Ceejames wrote:
No, just someone who takes time to find out about the licence process. Do you have any RL comments?
No contract is watertight until a judge says it is, and that would be the pitfall. If someone argued that the whole franchise process was flawed because the RFL had fettered its discretion (ie, already made its mind up), then a legal challenge could probably be brought, and one of the arguments would be that the exclusion clause (ie, that you are not allowed to challenge the final decision) was unfair. The announcement that a championship club is definitely coming up is the sort of thing that would support the argument that the whole process was flawed, as it suggests that one applicant will be viewed more favourably regardless of whether or not it is one of the best 14 applications (and we all know its Widnes - didn't they post something on their site recently that suggested that they were on their way up, but then took it down immediately - had they had the "not yet" warning?).
It doesn't matter whether or not the contracts and franchise process turn out to be watertight once it has been through the judicial mill. It is the wreckage caused by the judicial process that would be the problem, as a judge could be asked to halt the whole process until it is finally determined. And when you have a do-or-die process like this, a club will one day challenge it if the club's survival depends on it.
I know it's a different determining body, but you only have to remember how Wigan were able to challenge the points deduction for salary cap breaches even though they had agreed to it.
It matters not whether someone agrees to something. A court will not force anyone to be bound by an agreement or process that is fundamentally unfair (I am not saying it is unfair or not, but just saying that if a court thought it was unfair, the agreement is irrelevant).
