London Welsh could face points penalty ...buy shares in their law firm now!

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21595254

Apparently they have fielded an ineligible player in several Jeff games.
The prior cases saw Tigers and Sale docked one point for fielding a player in one game....this could have serious consequences for LWs relegation battle.

Expect their legal team to be all over this if it does decide their fate at the end of the season. Oh dear oh dear.

GT you obviously have your head screwed on better than others.

maestegmafia wrote:Looks like yet again the claws of the PRL loving fans of established premiership clubs are out.

Read a few articles on the case before you write so many posts based on so few acurate and true facts.


I am glad to see the points are suspended and even happier to see that London Welsh will appeal.

Be happier still to see Mike Scott serve a decent length custodial sentence.

What a suprise, chief WUM sticks hir oar in again.

Only a seriously one eyed person would think this punishment is harsh. They have got away lightly and should take the punishment like men.

If any other club had been charged with this they woul dhave received a BIGGER points deduction.

Sure Scott committed fraud, but irrespective of the DoR's failure to manage his junior - he was also told about the issue by RFU in November and did nothing. Once LW realised the issue they told the RFU SEVEN weeks later. They still selected him for one match when they knew he was ineligible.

Over and above Mike Scott's issues, LW have shown incompetence, obfuscation and deceit.

LW applied for entry to the premiership late, and without key parts of the application filled in. Ever since they have shown that on the administration side they are not fit to run a business - and the administrators owe the playing and coaching staff a huge apology because they have been fantastic.

maestegmafia wrote:

But for the club to face all the obsticales put in front of them and now face five a points deduction next season is unjust.

Potential deduction of 5 points - if they do it again. Believe it or not that is what suspended usually means.

maestegmafia wrote:Looks like yet again the claws of the PRL loving fans of established premiership clubs are out.

Read a few articles on the case before you write so many posts based on so few acurate and true facts.


I am glad to see the points are suspended and even happier to see that London Welsh will appeal.

Be happier still to see Mike Scott serve a decent length custodial sentence.

I read the entire report before making comments. Did you?

Or did you again choose to attack people for their prejudices based solely on your own?

maestegmafia wrote:GT you obviously have your head screwed on better than others.

Please don't damn me with your faint praise Maes.

I've got little enough credibility as it is thankyou.

From what I read earlier in this thread - there is a precedent.
Exiles should have been fined 1pt for each game the incorrectly registered player played in. Think I saw somewhere that that was 9 games.

If we use the example of Exeters admin error - that cost them 2pts for 1 game.

From the language used on the BBC website, it very much sounds like this individual at Lon Welsh was making deliberate mistakes. Not, as in other cases genuine errors.

That being the case - a 5pt penalty is the best case scenario, -9pts would have been fair. -18pts could have been possible, but the harshest penalty possible.

I fail to reason why Lon Welsh are appealing!
Yes this may have been the result of 1 guy, but he was representing the club and the club has to be held accountable.
This is unfortunate for the players as they've grafted really hard and a -5pt deduction doesnt completely put them out of the race, perhaps that is why RFU hasnt slapped them with the maximum penalty.

I thought it was a mistake for the LW club to fight so hard to join the Premiership and predicted a sorry ending although obvuiosly didn't see this coming. Five points sees a bit harsh, but the club must accept some acountability even if Scott acted alone - it's a serious offense.

Whatever the outcome - no doubt some of the "establishment" with egg on their faces from last summer will be laughing under the covers. It's a shame because in pure rugby terms they have been better than the truly awful Sale who don't deserve to stay up. I'll have a chuckle if LW still sneak it and the "establishment" have to put up with them for another season.

Greytiger are you a fan of bonus points or do you think the team that wins the most matches should top the league?

LW have broken the rules and deserve to be punished. I think 5 points is quite lenient but understandable because it means the relegation battle is still a contest.

LW have been in disarray for some time. What they need to answer their critics is pick up wins and avoid relegation.

Sale aren't out of the woods yet.

mckay1402 wrote:Previous similar offences have only been one point deductions haven't they?

One point permatch the ineligible player was fielded actually.

In that respect, LW have got away lightly, as Keats turned out 11 times.

beshocked wrote:Greytiger are you a fan of bonus points or do you think the team that wins the most matches should top the league?

LW have broken the rules and deserve to be punished. I think 5 points is quite lenient but understandable because it means the relegation battle is still a contest.

