Whelan

Quote: Cruncher "I'm not sure how you can, given that, by your own words, you haven't seen the paperwork. In fact you don't offer any detail here that I can get my teeth into.

I'm well aware that the law is an ass, and that there are convoluted methods by which astonishingly unfair decisions can occasionally be reached. But it's all about the cost-effectiveness of such things. If Wigan's tenancy at the DW was challenged, the outcome could conceivably be the end of Wigan Warriors as a business entity, and a massive loss of jobs, income, etc. So you can be sure that Wigan, and probably Wigan Athletic, would fight it with everything they've got. We now should ask ourselves, are the PL really likely to enter some complex legal battle which may (in fact will probably) result in them having to pay out an awful lot of money? Possibly, but it can't be very likely, especially given that Latics are almost certainly going to be relegated some time in the near future anyway.

However, I'm not going to debate this to the point where it becomes an argument. I don't hold with this odd pious view some posters have that all Wiganers should automatically support the Latics. I don't, and I never have - so if (or when) they go down, it's tough but it's life.'"

Indeed Cruncher. I certainly hold with what you say in general above. As for the underlined just ask yourself this; if we have a 'watertight agreement' why didn't we play our semi-final at the JJB (as was) despite the known clause why we couldn't not having been breeched? Why did Maurice have to, as I understand it, spend all night on the phone pleading for the game to be allowed if it was written in the ontrat that it was our legal right? Why did IL go cap in hand to Whelan to get something that was already agreed in writing? I can think of at least 3 scenarios why this would be the case, any of which would point to our rights of tenancy not being, shall we say, quite so secure as you seem to believe.

Anyway, this will play out completely out of our control, so there is little point in worrying about it. As I said though, I strongly believe anyone taking the line 'we've signed a contrat therefore there's bugger all they an do about it' might be in for a rude awakening. Again, I just hope the WRLFC legal team were on the ball with this one.

There is one other point I'd like to make on this. Slightly removed from the above but relevent nonetheless. Great play is being made, particularly by Whelan, about the lease having just been extended to 50 years as if this gives greater security. However, this is only the case if the initial lease gave us security in the first place. We have no idea what the terms of the original lease were and whether these were changed during the negotiations to extend. It's always worth noting that not everything does what it says on the tin!