166 replies to this topic

[Stevo]

It seems like our friends at the RFU have reluctantly accepted that enforcing minimum criteria for promotion is a breach of EU law:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-union/18651050

There's already a thread on the cross-code board about what this might mean for the Union competition - but there could be huge (and possibly very expensive) implications for Super League / RFL.

Should the RFL press on with the grand licensing project, regardless of the risk that they could be challenged in court by a disgruntled club?

Or should there be a re-think of how promotion and relegation are handled?


edited - oops, put the wrong link in first time around.

Edited by Stevo, 30 June 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[bowes]

The difference is the RFU don't apply the rules to existing clubs.

[cookey]

The Judgement has nothing to do with minimum criteria/licensing,it is solely to do with standards being the same for promoted Clubs as for existing Clubs.The RFU were trying to apply different standards to London Welsh,than those already applying to London Irish,Wasps and Saracens.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Doesn't apply to us - according to 'The Times' this morning the RFU rules say that promotion and relegation should be determined, as far as possible, by performance on the pitch, which was the deciding factor in the ruling.

[The Parksider]

It seems like our friends at the RFU have reluctantly accepted that enforcing minimum criteria for promotion is a breach of EU law:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-union/18651050

There's already a thread on the cross-code board about what this might mean for the Union competition - but there could be huge (and possibly very expensive) implications for Super League / RFL.

Should the RFL press on with the grand licensing project, regardless of the risk that they could be challenged in court by a disgruntled club?

Or should there be a re-think of how promotion and relegation are handled?

It seems as Cookey pointed out there are fundamental differences. For me RU have promotion and relegation. Superleague does not. So the application of "competition laws" may well not even apply as Cookey says.

To argue "we should be in Superleague" under competition laws could be a non starter as there is no automatic pathway into the SL competition any more, where there is in RU and as I understand Cookey, what's happened here is London Welsh have made the case they are as good a bet as other clubs, so it's unfair to deny promotion.

In RL there is no promotion so that's maybe the key. If there are Championship clubs who are as good a bet as the current Superleague clubs then they would have a good argument (and right of appeal?) under the Licensing system to get a place, so the system we have does not deny them. Indeed it provides for a Championship club to be promoted with an average fanbase of only 2,500.

And so......If a superleague club with 5,000 fans were asked to stand down for them maybe the Superleague club would have the better argument under competition laws......

[keighley]

What is the EU law that has been breached in the London Welsh case?

[jannerboyuk]

What is the EU law that has been breached in the London Welsh case?

none. it wasnt in a court but a rfu appeals board

[Blind side johnny]

It seems as Cookey pointed out there are fundamental differences. For me RU have promotion and relegation. Superleague does not. So the application of "competition laws" may well not even apply as Cookey says.

To argue "we should be in Superleague" under competition laws could be a non starter as there is no automatic pathway into the SL competition any more, where there is in RU and as I understand Cookey, what's happened here is London Welsh have made the case they are as good a bet as other clubs, so it's unfair to deny promotion.

In RL there is no promotion so that's maybe the key. If there are Championship clubs who are as good a bet as the current Superleague clubs then they would have a good argument (and right of appeal?) under the Licensing system to get a place, so the system we have does not deny them. Indeed it provides for a Championship club to be promoted with an average fanbase of only 2,500.

And so......If a superleague club with 5,000 fans were asked to stand down for them maybe the Superleague club would have the better argument under competition laws......

I believe that a counsel could argue that there is P&R in RL between SL and the Championship. An open competition for franchises takes place every three years by which clubs can be elevated to or removed from SL. By the very nature of its frequency and regularity as well as the open competition for places it can be argued that P&R takes place. It might not be happening on the basis that sports fans over the years have come to understand P&R but the movement of clubs between two leagues based upon a competition, albeit a commercial competition in this case, might be construed as P&R.

The kind of franchising that occurs in other sports (or even the NRL) is quite different as these regular and predetermined competitions for a franchise place do not occur.The fact that this judgement was delivered by a RFU tribunal is not irrelevant either as it may be construed that important principles have been stated that could have a bearing upon other sports.

I am not advocating a radical change in approach but would suggest that the RFL needs to have their particular position rigorously examined independently and objectively to ensure that it would be impervious to any similar challenges.

[The Parksider]

I believe that a counsel could argue that there is P&R in RL between SL and the Championship. An open competition for franchises takes place every three years by which clubs can be elevated to or removed from SL. By the very nature of its frequency and regularity as well as the open competition for places it can be argued that P&R takes place. It might not be happening on the basis that sports fans over the years have come to understand P&R but the movement of clubs between two leagues based upon a competition, albeit a commercial competition in this case, might be construed as P&R.

