply no other team will pay it hes on big money for what he is at bradford, sounds likely that sykes will go first though

First of all, well done on coming back with a discussion not another diatribe. All bona fide arguments welcome. But you need a new watch.


Hang on, hang on. I'm not having that! Of course he wasn't in possession BEFORE he was in possession! No player is!! At the material time, i.e. the incident we are talking about, he was in possession. Obviously.


Staying on the ground is not playing on, it is stopping play. You are allowing yourself to be tackled. The fact that you are not, immediately, tackled because the opponents figure out what you're doing isn't relevant. The fact that you "attempt to move" after the event doesn't save you. You shouldn't have stopped in the first place.


You have to play on. Dropping to the ground with the ball is not playing on. It is clearly not "necessary" to drop to the ground to retain possession, as most games we see 80 minutes of players attempting to retain possession, without any of them choosing a voluntary tackle.

.
Well, yes. So he needed to get back up immediately and play on, which is what he deliberately chose not to do.


Full house! All constituent parts of a voluntary tackle.


Fair play.

Nay. Clear voluntary tackle, the rules on a voluntary tackle in no way indicate that the defending team have to place a hand on the player to complete the tackle for it to become a voluntary tackle. To the letter of the laws, as soon as a player goes to ground while in possession of the ball, unnecessarily, allowing himself to be tackled and not moving, it is a voluntary tackle.

The problem is, either refs don't know these rules, or they're instructed not to penalise it, and to simply scream "play on!" until they're blue in the face. It's really quite embarrassing.

So a blatant penalty to us then. On their line. Not given by Mr A.
Thought so...

And exactly the same thing done by Jeffries in the second half, who was on the ground even longer than was Riley. See how these things even themselves out?

But how did that affect the salary cap?

Well Bradford did ten years ago.

I'm sure no Bradford fan would dare to consider that the current highly suspicious Warrington team, was anything like the calibre of Bradford's team back then? How was that under the cap.

So you're saying because the Bulls may have breached the cap (and did in 2005) it's ok for Moran to find ways around it for Wire now?

Well I think what Adeybull was saying (am I right in thinking Adey is an accountant?) is that there's a difference between 'finding ways round it' and 'breaching it', hence saying you can drive a coach and horses through it legally.

It's like there's a difference between arranging your tax arrangements so that you can legally avoid tax on some of your remuneration, and evading paying your tax.

Rather against the spirit of the cap isn't it? It's a bit much to "pretend" to be under the cap when all sorts of wheezes are used to get around it. However it's the elephant in the room as far as the RFL is concerned. They spend an awful of time auditing the cap yet it's so simple to get around.

Makes you wonder why we bother.

People keep saying it's 'simple' to get around but I don't believe it. It's more likely to be very difficult to get around. Personally I'm a big supporter of an efficient cap, as I want a thriving competition among all clubs. However, Sky Sports must be paying S.Tomkins for his TV work, and that won't count against Wigan's cap ( and rightly so ) but it clearly helps to keep him at Wigan that he receives this extra income. Would Adeybull propose disallowing that?

Wondering if the live monitoring of the salary cap extends to being able to see which players have viagogo or seatwave accounts, and just how much inclome they derive from that? Not that I am insinuating anything untoward, or suggesting foul play. in fact, dont know why that though entered my head.

Maybe its from reading comments on twitter, attributed to current SL players regarding the availability of tickets for the SJM concerts promoted upcoming stone roses gigs, and the possibility that perhaps some Warrington players might be able to help them acquire some. Or maybe not!

Was that when he was laid there with Bridges elbow in his throat? Or a different time?

As I undertsand it a club owner could get a third party to pay a player or a player's partner for "services rendered". It would be taxable and fair enough in terms of UK law but never come within a mile of being audited by the RFL for salary cap purposes.

The result is that the salary cap audit says the club is under the cap. Meanwhile players and their partners receive loads extra from other sources for "non playing activities".

