www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 24,00.html how many back handers have they paid for this one ( and that is a tounge in cheek remark by the way )

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 24,00.html how many back handers have they paid for this one ( and that is a tounge in cheek remark by the way )

it was obvious that they wouldn't get a fine that was generally considered to be unfair.

Less than £1000 a player. Its almost worth it to cheat as one game in Super League could get us the five grand to cover it!

If you've ever seen the fly on the wall documentaries about the UK Boarder Force, for catching a guy trying to earn his crust in the back of a takeaway, the owner gets fined £10k per employee. I would have thought that a high profile situation like this would prompt the maximum fine to send out a message. Obviously not.

Absolutely agree with this,£60,000 fine would have been the order of the day

They were only found guilty of not making checks on one player , I would assume they made checks on the others and having got clearance didn't think there would be a problem

The real question is what were these checks ?

I'd guess that they quite possibly were asking the sports governing body if they thought these players were of the acceptable quality

So who wasn't telling the truth in all this ?

Lets also assume that the people or organisation that made the decisions on these players can not be fined by the UKBA

Quite a smell round this subject , and it isn't coming from South Wales , I'd look further north and a bit to the east for the source

Basically they've got away with it again

Why , they were found guilty of not making the correct checks on one player , the maximum fine could only have been £ 10,000 , you would have to assume that there were some mitigating circumstances for it to nbe reduced , also are THE Crusaders the same company as the Celtic Crusaders ?

If not then who can they fine ?

You make a very valid point here Starbug

Surely if The Crusaders and Celtic Crusaders are not the same company/club they should have had their SL licence revoked?

Yes , but we already knew that

from what i recall the RFL board have absolute discretion with what happens after an insolvency event - and in this case they have allowed a 'pheonix club' to be established to take over the Celtic Crusaders share - another company and therefore legal entity.

I very much doubt they will have fined the new outfit but the old company at the time that is probably being wound up or struck off.

This is also allowed in Rugby Union but the FA would require a football club to come out via a CVA with a points deduction or a more serious points deduction if a CVA is not possible...

The ironic thing is, that they probably saved money through the whole thing as the players were sacked immediately, therefore 6 players off the wage bill.