LW have been in disarray for some time. What they need to answer their critics is pick up wins and avoid relegation.

Sale aren't out of the woods yet.

I don't think this should have been a consideration when awarding the penalty. It is obvious that it was (intentional or otherwise) because surprise surprise, the points deduction puts them just one point behind fellow strugglers Sale. If precedent were followed, LW should have had an 11 point deduction, end of.

I'm not sure that I've ever read a more open and comprehensive report from the RFU disciplinary process.

The salient facts and timelines are clear, the submissions from all parties are presented and the reasons (including considerations undertaken) to establish the appropriateness of the penalty handed down are laid out.

RFU.

I find it incredible that anybody can suggest that Welsh have been hard done by here.

They have illegally employed a player without a visa that entitles him to work. he has played 10 matches illegally. They are lucky that as an organisation they are not facing more serious charges. Yes, Mr Scott appears to be the numpty that did wrong, but how Keats is not being held at least partly responsible is beyond me. He signed a blank form which said that he was signing knowing what was on on it to be true. he also must know what visa he holds and what his status is.

Welsh I believe secured 20 points with him in the side when he should not have been playing. 8 of those were against relegation rivals Irish and Sale. If they did not get a points deduction, and either of those teams were relegated as a result, then they would most definitely have grounds for a legal challenge.

Quite frankly, on the administrative side, Welsh are a complete joke, which is a real shame as on the playing/coaching side they have worked hard and won the respect of many fans.

I find it incredible that anybody can suggest that Welsh have been hard done by here.

They have illegally employed a player without a visa that entitles him to work. he has played 10 matches illegally. They are lucky that as an organisation they are not facing more serious charges. Yes, Mr Scott appears to be the numpty that did wrong, but how Keats is not being held at least partly responsible is beyond me. He signed a blank form which said that he was signing knowing what was on on it to be true. he also must know what visa he holds and what his status is.

Welsh I believe secured 20 points with him in the side when he should not have been playing. 8 of those were against relegation rivals Irish and Sale. If they did not get a points deduction, and either of those teams were relegated as a result, then they would most definitely have grounds for a legal challenge.

Quite frankly, on the administrative side, Welsh are a complete joke, which is a real shame as on the playing/coaching side they have worked hard and won the respect of many fans.

maestegmafia wrote:Looks like yet again the claws of the PRL loving fans of established premiership clubs are out.

Read a few articles on the case before you write so many posts based on so few acurate and true facts.


I am glad to see the points are suspended and even happier to see that London Welsh will appeal.

Be happier still to see Mike Scott serve a decent length custodial sentence.

laugh out loud, you do make me laugh Maes. Everyone on here knows your game, if you actually read the report you'll see whats gone on instead of reading "these articles" (more than likely in the western mail)

beshocked wrote:Greytiger are you a fan of bonus points or do you think the team that wins the most matches should top the league?

...

I'd be happy to discuss that elsewhere 'shocked.
This debate is about the Oxford incident.

greytiger wrote:Hope you don't include me as a PRL/RFU fan Maes.

I've been a dissident for years.

Given my way, the bottom four would be gone.
Actually Worcester would stay and Wasps would be gone.

To get rid of the playoffs pantomime.

Broadly speaking I agree with that.

I'm glad in a way that Welsh challenged PRL's entry rules as they were ridiculous and protectionist. It would be no bad thing if PRL was stripped of a few more powers as well.

However, Welsh should never have had their original application accepted. Minimum criteria are needed for the premiership, and they failed to submit their application for consideration by the deadline. That should have been the end of it. Allowing them a late application meant that the appeal went into the off season and stuffed both LWs and Newcastle's preparation.

I can't really see their basis for appealing now either, though I'm sure we will find out soon enough. They are responsible for the conduct of their staff, as any other business is, and falsified paperwork was created on their behalf. That he might have been okay had they done their job properly is irrelevant - he still would have been inelligible to play until they had the relevant documentation in place to prove that, and clearly they didn't have that in place at the start of the season.

In a rugby sense I have plenty of respect for London Welsh, and I'd be more than happy to see them take another shot at getting into/staying in the premiership. However, they really need to get their back room admin side up to scratch.

Jimpy I agree but I am just pointing out why I think the decision was made as it is.

Ozzy3213 this whole respect thing again.

beshocked, you've lost me.

