You do know that work to extend the east stand (adding 1.6K on the capacity figure) has already been started don't you?
You do know it is 1 stand so not 'stands' and that is getting moved over to the other end with it being roofed off in is premanet home and it will only be used as an overflow stand dont you?
You do know that planning is accepted and funding is in place and all set to go any day now for our new £6M north stand dont you?
This work will be started BEFORE the franchises are given out.
We will have 12k, ALL underoof, All apart from 1 stand as seating,
Completley complient.

A decent lawyer wouldn't go anywhere near it on account of having no chance whatsoever.

You do know that, that is a made up word, don't you?

Not for a second do i believe it would end in legal action.
However it doesnt matter a jot what the operational rules say or indeed what they signed up for.
No operational rules can remove your right to a legal challenge.

In theory if the RFL tried to enforce and not allow Wakefield to compete in an RFL comp,Wakefield could retaliate by gaining an injuction for the competition to be suspended until the matter is resolved.

Oh dear

Erm if you have signed away that right then yes, yes they can.

After reading this I can't decide if you are mad or delusional.

So a contract can't be challenged in court? Yore not well man.

It could but it would be a poinless.
A judge would ask 'did you sign this?'
'Yes'
'Case dismissed'

Not if the signing away of that right was deemed to be unfair; something to do with contract law and unfair terms I think, but I don't remember the details.

Anyhow - please join the queue of people who are wishing for us to fail; Castlefax are way in front of you, so wait your turn.

But the merits of wether the RFL have the right to act in such manner and force clubs to sign, would have to be explored.

The Operational Rules do not remove the right to a legal challenge. They simply state the procedure that applies in the case of a club issuing one.


On what grounds, exactly? They agreed to the terms and conditions of the Operational Rules, including suspension from competition if in legal dispute with the Governing Body. The time to challenge that condition was before agreeing to it.

Surely it depends on whether the contract contains clauses that aren't legally binding or enforceable? I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, though. I don't know. Just making the point.