I actually feel sorry for the genuine Wigan Athletic fans with this. It appears that the PL don't really want small teams (that's no derogatory) in their "club". They would much rather have clubs with a big following, ala Newcasle, Leeds, Notts Forest etc.

If you read Whelans rant, that is IMO what he is alluding to.

Latics are a club built on sand, they were never going to survive in the premiership forever. I dont buy into the PL trying to get rid of them because theyre a small club either, thats just rubbish.

*edit*
Roma and Lazio both play in the same stadium as another example

I suppose the FA could argue grass has a much longer growing season in Italy and Spain, therefore less wear and tear

Saying that there are loads of clubs in england that have football and rugby playing on them and their pitches are in great condition, so it wouldnt really hold up as an argument in court

If this did go to court any decent lawyer would rip FA's case to shreads

There's not much evidence that the PL are enamoured by Latics.

It was okay at first - there was something vaguely romantic about a little club trying to punch above its weight in the big league. But I think a few of the old stagers are now getting tired of it. Latics seem to get belittled in the football press an awful lot. Not just over the pitch, but for their crowds etc - commentators never seem to miss an opportunity to mention the Warriors.

My Latics fanatic neighbour assures me that stuff we deem to be anti-Wigan RL in the nationals is, in reality, anti-Wigan Athletic. He reckons that many footie fans feel our stadium-sharing deal is a sign that Latics aren't really a Premiership standard club and thus resent Latics' presence at the top level.

No they don't.

I agree all that's right in principle. In law it's a different thing. Without seeing the paperwork (and so making some assumptions) I can think of at least one justifiable challenge to our lease. Given a good legal team and the actual documents I'm sure there are others.

For those thinking the law is an asolute; it isn't. It is a living, evolving entity. If that were not the case we wouldn't have cases being tried and then overturned on appeal for example. In these cases at least one of the verdicts was 'wrong'. I say "at least" because both verdicts could be shown to be 'incorrect' by subsequent appeals or even different cases. Don't even get me started on cases such as OJ!!



There WILL be justifiable (in the legal rather than moral sense) challenges to our lease. Trust me on this. Whether they are successful or not is purely down to the courts. There are no 'givens' in this.

I'm not sure how you can, given that, by your own words, you haven't seen the paperwork. In fact you don't offer any detail here that I can get my teeth into.

I'm well aware that the law is an ass, and that there are convoluted methods by which astonishingly unfair decisions can occasionally be reached. But it's all about the cost-effectiveness of such things. If Wigan's tenancy at the DW was challenged, the outcome could conceivably be the end of Wigan Warriors as a business entity, and a massive loss of jobs, income, etc. So you can be sure that Wigan, and probably Wigan Athletic, would fight it with everything they've got. We now should ask ourselves, are the PL really likely to enter some complex legal battle which may (in fact will probably) result in them having to pay out an awful lot of money? Possibly, but it can't be very likely, especially given that Latics are almost certainly going to be relegated some time in the near future anyway.

However, I'm not going to debate this to the point where it becomes an argument. I don't hold with this odd pious view some posters have that all Wiganers should automatically support the Latics. I don't, and I never have - so if (or when) they go down, it's tough but it's life.

Who has actually every said that? You obviously think it's more than one.

Talk about a raw nerve.

In our last exchange on this, you implied that it was deeply sad that so many Wigan RL fans didn't like Latics, and vice versa. I think you were supported, possibly indirectly, by one or two others. Bondi Warrior maybe.

My view is that it doesn't really matter. Nobody is required to support anybody, no matter which town they originate from.

Now, feel free to pick me up on the fine detail of posts past and present, but you'll be wasting your time. You asking picky questions and me having to answer them is not how it works.

I'm sure there are plenty of 'knuckle-draggers', as you'd call them, on this thread who you can have a bit of fun with. I'm rather surprised that you haven't done that already.

How is pointing out you were clearly talking bollox, touching a raw nerve? In the context of the discussion you were having with Phuzzy it was a bizarre thing to say. You've been called out yet again for claiming things that clearly aren't true - the only nerve that seems to be touched is yours, that lead to say these things without the ability to back it up when it concerns the Latics.



I've never done anything of the sort - so that's yet another thing you've got wrong.



There's no need to pick up on the fine detail - you can't even back-up your main claim.

To end this now before it gets boring for everyrone else.

Wigan / Leeds Andy on March 10th:

"I'm a Wigan RL fan as well as a Latics fan and I don't find the animosity uncomfortable, I find the whole victim complex on both sides [uincredibly sad and immature[/u."

"Sitting on both sides of the 'divide' I think those that have the chip on their shoulder about one thing or another to do with the other club are [upretty pathetic[/u,"

Not word for word, but more or less right. You were clearly making a moral judgement, which is the thing I took issue with. Case rested.

