Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:50 am  

deeHell wrote:

Read my posting history I think you'll find a few fair few RL related comments! HTH

Any RL comment?

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:55 am  

[quote="Slugger McBatt"]

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.

To be fair slugger, Wigan are allowed to and have been allowed to cheat without any real recourse for as long as i can remember, so quoting them is a little flimsy, but i agree with the rest of your argument

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:58 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

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.

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).

I agree , the Wigan situation was very different.

Clearly if the RFL break their own 'rules' there is scope for a challenge. They wont and the relegated club will go down. Those fans - and I am not saying you are one of them - clinging to the notion that after the whole process they will get out of jail with a legal challenge are clutching at straws.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:16 am  

Ceejames wrote:

I agree , the Wigan situation was very different.

Clearly if the RFL break their own 'rules' there is scope for a challenge. They wont and the relegated club will go down. Those fans - and I am not saying you are one of them - clinging to the notion that after the whole process they will get out of jail with a legal challenge are clutching at straws.

I'm not saying that any legal challenge would be successful, and I would not want Wakey to mount one, as it would not be for the good of the game (and would earn very few brownie points for the application in three years time). I was just saying that you cannot rule out a legal challenge, because you cannot stop a legal challenge, as you could even challenge the agreement not to challenge it. I have been involved in the law long enough (i've been a solicitor for fifteen years, but in a different field to this) to know that having a very weak legal argument doesn't stop you from making the argument, and there is nothing worse than the hassle of fighting a legal argument from the other side that you know is complete rubbish, because you still have the hassle of fighting it.

So no, I'm not wanting Wakey to be saved by a legal challenge. I'm just saying that some club may one day try it, and watertight or not, the hassle of fighting it could be damaging for the RFL.

And with hindsight, I realise that the Wigan example was poor. According to their fans' chants, "they are rugby league". God love 'em!

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:29 pm  

Ceejames wrote:

When you are sober you can spell This has been far rom true.

ish that rite

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:46 pm  

Souths essentially went through something very similar to this.
They took the NRL to the high court on grounds of exclusion of trade. And eventually won.
Took 3 years for them to be reinstated but they got back.

If all 3 clubs under threat get stadiums built I think they will offer a similar promise to the team they demote as the one they offered (unofficially) to Widnes after the last round of applications; "Hold steady for 3 years and we'll welcome you back with open arms!"
But I don't think they will change their minds of the number of clubs or they procedure for judging applications.

If I were in charge I'd move straight back to P&R in a heart beat!

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:46 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

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).

Correct. I really can't understand why some seemingly intelligent posters are claiming that the franchise has any kind of real authority, it does not, it has NONE.

Sure you can't challenge the decision through RFL channels - big deal. The British legal system is the ONLY organisation in the land able to enforce the law and the only body able to create laws is Parliament. No way do the rules of some small sport riddled with self interest overrule the LAW.

Any Lawyer who can find any part of the franchise that goes against current trade practice and employment law would have a field day. It matters not a jot as to what the clubs and the RFL agreed or signed - if it's an illegal practice it can be challenged and over ruled with almost 100% certainty at a huge cost to the game and the RFL know this.

Even the rule about clubs going into receivership and thus automatically being demoted is utterly unenforceable in a court. The only reason clubs in football have not challenged the FA is because those clubs simply couldn't afford a legal challenge. It would IMO be a completely different story if a club could mount a challenge. The SL would lose the case where Trinity, Salford or Cas are concerned IMO.

If a club is solvent, trading and has employees and even if it fails the sports own criteria then by UK and European law it is still totally illegal to remove there ability to trade against there will - end of. If the RFL/SL tried to enforce the demotion of any existing club on any grounds other than those which broke UK law and were taken to court they would be crucified and the franchise agreement would be rendered worthless - which indeed it is unless all the clubs CHOOSE to go along with it - which they won't when push comes to shove. Even IMO an individual employee could successfully challenge any ruling regarding demotion so thin is the franchise systems real power.

Anyone who thinks that some piddling little body like the RFL/SL have any real authority over the future of LTD Companies with shareholders employing many people which all SL clubs are is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Re: Stadium Development and Ground Share Thread : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:04 pm  

I think you will all find the RFL are not removing anyone's ability to trade, They will be only be moving them from SL into The Championship, this does not stop them from trading.
And while I don't agree with 1 of the 3 getting kicked it will be there own fault, we have all vexed about for far too long with empty promises. The grounds should be up we have all had long enough .

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:04 pm  

Double post.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:08 pm  

The RFL rules for a licence are clear and approved by all the clubs. The licence criteria are approved by all. If the RFl comply by their own rules then a club protesting about a decision after it has been made will fail. The team slected to go down wil be relegated.