Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Co-operative Championship play off. Halifax v Sheffield


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 a.n Other

a.n Other
  • Coach
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 06:49 PM

QUOTE (West Country Eagle @ Sep 20 2010, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They are - seriously inflated. Unless Fax's current squad are willing to renegotiate/play for less next year, there will be a mass exodus.

Remind me about Halifax's youth policy? I know they've not signed up to the RFL's academy for next year, saying they can't afford it (the RFL insists all clubs, inc Championship clubs, pay U18s a minimum wage contract at least).

If they can't afford it, they must be spending their dosh on something else. Or have very little of it.

Fev and Sheffield aren't exactly rolling in cash, but they've both signed up to the RFL scheme.


So you are basing this on the fact that Fax arent running any Junior teams?

Im sorry for asking you anything as you clearly know nothing and cant prove anything.

#22 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,461 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:58 AM

A Sheffield fan livinv in Bristol now thinks he knows everything going on at Fax. Its obvious the club do not have as much money in 2011 as 2010.The 50,000 fine from theOstick fiasco alongside the lost cup revenue, early rail cup exit, no pre season games due to weather etc. So yes Fax need to cut back in 2011. Next year is a joke as the rfl have seen to it that Widnes should walk away with everything.



#23 Ackropj

Ackropj
  • Coach
  • 311 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 10:24 AM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Sep 21 2010, 04:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A Sheffield fan livinv in Bristol now thinks he knows everything going on at Fax. Its obvious the club do not have as much money in 2011 as 2010.The 50,000 fine from theOstick fiasco alongside the lost cup revenue, early rail cup exit, no pre season games due to weather etc. So yes Fax need to cut back in 2011. Next year is a joke as the rfl have seen to it that Widnes should walk away with everything.


I don't recall a 50K fine for Ostick, We lost revenue yes cause we got kicked out of the Cup, We would have then beat Batley to be in the last 8 with Catalans who at the time were playing poor and therfore could have had a chance of last 4 in challenge cup, Big money spinner for us,

I think you may be mistaking the 50k fine that was given to Castleford for homophobic abusive fans.

As stated, loss of a Sponsor who went bust, No Pre season , Northern Rail Cup exit, To be honest though other than the weather, everything else was the Boards fault, Ostick, we should have known better, Northern Rail cup, not knowing when a draw is enough and rushing final minute conversion to lose to Hunslet, Stanley Gene sacking, RFL agreed we were in the right but we did not stick to the proceedures, Sam Barlow, who knows.

However, its Martin Hall who is the Main man, even if we lose some top players, we will recruit more this next year with his appeal and to play for a consistently good team !!!.

#24 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 11:14 AM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Sep 21 2010, 04:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A Sheffield fan livinv in Bristol now thinks he knows everything going on at Fax. Its obvious the club do not have as much money in 2011 as 2010.The 50,000 fine from theOstick fiasco alongside the lost cup revenue, early rail cup exit, no pre season games due to weather etc. So yes Fax need to cut back in 2011. Next year is a joke as the rfl have seen to it that Widnes should walk away with everything.


to be fair to him (and matt doesnt need me sticking up for him i know) but WCE is also a respected Journalist who does a fair bit on RL, he also is well connected within the Sheffield set up so its not like he is a "know nothing"..

he may not have this right i really dont know but "A sheffield fan livinv in Bristol now thinks he knows everything going on at Fax" is perhaps doing the man a disservice.

For all we know his next article could be on Fax and he has the information he will not divulge fully for quite obvious reasons. As is say not saying that is what is happening here, but maybe dismissing his comments out of hand could be a little premature.

Edited by RP London, 22 September 2010 - 07:44 AM.


#25 West Country Eagle

West Country Eagle
  • Coach
  • 5,817 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 06:14 PM

Well, sooner or later I'll either be proved right or wrong.

I'm not a liar, though, and I'm also not repeating hearsay. If Fax fans want to live in cloud cuckoo land and deny there's a problem - which seems to be a trait I've noticed on other forums, especially with their "we're a big club" attitude then fine.

As RP London says, I'm probably a lot better connected than many on here through my jorunalism and PR/comms work, but then again you can just believe I'm an idiot if you want. It doesn't bother me in the slightest either way.

One last point: I hope Featherstone stuff Fax in the final. They've been the best team all season, are a genuinely forward-thinking club and have done everything right.
Bristol Sonics Rugby League
2007 & 2008 West Midlands RLC Champions
2008 RLC Regional Grand Finalists
2008 RLC Team Of The Year
2011 RLC Midlands Premier Champions
www.bristolsonics.com

� Stupid Questions League Winner 2004 �

#26 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,952 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 09:50 AM

Eagles lost get over it tongue.gif
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#27 Ackropj

Ackropj
  • Coach
  • 311 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 12:30 PM

QUOTE (West Country Eagle @ Sep 21 2010, 07:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, sooner or later I'll either be proved right or wrong.

I'm not a liar, though, and I'm also not repeating hearsay. If Fax fans want to live in cloud cuckoo land and deny there's a problem - which seems to be a trait I've noticed on other forums, especially with their "we're a big club" attitude then fine.

As RP London says, I'm probably a lot better connected than many on here through my jorunalism and PR/comms work, but then again you can just believe I'm an idiot if you want. It doesn't bother me in the slightest either way.

