Dave Hadfield on the case?

[Gezza48]

Had a very interesting conversation with Dave Hadfield on the bus to the beach yesterday about the JJB/Whelan fiasco. I was telling him about some comments on here about the planning application by Whelan, terms of the deal and funding etc. and I think Dave is now going to explore the whole matter in some depth.

Let's hope that Whelan can be exposed for what he really is.

Oh, by the way, Dave thinks we can certainly beat Leeds this week

[botica]

He has shown himself up for what he really is!
Now lets hopem Dave and show everyone else.

[mike binder]

Donna on RFL fans seems to be turning some stones ,dont know if she will find anything but if u dont lool u dont find

[Exiled Wiganer]

But can't DW just argue that he is letting rugby be played - he has given us a 46 year lease to that effect - but we just cannot play at a time which interferes with the football. If, as seems to be the case, we agreed a dispute resolution procedure which gives the final say to DW's Stadium company then we should be suing our lawyers for negligence or knocking the heads together of the people that negotiated it.
I would be surprised if we had a legal redress, and I think the way to address this is to keep up public pressure, while the club negotiates the best position it can.
It should be the club clarifying its rights, trying to do a deal that gives us some clarity as to where we stand, and then going public if they remain unhappy.
I have been very disappointed in the club for giving no reassurance for the future to the fans about this issue - we deserve it. There should be no need for Hadfield or RLFans to rattle any cages because our club should be doing it for us.
All I have seen is "Don't blame the Latics" - hopeless.

[GeoffN]

But can't DW just argue that he is letting rugby be played - he has given us a 46 year lease to that effect - but we just cannot play at a time which interferes with the football.

but, as has been pointed out before, we've had our game 1 day before a Latics game on at least 3 occasions since they got promoted, which shows it is possible to prepare the ground.

[butt monkey]

But can't DW just argue that he is letting rugby be played - he has given us a 46 year lease to that effect - but we just cannot play at a time which interferes with the football.

but, as has been pointed out before, we've had our game 1 day before a Latics game on at least 3 occasions since they got promoted, which shows it is possible to prepare the ground.

So why the change in attitude now?

My assumption, is that before the Bradford match, IL kept his anger over the situation to himself, so as not to continue to detract from a very important game for the club.

His exclamation "Do not to blame the Latics" does not stand examination. If he was saying that, who does he blame? Himself? Surely not! There was only one other (named) person involved in this sorry shambles, David Whelan.

Without knowing the finer detail of the contractual obligations for all parties involved in the lease between Whelco Holdings Ltd., Wigan Warriors and the Latics, it is only assumptions that can be realistically reached.

If IL and his legal team have missed something in the take-over of the Warriors that precluded what went on before (Wigan playing 24 hours before a soccer match), then he will likely be seeking some sort of re-dress, or at least a balance with Whelco, which will enable the club to play at least some fixtures on the same week-end as the Latics. This would have been IL's (and his teams) fault if this has happened imo.

If there was no indication whatsoever in the contracts, and the decision is based on the whims of people, based on the "football to come first" ethos under the stewardship of Whelco Holdings Ltd. Then I would assume that (after at least an attempt at friendly negotiation), that a legal challenge would then be mounted to prevent the lease becoming worthless/meaningless by IL. This might come during the close-season :doz:

This possible airing of the "dirty laundry" involved, would not give credibility to anyone, least of all Wigan Warrior's No1 "fan" Whelan himself. He could suffer a public humiliation, as the "bleating" and excuses he used would become discredited in any possible challenge. His Mr Wigan persona that he loves/craves in town would be finished. He would become as popular as a terrorist in a teashop! As the board made clear any "real" reason that prevented the Warriors from playing a home fixture in Court.

It has already been announced that the Good Friday fixture is in jeopardy. Based on current events, if the club does not move on this during the next few months, then the future of the club will become untenable at the JJB Stadium. It must seek to strengthen its position within the ground-share and seek to enforce the legal obligations of all parties to the lease signed and agreed upon by all parties.

