TOPIC:

ArkRoyal wrote: BC -- WP would argue that the licence is preventing them from being able to freely contract with other parties -- a right which goes back to the Masters and Servants act in the UK itself.

disagree AR....in Australia when assessing reasonableness of restraint of trade the courts will first consider whether there is a 'legitimate interest' or interests that require protection and, if so, will assess whether or not the restraint does not more than is necessary to protect that interest. clearly the WAFC is protecting the interests of the competition and of the other clubs by asking WP to drop the Ch9 logo so that broadcasts can take place.

BC --I understand. I was suggesting what WP would argue, not that they would necessarily win the case. Keep in mind that, in my original post, I argued that WP should keep matters out of the courts.

ArkRoyal wrote: BC -- WP would argue that the licence is preventing them from being able to freely contract with other parties -- a right which goes back to the Masters and Servants act in the UK itself.

There are all sorts of exceptions for ROT claims ROT are applied every day in many contracts on the basis they pass the reasonable test also it' is well established in law that sporting bodies are exempt from ROT for equalisation policies ect this was established by case and is now settled I cannot see on what basis WPFC can claim any exemption for the sponsorship provisions that bind all clubs and are provision of equalisation reasonably applied to all clubs that all clubs have agreed to abide many clubs would of forgone sponsorship deals that are inconflct with league rules basically what is unfolding here through a claim of ROT is an applied suggestion now from WP that they have entered into the contract after knowing of the conflict without the acquiesce of the league which is in conflict with their orginal claims of signing the deal prior to the wafc ch 7

BC wrote:

ArkRoyal wrote: BC -- WP would argue that the licence is preventing them from being able to freely contract with other parties -- a right which goes back to the Masters and Servants act in the UK itself.

disagree AR....in Australia when assessing reasonableness of restraint of trade the courts will first consider whether there is a 'legitimate interest' or interests that require protection and, if so, will assess whether or not the restraint does not more than is necessary to protect that interest. clearly the WAFC is protecting the interests of the competition and of the other clubs by asking WP to drop the Ch9 logo so that broadcasts can take place.

Spot on I see you did Commercial Law as well BC

screemar wrote: hey bazza, why did brian ciccotosto give haydn raitt a public serve a few weeks ago, ill tell you why my friend its because raitt has the Italian tank syndrome, one forward gear and ten reverse gears.

Cicco has zero official roll in the club anymore Raitt is ordinary but it doesn't escape the fact his stance is the same as every other club president since the most recent briefing that is support for the Wafc and none for WPFC

Agree with Bazza re Raitt.....Cicco is still very closely connected to a lot of decision makers at SF including Raitt

Bazza wrote: Interesting rumour on 6PR this morning , make of it what you will

Apparently Burley Sekem have confirmed the WPFC has ordered a batch of new Jumpers that have no sponsors names on them.

no sure how true it is.

Surely not

If true, how pathetic of Burley Sekem not to keep some confidentiality with a client.

If my business, and someone leaked that, no job for them anymore

Bazza wrote:

BC wrote:

ArkRoyal wrote: BC -- WP would argue that the licence is preventing them from being able to freely contract with other parties -- a right which goes back to the Masters and Servants act in the UK itself.

disagree AR....in Australia when assessing reasonableness of restraint of trade the courts will first consider whether there is a 'legitimate interest' or interests that require protection and, if so, will assess whether or not the restraint does not more than is necessary to protect that interest. clearly the WAFC is protecting the interests of the competition and of the other clubs by asking WP to drop the Ch9 logo so that broadcasts can take place.

Spot on I see you did Commercial Law as well BC

yes mate...many years ago as an undergrad and more recently as part of an MBA...but must admit, as the years roll on the old memory tends to fade more and more....

Bazza: It is interesting in regards the 'tolerance test' in regards to the extent of the restraint of trade, that, the courts struck down the NSW draft system in the early 90s. It must have been a very restrictive system indeed.

BC wrote:

Bazza wrote:

BC wrote:

ArkRoyal wrote: BC -- WP would argue that the licence is preventing them from being able to freely contract with other parties -- a right which goes back to the Masters and Servants act in the UK itself.

disagree AR....in Australia when assessing reasonableness of restraint of trade the courts will first consider whether there is a 'legitimate interest' or interests that require protection and, if so, will assess whether or not the restraint does not more than is necessary to protect that interest. clearly the WAFC is protecting the interests of the competition and of the other clubs by asking WP to drop the Ch9 logo so that broadcasts can take place.

Spot on I see you did Commercial Law as well BC

yes mate...many years ago as an undergrad and more recently as part of an MBA...but must admit, as the years roll on the old memory tends to fade more and more....

Good one mate the MBA would of been a good standard I did mine as part of an LLB ...elective unit wasn't the most thrilling of areas.