Anyone heard a new date mentioned for your FPP application?

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.

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.

=#FF0040If 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.

Only from those with new grounds already, other than that top post squire

Go and check out the attendences of Hull FC pre and post KC stadium.

How long is a piece of string.

Oh look the troll is back. Do you ever post on the Wakefield forum?

Right I have watched this thread long enough and think I should put my 10p in.

I think that the RFL had no real choice but to talk tough about grounds being an integral part of the next round of licence applications and that is what they are doing. To be fair I think that Wakefield, Cas and Salford fans get that and understand the long term importance of improving ground standards for a modern game... as do all other SL clubs to be fair. I think the fans that I have met from Wakefield, Cas & Salford understand that if they don't get substantially under way to deliver new grounds before the end of the 2012 season then they are very likely to not get a licence and given the modern facilities at Widnes, Halifax then they have very little in the way of credible argument.

Now, what is interesting about this whole process is that I think that the RFL don't want any of the three clubs to fail if possible, but I think they just think one of them probably will! If they do then it is a no-brainer for the RFL and the club that fails is going to be out. However, what happens if all three get under way in time, sign contracts, start on site with developments and satisfy Savills that the ground will be finished and they have the money!!! This is where it's gets tricky and where it could get messy!

You, your developer, your local council etc have all done their bit and the ground is going to be finished and opened during the 2012 season, you have based your business plan and forward financial predictions on retaining Super League status and investments (large ones!) have been made on the basis of that plan. Do you really think the RFL has got the balls to pull the plug on developments and sums of money far in excess of it's own turnover and that the money men/organisations involved are going to just say, oh well, that is fine, it is just one of those things! Rubbish! They let all three in and either let Widnes down or they up the comp by one team. If they don't the gloves are off and legal action will be swift to follow as they will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The things is though, will all three pull it off? They all look to be doing OK but the next few months will tell for sure! The RFL will sit it out till the last minute in March if they have to, but if they all pull it off, they will all stay and Widnes either come up into a 15 team comp or get let down... again!

Again, I'm only talking hypothetically here, using my own knowledge of the law, but where lawyers make hay is dissecting decision-making; ie, the human input. There isn't any human input with bottom goes down, and so there is nothing to dissect.

I agree on the broad point that clubs should accept their fate, and I was only putting a hypothetical viewpoint. For me, the good of the game comes first, over and above any club loyalty.

this is the wake forum isnt it.........
















might as well be

Oh I agree lawyers our out to benefit lawyers I think that is in no doubt.
But tb makes a good point and this just adds to the 'grey areas' I mentioned before.
Is any SL club going to risk taking the RFL to court only to find the courts rule against them? (I think you would win but nothing is certain when courts get involved).
Also lets not forget that that private developers dont develop sports grounds for the good of the club/sport the do it because they are getting something out of it.
If this development is started and the the RFL pull the plug on you I doubt the developer would even blink about it as he has still got what he wants.
Therefore if you were to go down that path you will probably be doing it alone.

Didn't you expect all this as the fall-out from Friday? Had it gone the other way you wouldn't seen hide nor hair of them.

And the Wakey forum would have been free of Cas fans?



To be fair, the heading of the discussion is "ground share", which sort of includes Wakey.

Now I never said that. We all know there are a couple of tools from each club that would be stirring it on either decision. The subject heading should really be changed now as it's long gone and not going to happen (we hope!)

insightful as ever

Thats the problem when you are not interlectually on the same wave length, you get that left out feeling

The way you feel every waking moment.

Somebody wake me up - This is the Wakey forum!!

Take your little spat with Chissitt back over there - Please!!

I've changed it.

Nice change, is it dad or dick though?

I was under the impression that we had the (one and) only [url=http://memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=936Disco[/url - and he has a gold member. So clearly [url=http://www.theluminaire.co.uk/live-music/October/2007/595/BLACK%20AFFAIR%20AT%20MY%20DISCO'S%20BETTER%20THAN%20YOUR%20DISCOour disco's better than their's[/url.

Lol is this your suggestion for a definitive solution? I'm not sure we're all that friendly!

RW confirmed as Wakey's mystery benefactor (Rodney Walker that is)