I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that any general discretion clause would not be legally binding especially now the system isn't fair like they said when we signed up. The RFL are the ones that have broken the agreement not us! I don't believe for a second we have to take this injustice on the chin. The effects of this will finish the club imo, I don't believe we will ever play top flight rugby league again.

I agree that we might never see top flight rugby again, but on what grounds could we legally challenge it? That we don't like the outcome? There has to be a legal ground to mount a legal challenge.

Discretion clauses abound in the law and there is no issue with them. Public bodies are entitled to use discretion in all sorts of areas, and the only ground to challenge them is when they have fettered their discretion; ie, already made their mind up. We might believe that the RFL have made their mind up, but you and try to find one public utterance where they have said that or hinted that. And to prove something, you need proof. Provided that a decision is one that could reasonably have been reached, it is hard to challenge the exercise of a discretion, and as everyone expects us to go, it would be hard to argue that the discretion has been exercised unreasonably.

Those category C clubs will be judged against "the strategic needs of the sport", as determined by the RFL, as well as "historical contribution and potential future performance". We fall down on the first, if we think the RFL is against us, and the strategic needs of the RFL are all about expansion.

You can't legally challenge that if the strategic needs of the sport are clear. You can shout from the rooftops all you want, but I doubt you could do anything about it. They have a discretion based on the "strategic needs of the sport". If those needs are about expansion, then they have exercised it reasonably if we lose out in favour of an expansion club.

That is not "reasonable" in my view, but what is legally "reasonable" is a decision that could be reasonably justified, within the criteria set out.

Also, the Sheffield United example is not a good one, as the FA agreed with the courts, it would seem, that West Ham had acted improperly.

You're wrong about nothing being beyond a legal challenge, because it can be dismissed pretty quickly if it is groundless. In making a civil claim, you have to set out what your civil claim is and under what ground. There would be no benefit to it if you couldn't get an injunction to stop the 2012 season going ahead, and the judge considering the injunction could rule at that point that the application is groundless. It may not end the case, but it would signal the end of it. Also, you can suffer significant cost penalties if the application is frivolous and vexatious, and I would rather the club spent the money on players.

Legal action would do us no favours whatsoever and would damage both the Club and the game. Like it or not this is the system that we signed up for along with the rest of the SL clubs. If we are the team that is not given a franchise then I will take great pride and pleasure in the fact that we were never relegated from SL despite all the well documented problems/troubles/tradgedies we have had along the way. A court case would taint this for me and I would hope as a Club we are bigger than that.

]

You're going to end up with an ulcer pal.

Ignore him Wadski. We do.

I hope this is not classed as a consultation M'lord, with the usual fee to follow in the post