If a legal case was launched, then I imagine that the first thing the applicant would do is seek an injunction preventing the application of that rule.
A very good point and not one I had considered. What would be the likelyhood of it being upheld though?, Would the RFL be able to argue that no one forced you to sign up to these conditions?, Again on that one im not sure but it is another grey area and another reason that IMHO the RFL are holding most (Not all) of the cards. Ill say it again. IMHO the RFL are gambling that no club has the balls to try it. Does that mean that no is able to do it...no. Will that club be willing to gamble their entire existance on it...no. That is why IMHO its a gamble the RFL will always win.
A very good point and not one I had considered. What would be the likelyhood of it being upheld though?, Would the RFL be able to argue that no one forced you to sign up to these conditions?, Again on that one im not sure but it is another grey area and another reason that IMHO the RFL are holding most (Not all) of the cards. Ill say it again. IMHO the RFL are gambling that no club has the balls to try it. Does that mean that no is able to do it...no. Will that club be willing to gamble their entire existance on it...no. That is why IMHO its a gamble the RFL will always win.
I wouldn't have a clue on the merits of any application, as it is not my field and I have never read the documents. Franchising may one day make someone have a go though, if the club's financial position was such that relegation would mean closure. What would the club have to lose. If a few injunctions flying around created chaos, the RFL could consider expanding the number of teams as a compromise.
I doubt it will ever happen in reality, it is unlikely to win many friends in the game, but that is the problem when you have relegation and promotion by committee rather than performance, particularly when it seems sometimes that the process is skewed to help some clubs more than other. It just gives lawyers something to scrutinise.
I don't really get the arguements here. When there was automatic promotion and relegation, no-one was mentioning anything about taking the RFL to court if a team was relegated. It sounds absurd to me that clubs were perfectly happy (at the time) to accept they could go down any year they finished bottom, but now teams get 3 years guaranteed in the top flight and all of a sudden its not fair if one is relegated? Are you trying to say promotion and relegation isn't a restriction of trade but demotion via a failed licence application is? Whats the difference? When Widnes went down at the end of 2005 despite not finishing bottom and also the fact that 2 went down almost EVERYONE said "its your own fault, you knew the rules at the start of the season and all the clubs agreed to it". Just because we have swapped over to licences doesn't change the fact that teams can be relegated.
The whole court action arguement seems to hang on this notion that as long as Wakey, Cas and Salford get a new stadium, then they have fulfilled their obligation to the RFL and thus cannot be relegated. Who ever said getting a stadium would guarantee another licence? What would happen if there were say 5 non SL applications that were absolutely outstanding? Are you saying the RFL would have to refuse these applications? or accept these applications and expand the league to 19? As far as I am concerned the RFL hasn't guaranteed any club anything regarding re-newing licences. The RFL have guaranteed 1 place to a Championship club, but what happens if more than 1 meets the RFL's criteria? Are you saying whoever misses out from the Championship can also take the RFL to court?
At the end of the day, all the clubs agreed to the licencing system and no SL team can start crying if their licence doesn't get re-newed. IMO the licencing guidelines were blatently ignored last time round and some clubs were very lucky to get licence in the 1st place. Remember Boots n'all's imfamous licence score chart last time round that saw both Widnes and Leigh ahead of quite a few teams and I think they even gave Widnes a B grade. As far as I am aware by applying you waive the right to challenge the decision in court. Now I don't know whether that is enforceable or not, but I wouldn't have thought the RFL would be expecting any legal challenges.
I also don't agree with the notion that if a SL club doesn't get a licence, it almost certainly spells the end for that club - how the hell do you think the current Championship clubs feel? IMO certain people are only willing to accept things from thier own club's point of view - "if we don't get a licence, we'll have crap players, no money and low attendeces wha wha" No doubt these same people are happy to see the likes of Halifax, Widnes and Barrow etc in this league that they would refuse to go in. Not everyone can eat at the top table I'm afraid and for 1 club its bye, bye. Its no big deal, if that club is truely a SL club and built on strong foundations etc, they will still be around in 3 years to re-apply. If they get relegated and end up getting small crowds, poor team, no money etc, wouldn't that go to proove they didn't deserve to be in SL in the 1st place? IMO even without the gauranteed place for a Championship club, Widnes would have a better application than at least one current SL club. If so how would the RFL award 14 licences but avoid a legal challenge from someone? 15 in to 14 doesn't go - shouldn't the unlucky club just accept they came last?
