>Reading articles in todays papers, the reason for
>the major turnaround in the court ruling was just a
>matter of interpretation or perspective. Justice
>Burchett basically took a broader view and saw rugby
>league as part of a larger market and apparently a
>lot of the trade practices law didn't then apply but
>the appeal judges took a much narrower view of the
>market and I think that's why the result took most
>people by surprise because most (not all) people agreed
>with Justice Burchett that rugby league was part of a
>greater sports and entertainment market not just a rugby
That's just one article, Richard, and I think you'll find it's a thin
reed to hang your hopes on. Probably some bloke trying to save a bit
of face having made fearless predictions in earlier writings. If it
was Slee's SMH article you are referring to, I think you'll find he
has another (journos v lawyers) axe to grind, and he grinds it
furiously and incessantly at every opportunity.
>As it is all just a matter of interpretation the High
>Court judges could quiet easily agree with Burchett's
>view rather than the appeal judges.
It's not quite as simple as that.
>While a High Court appeal might be successful, I don't
>think the game can wait to see the result, both parties
>need to get together.
I reckon the chances of a High Court appeal even occurring are fairly
slight. Even if it happens, it can't happen until after Burchett
returns from extended leave and deals with the damages issue. Then it
could take months for the leave to appeal issue to be addressed, and
even if the High Court agrees to take the case, even more months for
the appeal to be heard and considered.
The 1997 season could well be over by then, and Arko and Co are going
to have a long, cold, hungry time between now and then unless they
compromise. Once a compromise is in place, where's the point of a
High Court appeal which is more likely than not to be dismissed on all
but the trivial issues?
Voice: +61-6-2316847 Fax: +61-6-2313050