One last point: I hope Featherstone stuff Fax in the final. They've been the best team all season, are a genuinely forward-thinking club and have done everything right.


laugh.gif

#28 West Country Eagle

West Country Eagle
  • Coach
  • 5,817 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Phil @ Sep 22 2010, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Eagles lost get over it tongue.gif


Eagles deserved to lose - Fax were much the better team. I've already said that biggrin.gif
Bristol Sonics Rugby League
2007 & 2008 West Midlands RLC Champions
2008 RLC Regional Grand Finalists
2008 RLC Team Of The Year
2011 RLC Midlands Premier Champions
www.bristolsonics.com

� Stupid Questions League Winner 2004 �

#29 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,824 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 05:51 PM

If you're so sure this is going to court, you shouldn't be commenting publicly.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#30 West Country Eagle

West Country Eagle
  • Coach
  • 5,817 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 09:34 AM

QUOTE (Griff @ Sep 22 2010, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you're so sure this is going to court, you shouldn't be commenting publicly.


I've been very careful what I've said here. I've not gone into detail for that very reason.

That's assuming it's going to court - the Eagles may drop it.
Bristol Sonics Rugby League
2007 & 2008 West Midlands RLC Champions
2008 RLC Regional Grand Finalists
2008 RLC Team Of The Year
2011 RLC Midlands Premier Champions
www.bristolsonics.com

� Stupid Questions League Winner 2004 �

#31 Ackropj

Ackropj
  • Coach
  • 311 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:11 AM

QUOTE (West Country Eagle @ Sep 23 2010, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've been very careful what I've said here. I've not gone into detail for that very reason.

That's assuming it's going to court - the Eagles may drop it.


Just to point out, this is not me that has done any of this and i am just copying direct onto here.

Have spent a few days researching this before commenting

Interestingly it makes no odds what is or isn't in the contract because all such loyalty (anti competitor) clauses are illegal anyway under European law. What the extract below says (from a very long article) is that every citizen has the right to work freely and can not be obstructed from doing so. Any contravention of this contravenes the individuals fundamental (human) rights

Another point to consider is that Sheffield effectively broke the agreement by allowing Barlow to play in the 9's. At that point Barlow had played against Sheffield in 2010 and the clause becomes null and void unless there is another written agreement to re-instate it. There is no legal standing in law allowing a contract to be broken by mutual consent and then re-applying it.

Sheffield's claim against Halifax is tenuous at best. Halifax are Barlows new employers but there can be no contract in place between the clubs. The claim seems to centre around influencing Barlow to break his contract. This is virtually impossible to prove. As his employer Halifax have every right to expect him to work and Barlow has every right to work under European law. Sheffield also have to show they took all reasonable steps before commencing litigation (hence the offer to settle) Unfortunately they did not seek legal advice prior to the game or apply to a judge for an injunction to stop Barlow playing. Both Halifax and Barlow will claim that this is because they had no intention of preventing him playing and were only interested in financial reward.

Potentially Sheffield could pursue Barlow for breach of contract, however there is no financial gain to be made from litigation against a part time rugby player. Sheffield also run the risk of a substantial counter claim by Barlow who can claim that the contract (release) agreement he signed contravenes The European Right to Work Act and his fundamental rights as a European citizen. Whilst Sheffield may win a small victory against Barlow financially, Barlow could sue through the European courts for "unlimited" damages.

Seperate to the legalities is the cost. Sheffield United paid out 1.8 Million in legal fees before receiving a settlement from West Ham for the Tevez affair. West Ham spent 1.2 million defending them. Both clubs would go to the wall long before the case got anywhere near a courtroom. Regardless of who won or lost both clubs would be forced to fold as neither could afford the others costs let alone settlement.

Halifax and Barlow probably didn't act in good faith but there is no legal substance for any party involved

The right to work at EU level is guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 15) which stipulates: 1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation; and 2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.

Article 15(1) applies to everyone employees and self-employed persons regardless of the nature of their employment relationship. It is a fundamental human right. The formula of the right to engage in work appears to be a compromise between a freedom to enter into work, or a wider right to work.

As a constitutional right recognised in some Member States, the right to work creates legal obligations on the state to develop an active employment policy, to guarantee the freedom of work and to organise a free functioning labour market. A narrow view of the EU Charters right to engage in work would limit it to giving access to the labour market. A broader view of the right extends to the political commitment of the state to promote integration in employment and stability at work. For example, it could act as a constitutional anchor for the EUs commitment to a high level of employment and its employment policy.

Article 15(2) of the EU Charter reflects the freedom of movement established by the EC Treaty. It applies to EU citizens and not only to workers, thus going beyond Article 39 of the EC Treaty. The inclusion of the EU Charter in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe might eventually contribute to challenging the remaining limits to freedom of movement.





#32 West Country Eagle

West Country Eagle
  • Coach
  • 5,817 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:52 AM

All interesting, but have you considered that Sheffield's claim might not be based on the 'he broke a verbal agreement to play' argument?

They might have a much, much stronger case based on earlier events.

We'll soon find out.
Bristol Sonics Rugby League
2007 & 2008 West Midlands RLC Champions
2008 RLC Regional Grand Finalists
2008 RLC Team Of The Year
2011 RLC Midlands Premier Champions
www.bristolsonics.com

� Stupid Questions League Winner 2004 