Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:54 pm  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

I think he was referring to the fact that the football club doesn't have priority over the rugby club. They are both tenants.

Well, if EGW is correct in his assertion upthread that it's an FA rule, then that's not a true statement, is it?

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:01 pm  

2.3.1 A Club’s Ground may be shared with another Club or any other club (including a club
engaged in another sport) providing, where sharing with a football club the Club or club
playing in the most senior competition has priority of fi xtures at all times and, where
sharing with a club engaged in another sport, the Club has priority of fi xtures.

TAKEN FROM THE f.A's standard rules.....

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:12 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

2.3.1 A Club’s Ground may be shared with another Club or any other club (including a club
engaged in another sport) providing, where sharing with a football club the Club or club
playing in the most senior competition has priority of fi xtures at all times and, where
sharing with a club engaged in another sport, the Club has priority of fi xtures.

TAKEN FROM THE f.A's standard rules.....

Can't see how they could enforce it if the football club don't own the ground. In the Wigan case. Wigan RL playing, wouldn't have stopped Wigan AFC playing, just made it inconvenient.

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm  

it all comes down to the actual contract for use of the ground with the owners...because F.A. rules state the football club has to have priority use over any other sport to be allowed to play there if they don't own the ground 2.3.1 above and 2.3.2. below:-

2.3.2 A Club must either (a) own the freehold of the Ground or (b) as at 31 March in each year,
have a lease of the Ground which does not expire until at least the end of the next Playing
Season or (c) possess a written agreement for the use of the Ground which is acceptable to
The FA and the Competition

Doubt whether the RFL have any such conditions with clubs within their rules....

End of the day Lenigan was told he couldn't use the pitch on Friday and the contract he inherited probably doesn't allow him to force the issue

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:16 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

End of the day Lenigan was told he couldn't use the pitch on Friday and the contract he inherited probably doesn't allow him to force the issue

Pretty sure you're on the money. I think if he'd come out and said as much he'd have attracted far less flak.

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:57 pm  

After all of todays rain, the DW pitch is looking unplayable ......

Anyone got any sprinklers they could borrow ?

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:03 am  

The RFU have a primacy of tenure rule which attracted the interest of the OFT and was legally tested by London Welsh. Laughably Leeds apparently signed a piece of paper which confirmed that Headingley's third club had primacy there - it was never put to the test and notwithstanding its existence RU games were occasionally moved for Leeds RL ones but never the other way around whilst they were in the top flight. This document has a bit to say about the matter: Analysis of the London Welsh case Ground Tenure and Ground Moves: this concerns the ability of the clubs to use their home ground or grounds in order to meet the requirements of the fixture list and broadcasters, rather than the actual facilities required at those grounds (which are discussed in the next two sections). Central to this section is the concept of "Primacy of Tenure", which means that each club must be able to: (i) demonstrate that it can schedule home matches on weekends or bank holidays during the season at any time specified during fixed windows, and (ii) comply with the requirements of PRL's broadcast partner in televising home games. In order to prove Primacy of Tenure, a legally binding agreement to occupy the club's home ground or grounds must be in place for the following season, with the only pre-condition to the agreement being the securing of promotion. The Criteria acknowledge that three current Aviva Premiership clubs (London Irish, London Wasps and Saracens) do not have Primacy of Tenure, but that no action will be taken for these breaches. Primacy of Tenure does not mean that the club must be the main tenant at its home ground; while this was formerly the case, this requirement was overturned in 2003 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) following the blocking of Rotherham's promotion by PRL. This is important because financial realities dictate that, in many cases, a ground sharing arrangement with another sports club may be the only realistic choice for ambitious rugby clubs. The OFT also ordered that clubs may use two stadia to meet the Primacy of Tenure requirements if necessary and so, while a club is expected to meet these requirements in relation to a nominated "Principal Home Ground" for the season, they may also nominate a "Standby Ground". Use of a Standby Ground requires prior approval from the PGB and, crucially, it must be located within thirty miles of the club's Principal Home Ground. Clubs may also nominate a "Temporary Ground" for one-off games – an example being the use of Twickenham Stadium by Harlequins for their annual "Big Game". What the appeal panel went on to consider, however, was whether or not the Primacy of Tenure requirements were compatible with competition law. ...the panel felt that it had been clear for some time before 2011 that the requirements were unduly restrictive, and so the RFU should have reviewed the position well before then – they could not rely on what amounted to a nine year old OFT blessing following the Rotherham case, not least because all other aspects of the Criteria had been reviewed on an annual basis since then. The panel therefore considered the Primacy of Tenure requirements to be in breach of competition law and, as a result, unenforceable. The RFU's decision to refuse London Welsh's promotion was overturned and, inevitably, the Primacy of Tenure requirements will need to be revised.

