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.

Quote deeHell="deeHell"Will someone inform this so called journalist that we haven't shelved plans for Newmarket. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... _1_3461744 '" What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written.

Quote deeHell="deeHell"Will someone inform this so called journalist that we haven't shelved plans for Newmarket. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... _1_3461744 '" What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written.

When did the RFL force clubs to sign? How would 'force' be demonstrated, let alone proved?

Why do people continue to fool themselves about potential legal action when no laws have been broken?

What contract?

The RFL can only be judged against compliance [iwith it's own rules[/i.

Quote t-r-i-n-i-t-y="t-r-i-n-i-t-y"What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written.'" No, but if you read the other article on the number of people who turned up to hear the news, you'll see this: The stadium development announcement is a fantastic stride in the right direction for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats and will provide us with a Super League compliant stadium fit for our fantastic team and our fantastic City whilst we are waiting for Newmarket. www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... eague-bid/

Quote t-r-i-n-i-t-y="t-r-i-n-i-t-y"What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written.'" No, but if you read the other article on the number of people who turned up to hear the news, you'll see this: The stadium development announcement is a fantastic stride in the right direction for Wakefield Trinity Wildcats and will provide us with a Super League compliant stadium fit for our fantastic team and our fantastic City whilst we are waiting for Newmarket. www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... eague-bid/

It is a far point but what as a club do you do for what would be possibly a year to a year and a half (A guess) whilst you get all the info together as you wont be playing Rugby League.

I can't see a legal challenge being made either, for all the reasons you've pointed out. I was only trying to make the point that just because you sign something doesn't make it legally binding. I can't see any club wanting to go down the road of a legal challenge, tbh. It would be suicide.

So in part we agree.

The signing of an agreement/contract doesnt stop someone challenging it,that was all i was pointing out.

With regards grounds of challenging,i would imagine they would be looking at some aspect that makes the contract unfair.

I dont disagree that any challenge would be more than likely futile.