Why would Welsh/Scott go to all this trouble and the quite serious charges that it can bring over one player? It just doesn't make sense, it's a team game and to potentially ruin your club over an individual is ludicrous.

Who is Keats? And is he an amazing 9 that Welsh thought would save them from relegation?

It's a pain having a discussion on a single topic over two threads.

I will go against the grain here. I feel dreadfully sorry for London Welsh.
In previous incidents, such as that at Exeter, unfair advantage was gained. There was not in this case. Keats is eligeable to play for England, for goodness sake. It was an administrative man sausage-up and admitedly some shady covering up. But no unfair advantage was gained.
There is no conspiracy theory about it. The RFU are vindictive, and every bit as shambolic as the LW administration.
I want the relegation battle to be decided on the rugby field.
I pay good money to see my team battle relegation on an annual basis (Worcester). I do not pay to have it taken out of the players hands by the RFU.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I find it incredible that anybody can suggest that Welsh have been hard done by here.

They have illegally employed a player without a visa that entitles him to work. he has played 10 matches illegally. They are lucky that as an organisation they are not facing more serious charges. Yes, Mr Scott appears to be the numpty that did wrong, but how Keats is not being held at least partly responsible is beyond me. He signed a blank form which said that he was signing knowing what was on on it to be true. he also must know what visa he holds and what his status is.

Welsh I believe secured 20 points with him in the side when he should not have been playing. 8 of those were against relegation rivals Irish and Sale. If they did not get a points deduction, and either of those teams were relegated as a result, then they would most definitely have grounds for a legal challenge.

Quite frankly, on the administrative side, Welsh are a complete joke, which is a real shame as on the playing/coaching side they have worked hard and won the respect of many fans.

Keats now has the correct ancestry visa. If it wasn't for Scotts involvement, he would have had the correct documents prior to the season commencing.

Tooboredtowork,

An "administrative error"????

A passport was forged for gods sake.

And if my aunty had Love sacks she'd be my uncle maes. If's and would have's are irrelevant. The facts are that he didn't have the correct visa and he played 10 matches when he was not entitled to do so.

greytiger wrote:It's a pain having a discussion on a single topic over two threads.

Very true, so I've merged the threads.

Ozzy3213 wrote:And if my aunty had Love sacks she'd be my uncle maes. If's and would have's are irrelevant. The facts are that he didn't have the correct visa and he played 10 matches when he was not entitled to do so.

+1

It baffles me how anyone can claim they were hard done by.

Jonny wants a new jacket. He goes to the shop and steals it. When he gets home he realises the missus bought him one and he didnt need to steal it in first place. If he had waited it would have been ok.

BUT he didnt wait. An offence was committed. Same for London Welsh.

yappysnap wrote:Why would Welsh/Scott go to all this trouble and the quite serious charges that it can bring over one player? It just doesn't make sense, it's a team game and to potentially ruin your club over an individual is ludicrous.

Who is Keats? And is he an amazing 9 that Welsh thought would save them from relegation?

Thats what confuses me yappy, its not as if it Dan Carter for goodness sake. Seeing as he qualifies for a residency visa it seems like a really stupid thing for this Scott character to do. Whats more, he appropriate visa was obtained quickly Scot should have told someone sooner and the whole thing could have been sorted out in September.

I don't really have a comment about the harshness, its a shame that they could be relegated for an administrative balls up rather than on the pitch but something needed to be done. Still would quite like to see Steve Diamond be relegated for a good dose of schadenfreude though...

I actually could see relegation helping Sale in the long run. More than London Welsh getting relegated.

Sale seem to have the vision of "Sign household names and we will do ok" which isn't the way to do things.

A season in the Championship should teach them whats what a la Quins/Saints.

ozzy you are talking about respect for LW. Respect in my opinion can be very subjective. It's something I have been discussing with some Pro12 fans.

LW have been a bit troublesome on and off the pitch. Not a big fan of them personally.

To make it clear the deduction is 5 points with 5 more suspended
1 point for each breach

This was no administration error but a deliberate fraud to benefit the club, LW needed to meet a quota of EQ players to access RFU payments.

The idea that LW bought the fraud to the attention of the RFU is misleading, the RFU had been questioning the registration from the day it was made.

