Gut feel is no claim

but that assumes no conflicting prior examples, and the clubs all agreeing that any votes on these topics are binding on everyone.

Shooting from the hip as I cant be arsed spending half a day pouring over public documents to only be able to give half an answer, but it's a bit of a nonsense if you have a membership organisation taking majority votes on such important decisions but leaving it open for the minority to just challenge in the courts.

There's an element of needing to be grown ups about this. To the extent it's not covered in existing constitutional documents I'd expect them to agree the revised procedures to make sure decisions are binding on everybody before sitting down to agree how it's all going to work.

Legally, as far as I can see, is that this is such a novel situation that you have a risk (if challenging it) that the whole season is voided as there is no way to agree on how to complete it. That's just such uncharted territory in terms of future consequences that I can't believe they won't also be tying this decision in with agreeing how they will sort out the financial impacts on TV deals etc as part of the same group decision making process.

So if you bring down the agreement on relegation, you bring down the revised TV deal...

So I suspect any legal challenge by a disgruntled club would be a pyrrhic victory, as it would unravel everything and probably leave themselves with a massive financial black hole when the TV money has to be handed back.

Of course I am just talking out of my arse, as I'm not party to the conversations and have only glanced over league rules/constitution etc, but I would be surprised if this isn't being approached in a spirit of good faith and looking at the whole situation in the round given there is so much tied up in it all. If we get outvoted, we get outvoted.

Posted By: CWC, Apr 16, 10:54:27