Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:10 pm  

chissitt wrote:

ish that rite

Any rugby comment?

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:14 pm  

vastman wrote:

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.

Anyone who thinks that one piddling RL club can force the RFL and 13 other RL LTD companies to play against them week in and week out is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:19 pm  

Ceejames wrote:

Anyone who thinks that one piddling RL club can force the RFL and 13 other RL LTD companies to play against them week in and week out is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It takes 1 competent lawyer and the way the RFL try running the game is stopped because it's illegal as it is (so are the salary cap and quota technically, but that's an entirely different matter).

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:26 pm  

vastman wrote:

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.

This sounds like good plan although it has 1 small hitch any club taking the RFL to court cannot play in any if its comp's.
IF you take the RFL to court then you as a club need to find another sport to play.
This was one of the main reasons Wigan didnt kick up more of a stink the other year when they got a major slapping over the salary cap.
THe RFL have the clubs more over a barrel then you seem to think.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:34 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

This sounds like good plan although it has 1 small hitch any club taking the RFL to court cannot play in any if its comp's.
IF you take the RFL to court then you as a club need to find another sport to play.
This was one of the main reasons Wigan didnt kick up more of a stink the other year when they got a major slapping over the salary cap.
THe RFL have the clubs more over a barrel then you seem to think.

Wigan didn't kick up a stink because they were guilty the RFL and Wigan shut up and did a deal on the sly to stop Cas kicking up a fuss and suing both the RFL & Wigan for everything they had on the other hand.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:56 pm  

Gaslight wrote:

Wigan didn't kick up a stink because they were guilty the RFL and Wigan shut up and did a deal on the sly to stop Cas kicking up a fuss and suing both the RFL & Wigan for everything they had on the other hand.

You could take the RFL to court and yes you would probably win..............BUT lets say it takes 12/18 months to win that would 1/2 season where you cannot play RL AT ALL.
Now have a little think about it.
How much of the club would be left to play in RL after you stop trading for 1 season if not 2.
Oh and BTW Wigan would have correctly argued that the Salary Cap is illegal by European Law just as you would be argueing that the franchises are illegal.
Its a gamble by the RFL that no club has the balls to do it.
For reasons I have mentioned IMHO its a gamble they are always going to win.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:03 pm  

Ceejames wrote:

No, just someone who takes time to find out about the licence process. Do you have any RL comments?

is there a link you can put on here to this legal document you appear to have seen?. if so i can get it looked at legally

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:26 pm  

Ceejames wrote:

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.

I hope we are not slected and wil not go down.

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:21 pm  

chissitt wrote:

I hope we are not slected and wil not go down.

You're spellings shocking

Re: Wakey Planning Permission : Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:30 pm  

BIGAL1 wrote:

You're spellings shocking

Shouldn't that say 'You're Spelling is shocking'