LW did not deal with Scott and the fraud properly until after he had quit of his own accord, almost a month after the RFU had written to Steve Lewis clarifying the situation as they saw it. He was still playing when they were aware there was a problem with the registration, but Lewis decided that it must have been an RFU administrative mistake rather than fraud from within his own club. The excuse for the lack of oversight was that his job was only part time and unpayed ( yes that old thing the RFU board always gets accused of...) The RFU also accepts that it should have pursued its suspicions more vigorously with LW once they became aware the document was a fraud. Both parties knew.



LWs appeal is based on the notion that they were the victim of fraud rather than guilt of poor administration which is what was punished previously. Im not sure how that can be supported when part of their defence was that they only had a part time unpayed DOR and no proper system in place to monitor what was going on. But its pretty obvious why theyd try, who wouldnt want to avoid such a sanction?
When the points table is settled at seasons end we could too see LI or Sale put in a challenge if they go down, suggesting it was lenient.

The case is more serious than initial reports (and even most current surface articles) suggested. The issue is far from dead yet.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:To make it clear the deduction is 5 points with 5 more suspended
1 point for each breach

This was no administration error but a deliberate fraud to benefit the club, LW needed to meet a quota of EQ players to access RFU payments.

The idea that LW bought the fraud to the attention of the RFU is misleading, the RFU had been questioning the registration from the day it was made.

LW did not deal with Scott and the fraud properly until after he had quit of his own accord, almost a month after the RFU had written to Steve Lewis clarifying the situation as they saw it. He was still playing when they were aware there was a problem with the registration, but Lewis decided that it must have been an RFU administrative mistake rather than fraud from within his own club. The excuse for the lack of oversight was that his job was only part time and unpayed ( yes that old thing the RFU board always gets accused of...) The RFU also accepts that it should have pursued its suspicions more vigorously with LW once they became aware the document was a fraud. Both parties knew.



LWs appeal is based on the notion that they were the victim of fraud rather than guilt of poor administration which is what was punished previously. Im not sure how that can be supported when part of their defence was that they only had a part time unpayed DOR and no proper system in place to monitor what was going on. But its pretty obvious why theyd try, who wouldnt want to avoid such a sanction?
When the points table is settled at seasons end we could too see LI or Sale put in a challenge if they go down, suggesting it was lenient.

The case is more serious than initial reports (and even most current surface articles) suggested. The issue is far from dead yet.

I agree, cut out the dead wood who don't really want to be there, rebuild the squad and come back stronger. Frankly the way they gave up against Leicester was embarassing, they certainly didn't look like they cared about their club, or even playing for their jobs.

beshocked wrote:ozzy you are talking about respect for LW. Respect in my opinion can be very subjective. It's something I have been discussing with some Pro12 fans.

LW have been a bit troublesome on and off the pitch. Not a big fan of them personally.

In what way troublesome on the pitch? of course respect is subjective, everyone will see things differently. As far as I can see, the players and coaches have been working hard, trying to make themselves competitive and difficult to beat. I can respect that.

maestegmafia wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I find it incredible that anybody can suggest that Welsh have been hard done by here.

They have illegally employed a player without a visa that entitles him to work. he has played 10 matches illegally. They are lucky that as an organisation they are not facing more serious charges. Yes, Mr Scott appears to be the numpty that did wrong, but how Keats is not being held at least partly responsible is beyond me. He signed a blank form which said that he was signing knowing what was on on it to be true. he also must know what visa he holds and what his status is.

Welsh I believe secured 20 points with him in the side when he should not have been playing. 8 of those were against relegation rivals Irish and Sale. If they did not get a points deduction, and either of those teams were relegated as a result, then they would most definitely have grounds for a legal challenge.

Quite frankly, on the administrative side, Welsh are a complete joke, which is a real shame as on the playing/coaching side they have worked hard and won the respect of many fans.

Keats now has the correct ancestry visa. If it wasn't for Scotts involvement, he would have had the correct documents prior to the season commencing.

Erm, no he wouldn't, maes - pls read the damn judgement!

They had to forge them cos he didn't have the right docs and was initially refused a visa - these are the facts, you can't dispute them!

Ozzy3213 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ozzy you are talking about respect for LW. Respect in my opinion can be very subjective. It's something I have been discussing with some Pro12 fans.

LW have been a bit troublesome on and off the pitch. Not a big fan of them personally.

In what way troublesome on the pitch? of course respect is subjective, everyone will see things differently. As far as I can see, the players and coaches have been working hard, trying to make themselves competitive and difficult to beat. I can respect that.

I guess troublesome on the pitch in terms of pushing legalities at breakdown and offside - but who doesn't?

