If I sign a bit of paper saying you can punch me in the face as hard as you like, would it be then legal for you to do so? Or would I be able to go to the police and press charges?

(Not for 1 second I think we could, would or should go down that route that is)

Addit info reported here re costs, funding and timescale www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Addit info reported here re costs, funding and timescale www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

At least this news has been done a lot better and covered more. Does anyone think that there could be plans for Belle vue after (if) we move out. Reserves/football being played at Belle vue..?

And the defence would say
"did you have any choice other than to sign it if you even wanted to apply for a licence?"
"No"
Ah, well in that case not quite so clear cut is it?

I'm not a legal expert but to me there is a bit of an issue with saying to someone "you can only apply to stay in our club (that you're already a member of) if you sign this agreement that says we can just refuse you admission based on a set of criteria we have set, but yet allow Joe Bloggs down the road to be admitted even though he doesn't meet the same conditions, and by signing the agreement you give up your right to challenge the completely flawed process we will apply.

That's exactly the example I used just the other day!

Again, as many people have said, I wouldn't advocate a legal challenge for one second - just trying to point out that signing a contract does not automatically bind you to it, if the terms of it are later deemed to be unfair.

I think we can see the point you are making and agree but you are talking of criminal law in your example and you are correct no one can issue exemptions from Criminal Law.

Contract Law on the otherhand is not surprisingly governed by the Law of Contact. You can sign a Contract and even though you signed it willingly if you believe that the Contract was not fair you can challenge the Contract under the "UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977"

Whether you win or not is a matter for the Judge but just because you signed it does not mean you are up a creek without a paddle.

Thats why we have so many well paid Lawyers.

I simplified to make the point, that's all. It's academic anyways as most sensible people agree I think.

None of which is an excuse for such shoddy, negligent, lazy and incompetent reporting!

How long would you last if you just guessed at the answers because you were up against a deadline? Apply that logic to just about any job, builders, teachers, surgeons, bookies, chemists etc.. It wouldn't be acceptable and the dole would be your only destination for such amateurism.

I do know yes!

The temporary improvements to NCP are not as extensive as the temporary improvements to BV!

The permanent improvements to NCP will not be as good as the permanent solution to BV i.e. Newmarket!

That said, I have great respect for the Rovers for coming up and making things happen, my comments are not meant as a criticism but IMO my above statement is correct.

That's not a licence to make stuff up!

I 100% agree Clan, but I was explaining why this is happening, not making an excuse for him or the YP.

Now, we have this guy from Sporting Life who has clearly... picked up the phone this morning and spoke to James!!! What a great idea for a journalist, gather some facts about the story you are writing! Low and behold, he has a good accurate story and also uncovered lots more information and detail not even mentioned last night!

Rocket science it isn't, good journalism it is! If only they were all as good as this!

Or better still have a pre worded statement ready to be handed to the press, words of your choosing rather than leaving it to chance.

AG knew the meeting content so could have had something written/e mailed well in advance rather than leave YEP to make any old crap up.

Indeed - the very first thing they teach on the 'Dealing with the Media' training course.

Unfortunate that it didn't happen, but not the end of the world.

Fair enough but NCP will pass the franchise this time as work will be started pre francise time and even if it isnt it is better that BV without those extra's, You are saying to the RFL that you promise works AFTER the licencing.
So even if neither us actually did the work we are saying we will NCP wins and even if we both do the work we promise NCP wins.
With the work NCP passes everything a stadium needs, Better or not Newmarket will pass those same criteria and that is all that counts in the grander scheme of things.
I will say that we have plans for a new south stand at which point NCP wil be no diffrent from The HJ our old West stand aside.