I don't really get the arguements here. When there was automatic promotion and relegation, no-one was mentioning anything about taking the RFL to court if a team was relegated. It sounds absurd to me that clubs were perfectly happy (at the time) to accept they could go down any year they finished bottom, but now teams get 3 years guaranteed in the top flight and all of a sudden its not fair if one is relegated? Are you trying to say promotion and relegation isn't a restriction of trade but demotion via a failed licence application is? Whats the difference? When Widnes went down at the end of 2005 despite not finishing bottom and also the fact that 2 went down almost EVERYONE said "its your own fault, you knew the rules at the start of the season and all the clubs agreed to it". Just because we have swapped over to licences doesn't change the fact that teams can be relegated.
The whole court action arguement seems to hang on this notion that as long as Wakey, Cas and Salford get a new stadium, then they have fulfilled their obligation to the RFL and thus cannot be relegated. Who ever said getting a stadium would guarantee another licence? What would happen if there were say 5 non SL applications that were absolutely outstanding? Are you saying the RFL would have to refuse these applications? or accept these applications and expand the league to 19? As far as I am concerned the RFL hasn't guaranteed any club anything regarding re-newing licences. The RFL have guaranteed 1 place to a Championship club, but what happens if more than 1 meets the RFL's criteria? Are you saying whoever misses out from the Championship can also take the RFL to court?
At the end of the day, all the clubs agreed to the licencing system and no SL team can start crying if their licence doesn't get re-newed. IMO the licencing guidelines were blatently ignored last time round and some clubs were very lucky to get licence in the 1st place. Remember Boots n'all's imfamous licence score chart last time round that saw both Widnes and Leigh ahead of quite a few teams and I think they even gave Widnes a B grade. As far as I am aware by applying you waive the right to challenge the decision in court. Now I don't know whether that is enforceable or not, but I wouldn't have thought the RFL would be expecting any legal challenges.
I also don't agree with the notion that if a SL club doesn't get a licence, it almost certainly spells the end for that club - how the hell do you think the current Championship clubs feel? IMO certain people are only willing to accept things from thier own club's point of view - "if we don't get a licence, we'll have crap players, no money and low attendeces wha wha" No doubt these same people are happy to see the likes of Halifax, Widnes and Barrow etc in this league that they would refuse to go in. Not everyone can eat at the top table I'm afraid and for 1 club its bye, bye. Its no big deal, if that club is truely a SL club and built on strong foundations etc, they will still be around in 3 years to re-apply. If they get relegated and end up getting small crowds, poor team, no money etc, wouldn't that go to proove they didn't deserve to be in SL in the 1st place? IMO even without the gauranteed place for a Championship club, Widnes would have a better application than at least one current SL club. If so how would the RFL award 14 licences but avoid a legal challenge from someone? 15 in to 14 doesn't go - shouldn't the unlucky club just accept they came last?
Some good points well made but bearing in mind Widnes' spell in administration and inabilty to contend anything outside the Northern Rail aren't you arguing against your own inclusion?
I don't really get the arguements here. When there was automatic promotion and relegation, no-one was mentioning anything about taking the RFL to court if a team was relegated. It sounds absurd to me that clubs were perfectly happy (at the time) to accept they could go down any year they finished bottom, but now teams get 3 years guaranteed in the top flight and all of a sudden its not fair if one is relegated? Are you trying to say promotion and relegation isn't a restriction of trade but demotion via a failed licence application is? Whats the difference? When Widnes went down at the end of 2005 despite not finishing bottom and also the fact that 2 went down almost EVERYONE said "its your own fault, you knew the rules at the start of the season and all the clubs agreed to it". Just because we have swapped over to licences doesn't change the fact that teams can be relegated.
The whole court action arguement seems to hang on this notion that as long as Wakey, Cas and Salford get a new stadium, then they have fulfilled their obligation to the RFL and thus cannot be relegated. Who ever said getting a stadium would guarantee another licence? What would happen if there were say 5 non SL applications that were absolutely outstanding? Are you saying the RFL would have to refuse these applications? or accept these applications and expand the league to 19? As far as I am concerned the RFL hasn't guaranteed any club anything regarding re-newing licences. The RFL have guaranteed 1 place to a Championship club, but what happens if more than 1 meets the RFL's criteria? Are you saying whoever misses out from the Championship can also take the RFL to court?