The playing side have done really well in the face of adversity. Some of that caused by RFU/PRL but most caused by their own administrators.

This get murkier and murkier the more you read.

It's a shame for the fans, coaches and players (well, except Keats possibly, depending on his culpability) but rules have got to be enforced. On the playing side they've done better than expected.

If they appeal the deduction should be doubled. It's an extraordinarily lenient judgment anyway. As a club you can't just distance yourself from an individual doing wrong.

I assume the grounds for appeal would be a forensic reading of Scotts contract of employment and showing that he exceeded the authority afforded to him by London Welsh.

I doubt it will pay off but that realistically looks their only option.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:This get murkier and murkier the more you read.

It's a shame for the fans, coaches and players (well, except Keats possibly, depending on his culpability) but rules have got to be enforced. On the playing side they've done better than expected.

The documents state the Keats was asked to sign a blank registration form. Always a bit silly, but hard to heap blame on the guy who had been made redundant when Zebre folded and was desperate for a job.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:If they appeal the deduction should be doubled. It's an extraordinarily lenient judgment anyway. As a club you can't just distance yourself from an individual doing wrong.

They are entitled to appeal. Personally I am not sure what they can bring to the table to change the decision, and feel they would be better off trying to get some points on the pitch because Sale are still seriously misfiring. I suspect this is just a hoop they have to go through before they take it to RW courts, CAS etc.

This story will run and run.

red_stag wrote:I assume the grounds for appeal would be a forensic reading of Scotts contract of employment and showing that he exceeded the authority afforded to him by London Welsh.

I doubt it will pay off but that realistically looks their only option.

Even then, they have to demonstrate they had the processes and mangement systems in place such that there was nothing they could have done to prevent it.

When you consider his line manager, Steve Lewis, only ever communicated via e-mail as he was busy elsewher, then when alerted to issue by RFU assumed it was RFU incompetence and did not pursue matters internally correctly - it will be hard to show theat their processes were adequate.

Londontiger yes that's what I mean by troublesome.

Thank you for the clarification Peter.
Wow, so - 5pts + another 5 on suspended.

For clarification LT,

I suspect this is just a hoop they have to go through before they take it to RW courts, CAS etc.

What are these acronyms?

[ed] Ah. Council for Arbitration in Sport (the Geneva body)? RW - still dunno.

Real World, as opposed to rugby. Not sure what court would have jurisdiction though

LondonTiger wrote:
The documents state the Keats was asked to sign a blank registration form. Always a bit silly, but hard to heap blame on the guy who had been made redundant when Zebre folded and was desperate for a job.

You've still got to take personal responsibility for things you sign. You shouldn't sign a blank form. I'm not saying they should throw the book at the guy but he is a bit to blame.

LondonTiger wrote:
They are entitled to appeal. Personally I am not sure what they can bring to the table to change the decision, and feel they would be better off trying to get some points on the pitch because Sale are still seriously misfiring. I suspect this is just a hoop they have to go through before they take it to RW courts, CAS etc.

This story will run and run.

Yeah, they're entitled to appeal, but I'd really like to see sanctions against spurious appealing. Not necessarily in this case, but often penalties are appealed just to buy some time and suspend bans etc. Appealing just for the sake of it is a waste of time and money.

From my reading of the decision, it seems clear that Mike Scott filled out employment documentation in a fraudulent manner. Also falsified a passport. Both are criminal. He is in trouble.

For Welsh, I don't know the degree to which they are culpable for the actions of their employee. But they will bear some level responsibility since Scott was in their employ. That much is clear.

Regarding the points deduction, it could well have been one point per match. But, this situation is quite extraordinary and unusual. To be consistent with precedent, some points must be taken away. But, I am not sure there is any precedent for this. I suppose the panel decided that a 50% reduction from the 1 point per match was a good place due to Mr. Scott's actions.

As to the appeal by Welsh? I don't think they have anything to lose by appealing. So why not go forward and try to press their case this was a rogue employee and the points deduction should be less?

Doc,

By the rules LW could have been docked 50pts!!!!

Doctor grey you say LW have nothing to lose. I think they do. Surely the 5 points that have been suspended could be added on.

LW are pushing their luck in my opinion.

50 points? Is the max penalty 5 points per match? I didn't know that.
Has any club received that penalty?

I'm pretty sure that teams in the national leagues have incurred 5 point penalties relating to irregularities around a single match.