EPCR statements: Bristol docked match points, get suspended fine
Pat Lam’s Bristol have tumbled down the prospective European Challenge Cup round of 16 seedings after the Gallagher Premiership club was deducted five match points and fined a suspended €10,000 by EPCR for fielding an ineligible player. Ex-Wasps forward Elliot Stooke, who joined Montpellier a fortnight ago, had been signed by the Bears on a short-term injury cover after being made redundant by the collapse of Wasps in October.
Stooke’s short stay at the club has now had a disciplinary hearing sequel that has resulted in Bristol dropping to fifth in the Pool A standings ahead of this weekend’s final round group game versus Perpignan before the round of 16 draw is confirmed.
An EPCR statement read: “Bristol have been deducted five match points and handed a suspended fine of €10,000 following an independent disciplinary hearing arising from the club’s EPCR Challenge Cup round one and round two fixtures against Perpignan and Zebre Parma respectively.
“Bristol were charged with misconduct by EPCR as the club was believed to have breached the 2022/23 tournament rules by selecting an ineligible player, Elliott Stooke, as a replacement in their match day squads for both fixtures.
“An independent disciplinary committee comprising Roger Morris (Wales, chair), Kathrine Mackie (Scotland) and David Martin (Ireland) heard submissions from Bristol chief executive Gavin Marshall, from chief operating officer Tom Tainton, and from director of rugby Pat Lam, who accepted that the club had committed a breach of EPCR’s tournament rules, as well as from EPCR disciplinary officer Liam McTiernan.
“The committee heard that Stooke, who had been previously made redundant by Wasps, was properly registered to play for Bristol as an additional player in the EPCR Challenge Cup, and that under EPCR’s rules, additional players must be contracted to the club for a minimum period of three months.
“In addition, the committee heard that clubs must also sign an additional player undertaking to ensure that the three-month contract remains in full force and effect for the entire three-month period, and to ensure that players do not enter into a contract or arrangement with any other club that would prevent them from playing for the club with which they have been registered.
“The committee was told that following his participation in the matches against USAP and Zebre Parma, Stooke informed Bristol that he wished to activate an early release clause in his contract and was taking up an offer to join Montpellier Herault Rugby.
“However, by permitting Stooke to sign for Montpellier before the three-month period had elapsed, Bristo unwittingly breached the additional player undertaking and Stooke, therefore, became retrospectively ineligible for the round one and round two matches against USAP and Zebre Parma.
“The committee heard that as all relevant members of Bristol staff were not aware that Stooke had an early release clause in his contract, the member of staff responsible had made an honest clerical mistake when registering him as an additional player. They apologised for the error and confirmed that a review of the club’s work practices in this area would be carried out.
“While accepting that Bristol had committed a genuine error and had not sought to gain an unfair advantage in any way, the committee determined that with the need to uphold the integrity of the EPCR Challenge Cup as paramount, the club was guilty of misconduct due to a breach of EPCR’s tournament rules and it was decided to deduct five match points from their overall total after round three of the EPCR Challenge Cup and to impose a fine of €10,000.
“The fine is suspended until the end of the 2023/24 season and will only become payable if Bristol are found to have committed a further breach of EPCR’s tournament rules during that period.”
A follow-up EPCR statement added: “Further to the findings of the independent disciplinary committee in relation to this case, EPCR can confirm that it will accept the decision of the committee and the sanctions imposed, and will not be appealing.”
Latest Comments
Everywhere you turn some irish journo is advocating Ireland as the greatest, reasoning that the wc is a 4 year cycle event so, they say wc doesn’t matter it’s the rugby in between that should account for the accolade. If there was no wc then some substance could be gained, however in my opinion the moment that defined Ireland’s fate against the abs was 37 phases of repeated head bashing against a brick wall. If a change in strategy or a tinker with the game plan was executed then things could've been vastly different. And to point a finger the let down was in the hands of the number 10.
Go to commentsI have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to comments