At the end of the day, all the clubs agreed to the licencing system and no SL team can start crying if their licence doesn't get re-newed. IMO the licencing guidelines were blatently ignored last time round and some clubs were very lucky to get licence in the 1st place. Remember Boots n'all's imfamous licence score chart last time round that saw both Widnes and Leigh ahead of quite a few teams and I think they even gave Widnes a B grade. As far as I am aware by applying you waive the right to challenge the decision in court. Now I don't know whether that is enforceable or not, but I wouldn't have thought the RFL would be expecting any legal challenges.
I also don't agree with the notion that if a SL club doesn't get a licence, it almost certainly spells the end for that club - how the hell do you think the current Championship clubs feel? IMO certain people are only willing to accept things from thier own club's point of view - "if we don't get a licence, we'll have crap players, no money and low attendeces wha wha" No doubt these same people are happy to see the likes of Halifax, Widnes and Barrow etc in this league that they would refuse to go in. Not everyone can eat at the top table I'm afraid and for 1 club its bye, bye. Its no big deal, if that club is truely a SL club and built on strong foundations etc, they will still be around in 3 years to re-apply. If they get relegated and end up getting small crowds, poor team, no money etc, wouldn't that go to proove they didn't deserve to be in SL in the 1st place? IMO even without the gauranteed place for a Championship club, Widnes would have a better application than at least one current SL club. If so how would the RFL award 14 licences but avoid a legal challenge from someone? 15 in to 14 doesn't go - shouldn't the unlucky club just accept they came last?
If you believe that the franchise system is no different to the relegation system then i suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. When promotion and relegation was in every team was on a level playing field (except the team given dispensation) and knew that if they finished bottom they would be relegated, this was a fair way of doing things. If every team meets the licence criteria and Wigan for example finish bottom of the league, do you honestly believe that the RFL would take away their licence, or Leeds or St. Helens. If St. Helens hit problems and their new ground isn't ready for 2012 do you really think the RFL would withdraw their licence. Everybody believes that the only teams in danger this time are Castleford, Salford and Wakefield but why should this be the case. When Whitehaven qualified for promotion they were refused because the RFL would not let them erect temporary stands, now one has to ask the question why Hull K R were allowed to do this and still be using them years after, how long is temporary on Humberside. Odsal stadium has been the same for as long as i have watched rugby league and has been the subject of redevelopment for years without any progress, it has never been a suitable ground for anyone with walking difficulties as the toilets are at the top of steep terracing and to stay near them you need binoculars to see the pitch. Can you also tell me why we need a stadium that holds 12,000 spectators when there only 2 or 3 clubs that attain this attendance on a regular basis. If a survey was done of all rugby supporters i am sure that the majority would not say that a new stadium was a requirement for playing in Super League. I would ask someone to show me where a new stadium has put gates up considerably without the team improving their league position. One other thing i dislike about the new stadiums is the fact that the fans are segregated, we have always been able to mingle and i believe that segregation leads to more animosity betwen the fans. If my team Castleford are the one to suffer i will do as i did the last twice we were relegated, i will continue to support them but will another Championship team be guarenteed a licence in 3 years time.
"Therefore, surely nothing in life is to be feared, only understood. Apart from getting shanked at the cash machine!"
I love this city, this is my town. We get a week out, without a doubt, gunna sing it out loud. i love my city this is my town, we get a week out, without a doubt, gunna sing it out loud
If the argument is that failing to award a club a licence would be unlawful restraint of trade because it would deny them access to SL TV money and bankrupt them, then it logically has to apply to the previous system of relegation as well. After all, no club has yet gone bankrupt because it wasn't granted a licence in 2008. The list of clubs that have either gone bankrupt or folded because of relegation, or overspending to avoid it/achieve promotion, under the previous system is quite long: Widnes, Oldham, Workington Town, Halifax … off the top of my head.
