Quote ="Ian 77 Redux"That's what they would look to recover.
But what would the claim be? Breach of contract? Breach of warranty? What?'"
Good point to raise. I would hazard a guess it would be a breach of contract - if there is any agreement that has been made over the actual decision making process. The RFL have committed to promoting a team from the Championship that meets the criteria.
This is an extract from the Operations Rules (
www.therfl.co.uk/licensing):-
In order for a Championship club’s application to
proceed to assessment by the RFL, an applicant must meet the Championship club minimum criteria.
These minimum criteria are:
a. Club has reached a Championship Final or won the Northern Rail Cup in 2009 or 2010.
b. Club has a stadium with an operational capacity of 10,000.
c. Club has turnover of at least £1,000,000 in financial year ending 2009 or 2010.
d. Club has an average attendance of at least 2500 in 2009 or 2010.
Provided at least one applicant meets the minimum criteria,
a Championship club will be awarded a Super League licence for a three-year period commencing at the start of the 2012 season.
This initial successful Championship club receiving a Super League licence will be announced in March 2011.
Not sure if the bits in bold contradict each other slightly. The former refers to meeting minimum criteria and proceeding to assessment whereas the latter suggests an award will be made based on the minimum criteria.
"The
independent RFL Board will determine who gains membership to the Super League in 2012."
I don't know what else is in the Operation Rules with regards to a club being prevented from taking legal action nor them blocking license applications for 5 years. I'm not a lawyer but applicant clubs are relying on the RFL board to act independently and impartially in making its decision. It's all in the words used and judging on the above example it is all a bit too wooly for my liking.