The RFU have a primacy of tenure rule which attracted the interest of the OFT and was legally tested by London Welsh. Laughably Leeds apparently signed a piece of paper which confirmed that Headingley's third club had primacy there - it was never put to the test and notwithstanding its existence RU games were occasionally moved for Leeds RL ones but never the other way around whilst they were in the top flight. This document has a bit to say about the matter: Analysis of the London Welsh case Ground Tenure and Ground Moves: this concerns the ability of the clubs to use their home ground or grounds in order to meet the requirements of the fixture list and broadcasters, rather than the actual facilities required at those grounds (which are discussed in the next two sections). Central to this section is the concept of "Primacy of Tenure", which means that each club must be able to: (i) demonstrate that it can schedule home matches on weekends or bank holidays during the season at any time specified during fixed windows, and (ii) comply with the requirements of PRL's broadcast partner in televising home games. In order to prove Primacy of Tenure, a legally binding agreement to occupy the club's home ground or grounds must be in place for the following season, with the only pre-condition to the agreement being the securing of promotion. The Criteria acknowledge that three current Aviva Premiership clubs (London Irish, London Wasps and Saracens) do not have Primacy of Tenure, but that no action will be taken for these breaches. Primacy of Tenure does not mean that the club must be the main tenant at its home ground; while this was formerly the case, this requirement was overturned in 2003 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) following the blocking of Rotherham's promotion by PRL. This is important because financial realities dictate that, in many cases, a ground sharing arrangement with another sports club may be the only realistic choice for ambitious rugby clubs. The OFT also ordered that clubs may use two stadia to meet the Primacy of Tenure requirements if necessary and so, while a club is expected to meet these requirements in relation to a nominated "Principal Home Ground" for the season, they may also nominate a "Standby Ground". Use of a Standby Ground requires prior approval from the PGB and, crucially, it must be located within thirty miles of the club's Principal Home Ground. Clubs may also nominate a "Temporary Ground" for one-off games – an example being the use of Twickenham Stadium by Harlequins for their annual "Big Game". What the appeal panel went on to consider, however, was whether or not the Primacy of Tenure requirements were compatible with competition law. ...the panel felt that it had been clear for some time before 2011 that the requirements were unduly restrictive, and so the RFU should have reviewed the position well before then – they could not rely on what amounted to a nine year old OFT blessing following the Rotherham case, not least because all other aspects of the Criteria had been reviewed on an annual basis since then. The panel therefore considered the Primacy of Tenure requirements to be in breach of competition law and, as a result, unenforceable. The RFU's decision to refuse London Welsh's promotion was overturned and, inevitably, the Primacy of Tenure requirements will need to be revised.

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:54 am  

The John Smiths Stadium is jointly owned, neather the Giants or Town are tennants, a few years back when Town went into admin, the Giants bought them, so how could the FA insist that Town, (the tennants) take priority over the Giants, (the owners) isnt it just the case, that as usual the RFL are being bullied into axceptence, of what a court might see as unenforcable rules. l realalise we are a minority sport, but does that mean the RFL just rolls over.

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:12 pm  

boomer wrote:

The John Smiths Stadium is jointly owned, neather the Giants or Town are tennants, a few years back when Town went into admin, the Giants bought them, so how could the FA insist that Town, (the tennants) take priority over the Giants, (the owners) isnt it just the case, that as usual the RFL are being bullied into axceptence, of what a court might see as unenforcable rules. l realalise we are a minority sport, but does that mean the RFL just rolls over.

They can set whatever rules they want for teams to be eligible and be able to host fixtures in their competition, and they do so to avoid a shambles like the Wigan Widnes debacle.

What sort of governing body allows a club to postpone a game, rather than have referee inspect and decide if the pitch is playable? That's right, the RFL.

Re: GAME OFF: Wigan v Widnes *EDIT, back on* : Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:14 pm  

LeythIg wrote:

What sort of governing body allows a club to postpone a game, rather than have referee inspect and decide if the pitch is playable? That's right, the RFL.

The RFL are investigating Wigan for the unilateral actions? The RFL rules are very clear - why are you trying to paint what happened as their fault?

FWIW, clubs can own a ground but assign primacy of tenure to another side (as Leeds appear to have done in favour of the RU club even if in practice an RL game would never be moved for a RU one).