People who are arguing that that a club losing its place in 2012 would be both unfair and unlawful and therefore open to successful legal challenge seem to be forgetting two things:
1) No club will lose its SL place for 2012-5 – for the simple reason that no club has such a place to lose. The clubs currently in Super League applied for and were awarded three year licences that run out at the end of 2011. They are free to apply, or not, for a 2012-5 licence, but atm, not one club in Europe has such a licence.
2) The make-up, size and entry system for Super League is subject to agreement by two bodies, the RFL as the governing body of the sport and Super League Europe - ie the clubs that make up SL. Earlier this year (I think it was) the clubs that make up SLE voted to go with a guaranteed place for at least one club currently in the championship (if it meets the criteria) and also to keep SL at 14 clubs for 2012-5 – ie, they voted for at least one of their number to be playing in the championship for that period. So any club thinking of launching a legal challenge would be doing so against their own decision.
Now I'm not sure how Cas, Wakey, Salford or any other club with a potentially unsuccessful bid voted. But if any club were serious about challenging the process, they should launch a legal challenge now, rather than wait until they taste sour grapes next summer. But none will, because it's a non-runner.
"Castleford's biggest home crowd of the 1991-1992 season wasn't quite 12,000 while on average they'd sit around 6000 but the noise, the chanting and the singing just blows you away" - Tawera Nikau "Standing Tall"
"I can tell you the atmosphere was extraordinary at Wheldon Road on big days. The ground held around 15,000 people, every one of them close to the action on the field and the noise would be enough to send a rumble through the town" - Malcolm Reilly "Reilly - A Life in Rugby League"
Anyone heard a new date mentioned for your FPP application?
No idea! your guess is as good as anybody's.
but then again I thought you had detailed plans and Yorkcourt's millions ready to start work in the new year - although TRB on the Wakey forum has said:-
"It's not about 'choice' - it's about finance.
If we can get the money, we would like to build it with the corners in, but if we can't get it now, we can do it later."
Change is inevitable ...except from a vending machine!
BillyRhino wrote:
So in best IA mode ..<.Possibley World Class, could be the greatest thing since sliced bread....am personally very excited, and confidently expect him to prove my predictions are bang on target.... Alternatively he could be rubbish>
but then again I thought you had detailed plans and Yorkcourt's millions ready to start work in the new year - although TRB on the Wakey forum has said:-
"It's not about 'choice' - it's about finance.
If we can get the money, we would like to build it with the corners in, but if we can't get it now, we can do it later."
Given TRB is not here at the moment to defend that comment, you seem to be quoting him out of context. They have the money to build the scheme without the corners but would like to build it with them, if possible, but are unsure if they can raise the additional funds required at this stage, and this has never changed since the first day Newmarket was announced. I don't think that is anything more than a statement of the facts as he has been informed of them.
If you believe that the franchise system is no different to the relegation system then i suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. When promotion and relegation was in every team was on a level playing field (except the team given dispensation) and knew that if they finished bottom they would be relegated, this was a fair way of doing things. If every team meets the licence criteria and Wigan for example finish bottom of the league, do you honestly believe that the RFL would take away their licence, or Leeds or St. Helens. If St. Helens hit problems and their new ground isn't ready for 2012 do you really think the RFL would withdraw their licence. Everybody believes that the only teams in danger this time are Castleford, Salford and Wakefield but why should this be the case. When Whitehaven qualified for promotion they were refused because the RFL would not let them erect temporary stands, now one has to ask the question why Hull K R were allowed to do this and still be using them years after, how long is temporary on Humberside. Odsal stadium has been the same for as long as i have watched rugby league and has been the subject of redevelopment for years without any progress, it has never been a suitable ground for anyone with walking difficulties as the toilets are at the top of steep terracing and to stay near them you need binoculars to see the pitch. Can you also tell me why we need a stadium that holds 12,000 spectators when there only 2 or 3 clubs that attain this attendance on a regular basis. If a survey was done of all rugby supporters i am sure that the majority would not say that a new stadium was a requirement for playing in Super League. I would ask someone to show me where a new stadium has put gates up considerably without the team improving their league position. One other thing i dislike about the new stadiums is the fact that the fans are segregated, we have always been able to mingle and i believe that segregation leads to more animosity betwen the fans
Only from those with new grounds already, other than that top post squire
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...