[Kosh]

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:04 pm  

RebelRebel wrote:

Surely it depends on whether the contract contains clauses that aren't legally binding or enforceable? I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, though. I don't know. Just making the point.

What contract?

The RFL can only be judged against compliance with it's own rules.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:06 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote: What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written. No, but if you read the other article on the number of people who turned up to hear the news, you'll see this: The stadium development announcement is a fantastic stride in the right direction for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats and will provide us with a Super League compliant stadium fit for our fantastic team and our fantastic City whilst we are waiting for Newmarket. http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... eague-bid/

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote: What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written. No, but if you read the other article on the number of people who turned up to hear the news, you'll see this: The stadium development announcement is a fantastic stride in the right direction for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats and will provide us with a Super League compliant stadium fit for our fantastic team and our fantastic City whilst we are waiting for Newmarket. http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... eague-bid/

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:07 pm  

RebelRebel wrote:

Surely it depends on whether the contract contains clauses that aren't legally binding or enforceable? I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, though. I don't know. Just making the point.

It is a far point but what as a club do you do for what would be possibly a year to a year and a half (A guess) whilst you get all the info together as you wont be playing Rugby League.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:11 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

It is a far point but what as a club do you do for what would be possibly a year to a year and a half (A guess) whilst you get all the info together as you wont be playing Rugby League.

I can't see a legal challenge being made either, for all the reasons you've pointed out. I was only trying to make the point that just because you sign something doesn't make it legally binding. I can't see any club wanting to go down the road of a legal challenge, tbh. It would be suicide.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:14 pm  

Kosh wrote:

The Operational Rules do not remove the right to a legal challenge. They simply state the procedure that applies in the case of a club issuing one.

On what grounds, exactly? They agreed to the terms and conditions of the Operational Rules, including suspension from competition if in legal dispute with the Governing Body. The time to challenge that condition was before agreeing to it.

So in part we agree.

The signing of an agreement/contract doesnt stop someone challenging it,that was all i was pointing out.

With regards grounds of challenging,i would imagine they would be looking at some aspect that makes the contract unfair.

I dont disagree that any challenge would be more than likely futile.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:15 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

Erm if you have signed away that right then yes, yes they can.

.

If I sign a bit of paper saying you can punch me in the face as hard as you like, would it be then legal for you to do so? Or would I be able to go to the police and press charges?

(Not for 1 second I think we could, would or should go down that route that is)

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:25 pm  

Addit info reported here re costs, funding and timescale http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Addit info reported here re costs, funding and timescale http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:35 pm  

At least this news has been done a lot better and covered more. Does anyone think that there could be plans for Belle vue after (if) we move out. Reserves/football being played at Belle vue..?

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:36 pm  

RebelRebel wrote: No, but if you read the other article on the number of people who turned up to hear the news, you'll see this: The stadium development announcement is a fantastic stride in the right direction for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats and will provide us with a Super League compliant stadium fit for our fantastic team and our fantastic City whilst we are waiting for Newmarket. http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... eague-bid/ Then they should have made that clear on the main story which has grabbed the headlines then. As has been mentioned earlier, why would the journos visit the site for more info when they've been sent a story that doesn't mention Newmarket anywhere.

RebelRebel wrote: No, but if you read the other article on the number of people who turned up to hear the news, you'll see this: The stadium development announcement is a fantastic stride in the right direction for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats and will provide us with a Super League compliant stadium fit for our fantastic team and our fantastic City whilst we are waiting for Newmarket. http://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... eague-bid/ Then they should have made that clear on the main story which has grabbed the headlines then. As has been mentioned earlier, why would the journos visit the site for more info when they've been sent a story that doesn't mention Newmarket anywhere.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:39 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

It could but it would be a poinless.
A judge would ask 'did you sign this?'
'Yes'
'Case dismissed'

And the defence would say
"did you have any choice other than to sign it if you even wanted to apply for a licence?"
"No"
Ah, well in that case not quite so clear cut is it?

I'm not a legal expert but to me there is a bit of an issue with saying to someone "you can only apply to stay in our club (that you're already a member of) if you sign this agreement that says we can just refuse you admission based on a set of criteria we have set, but yet allow Joe Bloggs down the road to be admitted even though he doesn't meet the same conditions, and by signing the agreement you give up your right to challenge the completely flawed process we will apply.