How is it not relevant?
This is how insurance payouts are treated. The question shouldn't be "Why should this be treated the same way as the rest of society?" but instead "Why not?".
That's what you take to court. What's the alternative? To roll over? To allow the NRL to decide that it doesn't have to treat situations the same way a fair society would otherwise expect them to be treated?
For f**k's sake, that's the most cowardly position you could possibly take. Just let the NRL do whatever it wants? FMD.
In the end, what's the harm in taking a shot?
There's no harm in taking a shot....in terms of our direct response to the NRL....they can only say 'no'.
But in terms of potential court action it is a waste of time and money that could be better spent on either challenging parts of the judgement that matter, or doing whatever with.
It's not about fighting the NRL or not fighting the NRL. It's about getting the best outcome for our club. And frigging around chasing lost causes is not going to help.
If you'd like to point me to a single legal decision or statute that implies that decisions taken by an insurance company oblige a third party to change their treatment of a transaction....go for it.
I'm not a coward. I just don't believe in taking significant risks or losing a significant amount of money for f**k all potential return. That's business.
