Brunel University’S Student Union)

RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF LONDON & SE DIVISIONAL ORGANISING COMMITTEE

JUDGMENT

Club: Brunel RFC Panel: Gareth Graham (Chairman), John Vale, John Downham Secretary: Adam Maunder

HEARING

Dates: 14 May 2020

Attendees: Brunel RFC Mark Burgess Ty Sterry Gary Rise Francesca Stirling

London & SE DOC David Williams Andrew Smart

RFU David Barnes Paul Kaminski

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an appeal by Brunel RFC (“the Club”) against the decision of London & SE Divisional Organising Committee (“the DOC”), dated 14 April 2020, not to allow the Club’s application, dated 23 March 2020, to join the RFU leagues.

2. The Appeal Panel (“the Panel”) was provided with a bundle of 48 pages prior to the hearing. During the course of the hearing, the Panel heard submissions from the Club. It also heard from representatives of the DOC and the RFU.

3. This document contains the Panel’s reasoned decision, reached after consideration of all the evidence, submissions and documentation placed before it. It is a summary. The fact that specific reference is not made herein to any part or aspect thereof does not mean it was not considered and given the appropriate weight.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

4. There was no objection to the composition of the Panel.

1 BACKGROUND

5. In 2018, Ealing Trailfinders (“Ealing”) formed a partnership with the Club (and Brunel University’s Student Union). Initially, this was to last for five years although it has subsequently become a fifteen-year partnership. In its appeal letter, the Club described the intention behind the agreement as being to “grow rugby playing opportunities at Brunel, to become London’s first BUSC Super Rugby University and to provide a pathway through to professional rugby with [Ealing].” The Club also seeks to increase the playing opportunities for its anticipated growing player-base through joining the RFU leagues. It aspires to progress through the regulated leagues in a similar manner to other universities such as Hartpury, Loughborough and Exeter.

6. Entry to the RFU leagues is made by way of application. During the course of the 2019/20 season, the Club’s representative, Mr Sterry (who is also the Academy Manager at Ealing), made contact with, and took advice from, Mr Smart (Chairman, Middlesex/Competitions Committee) as to that application process. The two had known each other for a number of years. At the outset, Mr Smart informed Mr Sterry that the Club should apply under the name “Brunel RFC” because he said that the DOC was likely to frown upon Ealing’s involvement in the partnership. Mr Smart also said that the Club would have to play 12 fixtures during the 2019/20 season, four of which needed to be played against RFU voting clubs. There was discussion between them as to where the Club should be placed in the leagues. The Club wished to enter the leagues at an appropriate level which, based on its results, was said to be around Level 6. However, the Club accepted that this was highly unlikely and said it was happy to accept entry in Herts/Middlesex 2 (Level 10).

7. During the 2019/20 season, the Club played seven fixtures (on either Tuesdays or Fridays) until the Covid-19 pandemic brought a premature end to the season and stopped any further matches being played. The Club say that but for the early end to the season it would have played the required (as it was then understood) 12 fixtures. In March 2020, the Club applied to join the leagues at Level 6.

8. On 14 April, the Club received a letter from the DOC refusing the application. The letter stated as follows: -

“First of all, thank you for the application on behalf of Brunel University to enter the London Leagues for the 2020/21 season at level 6.

I can confirm that your application and related paperwork has been circulated amongst all members of the London and SE Competitions Committee as requested and after review and some discussion I have been asked to respond to your application as follows.

First of all, I must draw your attention to RFU Regulation 13.3.2 which states that any Club applying to join the leagues must be placed in the bottom league, subject to two exceptions.

One of these relates to a corporate restructure of a Club already in the leagues, which this is not. The other is where application is made to vary the regulation with the support of the Constituent Bodies, the Clubs in the league concerned and with the consent of the Clubs in the Leagues below. In over 30 years since the inception of leagues this variation has never been applied above Level 9.

2 Regulation 13.2.4 specifies the structure and number of clubs in each league down to Level 7. That and the regulations relating to promotion and relegation means the makeup of the leagues down to Level 7 next season is already confirmed.