I've nothing against payment made to players when it's obvious where they come from. With Tomkins that seems fairly straightforward. It's where a side has internationals in every position, comes in under the cap yet those players seemingly have no other sources of income that I and others get suspicious.

The salary cap auditor has discretion to include anything else that looks like part of a player's package (can't quote the exact Rule this minute but will if required later). If it looks like a payment to a player, and it walks like a payment to a player, and it quacks like a payment to a player, then it probably IS a payment to a player - sort of idea. In the case of Harris, for example, it seems the SC auditor DID determine there was a connection to the club from image rights paid by an unconnected third party.

The hard part is identifying the payment in the first place (although a club should have no reason not to disclose a genuine third-party image rights deal for a Tomkins-type player), and then establishing a connection to the club.

Genuine third party deals are fine under the cap rules.

Where the deal is arranged by the club for the player, especially where the third party might otherwise have become a club sponsor or similar anyway, then it starts to get very grey, I suggest?

And if - heaven forbid - a wealthy club owner should get his mate to set the player's missus up in a lucrative job, or pay the player's personal services company a shedload for his image rights or whatever, and then said club owner sees his mate right in some other deal...well what do you think?

And as for a wealthy club owner paying monies to players or otherwise remunerating them out of one of his other business interests, and not disclosing that to the SC auditor, well that would be just beyond the Pale, would it not.

Thankfully, we can rest assured that all club owners and investors are honourable people, who would never wish to be considerd unsporting or cheats, and so would never stoop to such tactics. Otherwise we'd see a very unlevel playing field in the game.

Incidentally Sam, scrub that silly idea of it being taxable. If its for an overseas player, said player will invariably be a non-dom unless he puts dowm pretty permanent roots here. That means that a club - or a third party - can pay the player's offshore personal services company (resident in Bermuda or Guernsey or Grand Cayman or wherever) for the player's services (of any nature, but usually its things like image rights), and as long as the player does not draw income from the company AND remit it to the UK, he escapes UK tax and NIC. Because whilst he is resident for UK tax purposes he is a non-domiciled and therefore only taxable on income earned in the UK or remitted to the UK.

And then, just as he has permanently left the UK on his way back home, but BEFORE he lands back home, get the old Singapore Sling out and wang the money back home ahead of him. So it lands back home before the player becomes resident for tax purposes again back home, and so he escapes tax there too. (they may have stopped the simplistic devices now, but there will be others).

sorry Adey! knew i might be sailing close to the wind on that one, but I am fuming about it! I might get a warning. Hopefully, like CHris Bridge, my past positive conduct might go in my favour

makes me wonder if the cap is worth having at all! same as the forward pass rule, and benefit of the doubt, its only as strong as the people adjudicating it are!

This is a massive elephant in the room. Watching the recent channel four expose about Tickets and promoters I found that there was a difference between what most people would regard as morally wrong, and what the law says is illegal! as a gig going punter, and a BUlls fan, I feel that MOran and his like are shafting me twice over, and it doesnt feel right!

yes weve actually broken the cap twice, but breaking it inadvertantly is very different from actively cheating it by paying players by other means, and deliberately avoiding it.

If a few thickie Bradfordians can work their ways around it I am sure the RFL & successful business people running clubs can do also

Whether it exists or not I don't really care as long as the options are avaialble to all. It's the fact you don't have a sugar daddy that is the issue here Dude, not the bending of the rules.

I suggest the issue is more one of trying to explain to those (IMO) naïve folk who slag the club off -for "spending the full cap" on the squad we have, which is clearly weaker than that of some other teams also "spending the full cap" - that things are not necessarily as they seem?

Everything is equal though, isn't it Adey? If not, there would be great and obvious discrepancy in the strengths of the various squads under regimes with 'extra' financial input and those without, would there not?

Indeed it is, my friend. Everything is very definitely equal.

And four legs are good, two legs are better too...