I heard of scraping the barrel but that's pretty desperate even for you.

Do you want to explain how that is either:

a) Me saying "all Wiganers should automatically support the Latics" - something you clearly are having trouble proving despite saying some posters have done it; or

b) I "implied that it was deeply sad that so many Wigan RL fans didn't like Latics"

I've emphasised the word like for you as you clearly don't understand what the word means.

When you said "Not word for word" you were certainly right. In fact "nowhere near and completely wrong" were the words you were obviously searching for to summarise what you said and have been completely unable to prove.

Far too late for that

Let’s not split hairs too much (something you seem to thrive on).

In the post I quoted, you claimed that those RL fans who have issues with Latics are ‘sad’, ‘immature’, ‘pathetic’. In other words they’re ‘wrong’.

My view, which I hinted at in the post you picked up on earlier (when that raw nerve of yours got twanged again), is that every sports fan is entitled to like or dislike any club or team he chooses without moral obligation. They don’t need to offer justification, or even have a reason. It’s sport. So just deal with it and stop being so bloody self-righteous all the time.

Nice attempt to derail the thread, by the way. I think it worked.

PS to Catalancs. Sorry, you're right. It's now boring. But I've made my point as clearly as I can, so I'm gone.

~

Splitting hairs to you obviously means writing something completely untrue about what someone has posted then getting all defensive when someone asks you to prove it and you can't.

Still having problems with that "all Wiganers should automatically support the Latics" claim I see - there's a shock. No wonder you want to run away.

Defensive?

You're the one who charged in here all flustered and outraged when I mentioned the words 'odd' and 'pious'.

I didn't mention you by name, but hey, if the cap fits.

[size=150=#BF0000Enough!![/size

Latics will stay up this season because Hull/Burnley wont get enough points to get past them.

Next season with Rodallega & N'zogbia gone, they will, all things being equal, go down. Along with West Brom & whoever comes up via the play offs.

Thought you'd gone?

Been able to find anyone who posted anything remotely like


You've had plenty of time to find it now - are you having trouble?



I'd say having to make things up to try and prove a point shows the only one flustered and outraged is you.

Indeed Cruncher. I certainly hold with what you say in general above. As for the underlined just ask yourself this; if we have a 'watertight agreement' why didn't we play our semi-final at the JJB (as was) despite the known clause why we couldn't not having been breeched? Why did Maurice have to, as I understand it, spend all night on the phone pleading for the game to be allowed if it was written in the ontrat that it was our legal right? Why did IL go cap in hand to Whelan to get something that was already agreed in writing? I can think of at least 3 scenarios why this would be the case, any of which would point to our rights of tenancy not being, shall we say, quite so secure as you seem to believe.

Anyway, this will play out completely out of our control, so there is little point in worrying about it. As I said though, I strongly believe anyone taking the line 'we've signed a contrat therefore there's bugger all they an do about it' might be in for a rude awakening. Again, I just hope the WRLFC legal team were on the ball with this one.

There is one other point I'd like to make on this. Slightly removed from the above but relevent nonetheless. Great play is being made, particularly by Whelan, about the lease having just been extended to 50 years as if this gives greater security. However, this is only the case if the initial lease gave us security in the first place. We have no idea what the terms of the original lease were and whether these were changed during the negotiations to extend. It's always worth noting that not everything does what it says on the tin!

Medic

'Sad', 'immature', 'pathetic'.

Your words to describe RL fans who have a problem with the Latics.

Don't keep trying to pretend you meant something else. It may wash in the winebars of Leeds, but it doesn't wash here.







I agree that we must hope the contract is as good as it sounds. But I still feel better than Whelan no longer owns us. When we were relying on his promises that he wouldn't chuck us out, then I was really worried. You must admit to feeling a bit better that someone like IL, who only has loyalty to Wigan RL, now controls the club and, presumably, has done what he can to secure as good a contract for us as possible.

Oh, absolutely Cruncher! I haven't been happier about the club and it's direction in a long time! My concern re: this particular matter is not with IL, the legal team or even, to a degree, Whelan himself. It's simply based on my knowledge of contract law and having seen the outcome of the only 'dispute' to occur under the terms of the new lease. Whelan will, and with some justification, do what's best for Latics and himself. He has no vested interest in this club anymore other than as tenants and, perhaps, his desire to be seen as some kind of 'man of the people' to the town of Wigan. Neither of those is a strong enough reason, judging by past experience, to persuade him to do something that would ultimately harm either [uhis[/u football club or [uhis[/u business. Should the FA decide on the course of action it has threatened, only a lease would stand between him and losing PL status for his football club and the multi-millions and prestige/personal satisfaction that go with it. To paraphrase a leading Music business lawyer: there is no such thing as a foolproof contract. A contract is no more than the basis for a dispute and should never be viewed as anything greater than that.