I'm determined to read fantasy conspiracies into everything, based on my own prejudices, yes.




As far as I know from actual evidence actually in the public domain, the only clubs 'virtually guaranteed' a licence for 2012-15 are those which had their 2009-11 licences graded at A. That doesn't include Crusaders, or Quins, or Salford, or Cas, or Wakey, for instance.

For info

A licence
Hull FC
Leeds Rhinos
Warrington Wolves


B licence
Bradford Bulls
St Helens
Wigan Warriors

C licence
Castleford Tigers
Catalans Dragons
Celtic Crusaders
Harlequins
Hull KR
Huddersfield Giants
Salford City Reds
Wakefield Trinity Wildcats

Nope. It would go more like this:-

Court: So you used your position of power to force clubs to sign away statutory rights despite the fact that statutory rights cannot be signed away in this way?

RFL: Err yeah we did. Ooops.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure. Although I wasn't being entirely serious, the point is that it is not so clear cut.

so we begin a process of elimination


safe.
hkr-done well in the time they've been in there,good gates.
huddersfield-nice stadium,rich owner.
catalan,quins,wrexham-protected species,SKY tv you see .
that leaves three clubs?
do you think the powers that be look at it much differently than that?

Are you ever going to answer Prehensiles question or is it only other posters that are derided (often by you) for making claims without providing any proof?

Wigan apparenlty wanted to challenge the ruling when they had points docked over Dobson+Fielden they didn't I wonder why?

You are forgeting one thing.
Before this conversation even takes place the club in question has probably been cut off from the RFL for months if not a fair bit longer.
How much of the club will be left afterwards?

No need to be so patronising d**k.



Couldn't really care less about either of these experiments been in SL anyway, just a couple less away games to go to that's all.

I cannot imagine the RFL doing this. It would be utterly stupid given that there is a shortage of clubs capable of stepping up to SL. All that would happen is that the club would be forced into administration and re-emerge a couple of months later as exactly the same club.

Could it be that it wasn't really a legal issue?

Contracts, written agreements, undertakings, whatever you want to call them, work both ways. If either party does not fulfill its written obligations, then the offending party will be liable to court action.

If a rejected club believes that the RFL have not judged the licence criteria fairly, and have favoured certain clubs above others then, provided their lawyers can make a case, there is nothing stopping any club taking legal action.

IN MY OPINION, there seems be an awful lot going on that would suggest that the RFL are not likely to be able to act honestly, if they want to keep certain clubs in SL at the expense of others.

I am not a lawyer but, if a clubs’ lawyers can put forward a strong case against the RFL, then signing the RFL’s agreement and the need for this: will be irrelevant.

The storm that booting, and effectively destroying, a well known heartland club would cause in the press and local media would be incredibly embarrassing for the governing body. The whole process and goings on over the last few years would be aired, and questions asked of RFL officials. As the whole thing is a complete mess, I can see nothing but disaster if the RFL actually goes down this route. Be in no doubt, even the national press would love this.

Maybe some of the lesser clubs would have faith in theirs, if they were confident that the RFL would judge all applications fairly

There will be no contract so no club could sue for breach of that. The only remedy for any disappointed club is judicial review, but it is extremely difficult to obtain against a sporting body. Judicial review is available against public bodies, but sporting bodies are not public bodies but rather private associations. The courts generally want independent bodies to remain the ultimate arbiter over their own affairs.

Most applications for judicial review against a sporting body will be refused at the point of application (it is not a right to be heard by the High Court). For instance Sheffield United were refused permission to apply for judicial review over the FA's punishment of West Ham in the Tevez affair.

Generally where judicial review has been allowed against a sporting body, it has been in matters of individual discipline i.e. Dwain Chambers over the further ban from competing for GB, where the matter is considered to be potentially life changing to an in dividual. I doubt a player losing a full time contract would count, whereas review of say a sine die ban would.

Even if the application was heard, the Court would most certainly look at the actions of all parties involved and consideration would be given to any disclaimer not to sue signed by a club.

Iirc towards the end of Maurice Lindsay's stint at Red Hall there were quite a few attempts at issuing proceedings against the RFL. They didn't bring the RFL to its knees and I don't suppose that many people (outside a club's immediate spectators) would know or care if a club was unhappy with the licencing decision. Leigh's grumbles last time just appeared embarrassing

So let me get this straight.
You think if a club takes the step to take RFL to court the RFL WONT send that club to pasture?
Remember that there will be at least 15 clubs going into 14 spots I think the RFL would think 'you're taking us to court???, we have 14 others so go and rot in the barla league'
If you don't think will happen then you have a tad naive IMHO.

Oh and BTW it wont be the exactly the same club.
It wont have its players, it won't have its youth team as they will drift off, It wont have any sponsorship and it wont have a SL place.
That is why no club has the stones to do it.

I'm suggesting that the RFL has too few clubs for two decent division below SL and too many (and too much variation in size) for one and therefore it is unlikely that they would boot Fax, Leigh or Widnes down to NCL especially since those clubs bring a lot of away fans to matches (hence cash). The RFL are rather fond of money for some reason.

Not to mention that such an obvious retaliatory measure would leave them open to possible compensation claims.

Far more likely (in the case of Leigh or Widnes at least) that they would simply switch to union, or even soccer. Even if the RL club did carry on at amateur level, you'd expect the resulting vacuum to be filled by an alternative.

Your first paragraph is all well and good BUT the RFL will know all to well that if they show any kind of weakness on that score that it wil be free reign on them I doubt they would just let that happen even if it meant they had to prove a point.

Also can it be classed as a 'obvious retaliatory measure' if the rules are in place to make this happen and if the club in question was included and signed to accept that very rule?
I doubt it.

Anyway my point is that any club trying it on will be enterting a massive grey area, An area which could create their own death Pro RL wise.
I seriously doubt any club is stupid enough to risk it.

I think it is far more likely that they will fudge the issue with a solution such as moving to a 15-team league to avoid any such showdown.



Which rule says that the RFL can relegate a club several divisions if they contest a decision in the courts?

As for the rest. Signed and agreed does not necessarily end the argument. If you were forced to sign away your house at gunpoint, it wouldn't be valid because of duress. The court could well rule that the contract was one forced onto clubs under threat and thus invalid.

The other issue is that a contract can award you rights but cannot take them away. A contract that forced you to give up your legal rights would again be invalid. You cannot sign away your right to sue.



Are clubs that well run in your experience?

Any evidence? This didn't happen, Its a story you made up and have stuck to religiously. The club continued to operate until a buyer was found.

It has SFA to do with dishes or sales of dishes/sunscriptions, but you keep it up...marginalises your standpoint even more.

The people at BSkyB who feel that a team in London is a good idea are the ones I trust. They have a multi-million pound investment and I trust them to have a good reason as to why they want a team in the smoke. I suspect it has something to do with viewing figures in the capital and the fact that an advertiser can be told that RL is a national sport. I know if I was a manufactuurer of an FMCG and I wanted to advertise on Sky Sports, I would feel better about a national sport rather than a pit village pastime......
Roofs...I understand your principles. London were admitted to the SL without having to win anything....just as Hull Kingston Australians were admitted to the RFL without having to win anything....and I fully appreciate the lack of fans we take to games troubles you at night, but you do make yourself look a tad stupid at times.....I suggest you keep what the voices in your head tell you to yourself in future......it will save embarassment

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Wood.html

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Wood.html

Exactly what I was thinking.

It is indeed excellent news for the Crusaders. One thing I did notice in the article is this quote:

A new company was formed on the 20th of October. Why the pretence?

What does the 'W' on the padlock stand for ?



You have to laugh