Why should it say "you are spelling is shocking"?

Oh hello are you talking to me again now.


But indeed you are correct it should read 'Your spelling is shocking'

Of course one club and it's legal team could force exactly that if they could prove the actions of the RFL and the other 13 clubs to ne acting illegally - both restricting that piddling clubs right to trade and it's employees the right to work.

Let's get this straight, despite what you seem to think the RFL/SL is nothing in the eyes of the law. It's rules and regulations are nothing but a gentlemans agreement n a par with the rules and regs of a local darts league - nothing more If you think otherwise and you clearly do then I fear for you.

A major slapping as you put it is hardly the same as a Ltd company being forced to go bust. Had Wigan been relegated due to the loss of points do you honestly think they would have accepted demotion and 4 years in the wilderness at best or going out of business completely at worse - come off it.

So where have you got that from - oh I know you just made it up. If all three clubs get grounds and thus tick all the criteria then by the games own laws they cannot be relegated. No one from the RFL/SL has said that a club will definitely be promoted, they have said they will be looking at the possibility of promoting and relegating a club - look at the word possibility.

There is no possibility if the clubs hit there targets by 2012, certainly not according to the franchise rules.

Absolute rubbish. For a start we are all I assume talking about the three clubs getting there grounds. I certainly accept that if Trinity don't get the ground we are down thouh even then you could still challenge it. What we are talking about here is the idea that some have that even if all three clubs get a ground one will still bite the dust. It's this last bit that is in question and which is easily challenged.

If a club or company which is what they actually are meets all there requirements needed to trade in SL but is still culled to allow another company in then this is undoubtedly a restriction on their ability to trade and an unfair one in the eyes of the REAL law.

Are you seriously suggesting that the removal of a guaranteed near one million pounds a year from SKY alone won't have a catastrophic effect on the business - one that will almost certainly lead to bankruptcy for the club and full scale redundancies.

I can assure you it will and any BOD will be obliged to fight this decision on behalf of the shareholders. RL is not a magical world where the rules of real life don't exist, a shareholder or an employee of Wakefield, Cas or Salford has exactly the same rights as if the company in question was Tesco or Rolls Royce.

The fact is that the RFL/SL can set up any rules it likes, but it has no power at all to enforce them - only a court can do that.

Read my other post.
The RFL have all of us over a barrel.

It should, but it matters not

Except, of course, that the club in question has to agree to certain conditions in order to play in any competition. Before we start getting all high and mighty about real law, can I just remind you that despite all equality laws passed prior to the official recognition of professionalism in Rugby Union, the Rugby Football Union could force clubs under their jurisdiction not to play on RL grounds, not to play RL teams, not to play ex-RL players, not to employ people who had been involved with RL in any way.

i just love all the legak expertise on here

I was on an iphone on a bus

Was this when they have been ripping up half the roads?

Ah yes the ripping up of the roads that looks set to be complete ahead of schedule and under budget, and will drastically increase the capacity of the junction, apparently.

That's a hell of a balancing act. Watch out for low bridges.

I was laughing along with the comment, not at your spelling mate.

The trick is to balance the iPhone on its long side. You've no chance trying to balance on the short end

IS my view on the situation a sensible one tb?
No one seems to want to comment on it.

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.

I'm confused. Were you on an iPhone or on a bus?

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?

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?

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.