Re the conservatory framework on the bit of West Terrace nearest the boxes, I presume that's a freebie from AG or is he supplying it at cost.

North Stand should look good though.

You do know that work to extend the east stand (adding 1.6K on the capacity figure) has already been started don't you?
You do know it is 1 stand so not 'stands' and that is getting moved over to the other end with it being roofed off in is premanet home and it will only be used as an overflow stand dont you?
You do know that planning is accepted and funding is in place and all set to go any day now for our new £6M north stand dont you?
This work will be started BEFORE the franchises are given out.
We will have 12k, ALL underoof, All apart from 1 stand as seating,
Completley complient.

A decent lawyer wouldn't go anywhere near it on account of having no chance whatsoever.

You do know that, that is a made up word, don't you?

Not for a second do i believe it would end in legal action.
However it doesnt matter a jot what the operational rules say or indeed what they signed up for.
No operational rules can remove your right to a legal challenge.

In theory if the RFL tried to enforce and not allow Wakefield to compete in an RFL comp,Wakefield could retaliate by gaining an injuction for the competition to be suspended until the matter is resolved.

Oh dear

Erm if you have signed away that right then yes, yes they can.

After reading this I can't decide if you are mad or delusional.

So a contract can't be challenged in court? Yore not well man.

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"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"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"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"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.

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..?

Quote ="RebelRebel"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/'" Then they should have made that clear on the main story which has grabbed the headlines then. As has been mentioned earlier, why would the journos visit the site for more info when they've been sent a story that doesn't mention Newmarket anywhere.

Quote ="RebelRebel"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/'" Then they should have made that clear on the main story which has grabbed the headlines then. As has been mentioned earlier, why would the journos visit the site for more info when they've been sent a story that doesn't mention Newmarket anywhere.

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.