[josie andrews]

But can't DW just argue that he is letting rugby be played - he has given us a 46 year lease to that effect - but we just cannot play at a time which interferes with the football.

but, as has been pointed out before, we've had our game 1 day before a Latics game on at least 3 occasions since they got promoted, which shows it is possible to prepare the ground.

So why the change in attitude now?

My assumption, is that before the Bradford match, IL kept his anger over the situation to himself, so as not to continue to detract from a very important game for the club.

His exclamation "Do not to blame the Latics" does not stand examination. If he was saying that, who does he blame? Himself? Surely not! There was only one other (named) person involved in this sorry shambles, David Whelan.

Without knowing the finer detail of the contractual obligations for all parties involved in the lease between Whelco Holdings Ltd., Wigan Warriors and the Latics, it is only assumptions that can be realistically reached.

If IL and his legal team have missed something in the take-over of the Warriors that precluded what went on before (Wigan playing 24 hours before a soccer match), then he will likely be seeking some sort of re-dress, or at least a balance with Whelco, which will enable the club to play at least some fixtures on the same week-end as the Latics. This would have been IL's (and his teams) fault if this has happened imo.

If there was no indication whatsoever in the contracts, and the decision is based on the whims of people, based on the "football to come first" ethos under the stewardship of Whelco Holdings Ltd. Then I would assume that (after at least an attempt at friendly negotiation), that a legal challenge would then be mounted to prevent the lease becoming worthless/meaningless by IL. This might come during the close-season :doz:

This possible airing of the "dirty laundry" involved, would not give credibility to anyone, least of all Wigan Warrior's No1 "fan" Whelan himself. He could suffer a public humiliation, as the "bleating" and excuses he used would become discredited in any possible challenge. His Mr Wigan persona that he loves/craves in town would be finished. He would become as popular as a terrorist in a teashop! As the board made clear any "real" reason that prevented the Warriors from playing a home fixture in Court.

It has already been announced that the Good Friday fixture is in jeopardy. Based on current events, if the club does not move on this during the next few months, then the future of the club will become untenable at the JJB Stadium. It must seek to strengthen its position within the ground-share and seek to enforce the legal obligations of all parties to the lease signed and agreed upon by all parties.

Thats a very good post BM

[pedro]

Was told that DW didnt like it because all the details were on the webby before he was asked and he spit the dummy out (may not be true)

Dave Hatfield although a nice bloke is a tad useless

I used to talk to him all the time and he would tell me who is going where re - Wigan and he never got 1 rumour right. Made me laugh as hes a likeable guy.

[DaveO]

It has already been announced that the Good Friday fixture is in jeopardy. Based on current events, if the club does not move on this during the next few months, then the future of the club will become untenable at the JJB Stadium. It must seek to strengthen its position within the ground-share and seek to enforce the legal obligations of all parties to the lease signed and agreed upon by all parties.

Good Friday is the acid test of what sort of agreement Wigan RL has.

We now know there is no rule to prevent us playing 24 hours before a soccer game. The stadium has been made ready for a game the following day before and Good Friday is a long way off so there is plenty of notice.

Therefore if we end up having to switch that fixture as well then it will show Wigan RL have a very poor lease on the ground.

The only solution is to challenge the terms of the lease as an unfair contract if that is possible because there won't be new ground for Wigan RL anywhere else in Wigan. There might be some mileage in that a precedent was set previously to allow games to go ahead within 24 hours of each other but this is the stuff the solicitors get paid to sort out and only they will know if this is possible.

I am not convinced going back to the terms under which the ground was built will do any good. I doubt there is anything in them that says anything about not being able to play games 24 hours apart.

Dave

[doc]

The thing that really concerns me is the Premier League law that states football must take priority in any groundshare agreement. If we were to change kick-offs to Sunday afternoon so we would be playing after the Latics we would still have problems if Sky/Setanta decided to televise the Latics in either of the Sunday slots.

Under the PL law even if we decided that all future matches were to kick off at 2:30 am on Wednesday mornings to avoid clashes with the football, should the TV companies wish to provide live converage of the football at the same time for Thai TV we would still be kicked out.
It's an absolutely ridiculous rule.

Hopefully DW will keep his promise and give the ground to the council so that they will be able to rule over these clashes of use.