Statements like " no club has sucessfully brought a case against the NRL & won" & there is no precedent" show why this club has the culture of losing in recent times. Without stating the obvious,a prececdent has to be set at some time by courageous individuals so others can refer to it. No one had climbed Mount Everest at one time till someone courageous did it. Your arguments of "No one has ever done so we cant , or there is not precedent" so we cant is flawed reasoning & loser talk . For example, we had no chance last year to win the premiership , so applying your reasoning, we should not of fielded a team & try to complete. Abosolute baloney.
The other cases you refer to were individual bad ref decisions & those mistakes are part of the game. The Tigers case was different as there was multiple errors & to top off the coruption a review was given to the Cowboys & a legal review from the Tigers was denied. The Tigers had the oppurtunity to expose the corruption for the good of all the clubs, & show their mettle in the process. We weakly decided to take the course you clearly support. As a result , the NRL has now been given the mandate to blatantly do whatever they want.
No you have it all wrong. The lack of court case precedent isn't an indicator of meekness or fear, the lack of precedent tells you precisely why Tigers and all the other clubs don't take legal action against referee decisions.
And then if you lose the court case, which you are highly likely to do, you've set a bad precedent. Precedents are not necessarily good or courageous. Many precedents are negative, stupid and costly.
You are also wrong about our case vs other clubs - it's all the same thing, all a collection of bad ref decisions. Happens every year. Fans will be fixated on the bad calls that affected themselves and less worried about those for other clubs.
The "corruption" you speak about is just speculative labelling - you'd have to prove corruption in court; you can't just point your finger at an outcome you don't like and call it "corruption". How would you even expose this corruption, if it existed? Tigers asked for the refs' mike tapes and NRL apparently gave them access in private, and those tapes didn't prove anything.
So if not going to court over a referee decision is a loser's mentality, then all the clubs are losers.
Sounds like you personally take all opportunities to represent yourself in court, regardless of the cost or the risk of a negative outcome? Because it's the principle and "courageous individuals" need to set precedents, apparently.
Some people are in such a rush to spend other people's money.
