Federal Court Class Action 2002 Premiership

[DJ1]

This court case could potentially result in some interesting outcomes.

http://www.nospam25.com.au/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=605

 

[Chook]

I think you'll find DJ1 that the dogs punishment of having their points deducted was in fact in guidelines of the salary cap rules and regulations at the time.

If you remember the only penalty the NRL COULD dish out was a fine and loss of competition points. And the only points you were deducted were the ones you gained with your illegal side, you kept your 4 points from the byes.

It appears both barrels are pointed directly at the Bulladogs with regards to this court case DJ and I doubt Mr Gallop (a lawyer) would penalise the dogs and leave the NRL open to litigation because of it. The dogs did have an appeal avenue post the point strip and chose not to exercise it which leads me to believe they had no appeal option against the penalty. Hence if this action goes ahead I'm afraid your dogs will find themselves on their Pat Malone!

Chook.

 

[Raider_69]

it is indeed intresting, the out come of this decision will be greatly anticipated......

but just on the raiders breaches, they were not anywhere near the amount of the bulldogs.
I beleive they were between 50, 000 - 100, 000

 

[DJ1]

Hi Chook,

In my opinion, the issue isn't about the Bulldogs challenging the penalty, there were grounds for appeal on a number of issues including the validity of the cap itself but they wisely decided for the good of the game as a whole not to drag the league through another round of court cases. This is about the punters themselves challenging the penalty.

Whilst a court detirmination of "The Bulldogs previous board were all well aware that the extent of the breach they were involved in would result in the loss of all premiership points (37) and expulsion from the finals series" would result in a simple exchange of cash for loss of bets, interest and costs. Any other result could pave the way for a direct challenge by the punters on the NRL.

e.g.
The court finds that whilst the Bulldogs were in breach of the cap, there is no case to answer of wilful negligence to the punters as the penalty was not effectively communicated prior to the offense as all previous breaches resulted in monetary penalties only and the latest communication circular from the NRL prior to the scandal becoming public was a 4 point for the first $100K then 1 point for each additional $50K in the current season.

Therefore the punters could then challenge,

The penalty itself, the salary cap, the validity of the 2002 finals series in an effort to procure payment of their losing bets.