I understand your point, but it would need a daft old buffer of a judge to construe a selection process based on the relative strength of individual sports businesses, as being the equivalent of an on the field qualification in which a highly profitable Wigan just had a bad season and a highly dubious debt ridden Des Johnson led Barrow took their place.

Bradford are a big solicitor led club but were scared off by Mr. Caddick's Leeds over taking them on over the Harris saga. Do any of our championship clubs have the wealth to ask council to argue in such a fashion, given that if the argument doesn't work there's two sets of costs to pay.

[Lobbygobbler]

Every single coop club should now fight the injustice of promotion to SL.

[Marauder]

I understand your point, but it would need a daft old buffer of a judge to construe a selection process based on the relative strength of individual sports businesses, as being the equivalent of an on the field qualification in which a highly profitable Wigan just had a bad season and a highly dubious debt ridden Des Johnson led Barrow took their place.

Bradford are a big solicitor led club but were scared off by Mr. Caddick's Leeds over taking them on over the Harris saga. Do any of our championship clubs have the wealth to ask council to argue in such a fashion, given that if the argument doesn't work there's two sets of costs to pay.

Bradford could get legal aid

[The Parksider]

Every single coop club should now fight the injustice of promotion to SL.

You'd be best re-phrasing that.

SORRY

You'd be best taking a pragmatic approach to life.....

[Methven Hornet]

Every single coop club should now fight the injustice of promotion to SL.

They could always start a petition.

[Methven Hornet]

I understand your point, but it would need a daft old buffer of a judge to construe a selection process based on the relative strength of individual sports businesses, as being the equivalent of an on the field qualification in which a highly profitable Wigan just had a bad season and a highly dubious debt ridden Des Johnson led Barrow took their place.

Bradford are a big solicitor led club but were scared off by Mr. Caddick's Leeds over taking them on over the Harris saga. Do any of our championship clubs have the wealth to ask council to argue in such a fashion, given that if the argument doesn't work there's two sets of costs to pay.

Any Championship Club could always take their case to the RFL's independent appeal panel if they think their licence application has been unfairly assessed.

[The Parksider]

Any Championship Club could always take their case to the RFL's independent appeal panel if they think their licence application has been unfairly assessed.

you won't get near a court without exhausting internal procedures so I assume those who were not happy didn't actually appeal it.....

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Every single coop club should now fight the injustice of promotion to SL.

Not every single Coop club wants to be in SL. Most of them accept it would probably kill them.

[Blind side johnny]

I understand your point, but it would need a daft old buffer of a judge to construe a selection process based on the relative strength of individual sports businesses, as being the equivalent of an on the field qualification in which a highly profitable Wigan just had a bad season and a highly dubious debt ridden Des Johnson led Barrow took their place.

Bradford are a big solicitor led club but were scared off by Mr. Caddick's Leeds over taking them on over the Harris saga. Do any of our championship clubs have the wealth to ask council to argue in such a fashion, given that if the argument doesn't work there's two sets of costs to pay.

I don't know if you've missed my point or have deliberately skewed it but what I am saying is that the regularity and frequency of selection of teams for the upper league could quite reasonably be construed as P&R. The process of selection then becomes a secondary consideration.

Whether or not any individual club could (or should) afford to pursue such an argument is largely irrelevant; it should be up to the RFL to see the potential weakness of their own position and address it through legal advice. Prevention is better than cure in my book.

[The Parksider]

Whether or not any individual club could (or should) afford to pursue such an argument is largely irrelevant; it should be up to the RFL to see the potential weakness of their own position and address it through legal advice. Prevention is better than cure in my book.

I take your point and the principle entirely.

IMHO I cannot see how a court could, or would want to, ultimately decide that someone like Des Johnsons Barrow should replace someone like O'Connors Widnes. The reaction would IMHO be that the Elite would just break off entirely from the rest. As "Superleague Europe Ltd" they virtually have, so maybe it's an impossibility already?

The decision by the Union people was nothing to do with the courts anyway, it was an internal matter. Finally the RFL could check the matter, but if the RFL are to take advice from the same lawyers who advised Harris's transfer to Bradford was sound then they should not bother!

Edited by The Parksider, 01 July 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[dkw]

Every single coop club should now fight the injustice of promotion to SL.

No they shouldnt.

[dkw]

Not every single Coop club wants to be in SL. Most of them accept it would probably kill them.

Exactly, if my club put an application in for SL after the end of next season I would be massively worried.