or overseas dispensation like they do certain heartland clubs

Will give you that one Smokey.

Isn't the dispensation given to the player?

Fair enough.

If it was as impossible as you two make out, then it makes you wonder why they need clubs to sign an agreement not to take legal action, under pain of expulsion from the game itself – curious.

Good point and I'm not sure (but you are assuming the RFL knows all of this!). My best guess is such disclaimers are not unusual in any tendering/franchising process to try to reduce the possibility of an organisation getting mired in legal actions with unhappy jilted suitors. Under the present Civil Procedure Rules there is an obligation for contact between parties before any proceedings are even issued. This may still involve a fair amount of work and naturally legal costs, as lawyers don't traditionally come cheap. Therefore anything that assists in having the suitor's solicitors right at the start telling the suitor "just don't go there" has to be worthwhile.

It's part of the membership rules of the rfl, it applies to any legal action against the rfl, not just regarding franchises

Belt and braces eh?



It looks like whoever is for the drop is completely screwed then.

It seems even stranger then, that licence applicants have to sign yet another affirmation of this policy, if all clubs are already signed up to it anyway.

Ralph Rimmer just been on TV saying why it would not be right to promote clubs from the Championship only to see them struggle to survive in Super League......hmm!

You couldn't make it up!

He can't very well say "We let anyone in, Administration? Pah ! We laugh in the face of Administration!"

The ' Patsy ' speaks , I wonder how much he is costing to take the flak

Wouldn't the validity of the contract and disclaimer depend upon what the RFL told the clubs about the franchise system before they signed it?

If it could be proven that there had been misrepresentation by the RFL, could the clubs not apply to have the contract/disclaimer set aside?

Not much flak. There's no pitchfork wielders on the grounds of Red Hall.

Only Santa, carrying Fax's application

it's a joke ! what's the difference if a club 'struggles' in SL or C/CI ? - whichever league you are in you have to cut your cloth accordingly surely ? I think i'd rather my team 'struggled' in SL than C/C1

SL allows for that!

Take the money and run.

No ambition, who cares, 3 years of EASY money without worries and parachute payments if you go out.

Nothing to play for, so what!!!

Nothing however to do with the game on the field though, which IMO is secondary as far as the RFL & SL are concerned.

wereas other clubs that just spend money they dont have and are unlikely to get anywhere near earning in a season are defended

Barmy

quite agree - it's lunacy !





well summed up LF

tell me more about these parachute payments

I don't think they exist anymore. Huddefield received one but i think they stopped after that.

Hudds , yes , Salford , possibly , Fax definatly finished by then

I would imagine its so that when a club gets snippy there isn't just one document signed by a clubs representative previously, but also another signed by a CURRENT club representative.
I struggle to see how any club would have a leg to stand on in that situation.

The RFL called them 'development grants' for the relegated club.

The first 2 clubs relegated from SL, Workington and Oldham, both went bust shortly afterwards due to having players signed on SL sized contracts but losing the SL income to pay for them.

They then took steps to partially address this for future relegated clubs by introducing these grants. They started off at £250k and diminished year on year. Halifax were the last recipients in 2004 when they got £95k after relegation.

There was no need for them after that as the RFL introduced the standard SL contract terms which contain a clause that if a club loses its SL status then all player contracts become null and void, hence any club losing SL status is not burdened with huge wage liabilities that it can't afford plus the fact that it would be automatically in breach of the Championship salary cap as a result.

I stand corrected , so in 2005 the SL safety valve contract was born