Quote Slugger McBatt="Slugger McBatt"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.
'"