Consequent on the above your application to join the leagues next season at Level 6 cannot therefore be approved in regulation.

This is not an application from a traditional student team playing for recreational purposes. It is a joint venture with significant input from Ealing Trailfinders aimed at attracting high quality young players, some with national representative experience, on a pathway to becoming professional rugby players. This may fit with the profile of the BUCS Super League and their mid-week competitions but it is not compatible with anything other than the higher levels of the Saturday leagues which are not accessible to new clubs.

We would also point out that a recent application from Leeds Becket University did not progress beyond the North Competitions Committee for similar reasons.”

9. The Club appeals against that decision.

THE APPEAL

10. The Club’s appeal is made in accordance with RFU Regulation 19.13.1(ii)(c) in that it says the DOC failed to act fairly in a procedural sense. In support of this (single) ground of appeal, it says:

i. The Club followed, in good faith, all the advice and criteria given by Mr Smart in his capacity as Middlesex Competitions Chair and did so accurately and within the timeframes given.

ii. At no point, either verbally or in writing, were the Club made aware, or advised, of any regulations or issues that would render the league application ineligible.

iii. The DOC created a previous precedent for Universities to enter RFU leagues without satisfying the criteria laid out in regulation 13.3.1(d) with its admission of Surrey University to RFU League Surrey Division 4. It is procedurally unfair for Brunel RFC to be treated differently to Surrey University RFC.

iv. It is procedurally unfair to expect Universities to satisfy entry criteria that is different to those of any other member club.

v. Mr Smart informed the Club in writing on behalf of the DOC that the decision to reject the application related not only to London Leagues at Level 6 but across all levels including those at Herts/Middlesex 1 and 2. The Club was told that part of this decision was based on the likely negative reaction of other clubs at Levels 9 and 10, who have complained in the past two seasons about new teams entering the leagues who were far too strong for that level of rugby.

3 vi. The regulations state that leagues are open to any Club in membership with the RFU and it is therefore procedurally unfair to refuse a member club access to regulated competition within the RFU League structures.

vii. The DOC’s view that the Club is not a “traditional student team playing for recreational purposes” is factually incorrect. It is a pre-existing, student-led member club with a constitution and student committee that aspires to progress through the RFU Leagues.

11. The Club made helpful submissions during the hearing in support of its appeal. The Club set out the basis for wanting to grow its provision of rugby. Mr Burgess stated that rugby is a significant part of the University. Based on current applications to the University, the Club anticipates that it is likely to have a player-base of around 200 players in September 2020 (depending on the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic). Of those players, there is likely to be a 60/40 split between performance/participation players. There are currently three teams from the Club that play in the British Universities & Colleges Sport (BUCS) leagues, with a fourth planned. The Club’s players range from beginners through to international age-group players.

12. The aim of joining the RFU leagues is to increase the opportunities for its players to play regulated rugby. The Club said it accepted that by having Mr Sterry (an Ealing employee) make contact with Mr Smart, it may have given the impression that this was an “Ealing project” rather than it being about the University. However, Mr Burgess reiterated a number of times that it was the University that wanted to join the leagues and that it was not seeking to cause trouble.

13. Mr Burgess accepted that the Club was unaware of the requirement contained in RFU Regulation 13.3.1(d)(i) that a University Club had to demonstrate that it had completed a regular fixture list on Saturdays over two seasons when making the application. He said that Mr Smart had not informed the Club of that requirement and that the Club had proceeded based on his advice.

14. The Club said that despite the decision not to allow it to join the Herts/Middlesex leagues it had been offered a place in the Surrey leagues (albeit at Level 12). The preferred route was still to join the Herts/Middlesex leagues because of where the University is based. The Club stated that the vast majority of its players come from within a 25-mile catchment with more students commuting than living in University accommodation. Mr Rise said that this would help the Club fulfil a league fixture list. Mr Rise did raise concerns as to the restrictions the DOC intended to impose on the Club should the Club play Level 10 rugby. He stated that the proposed restrictions (set out below) were too onerous and failed to take account of the numbers of players that would be eligible for selection if the DOC prevented any person from playing rugby if they had already played in the BUCS leagues (no matter the level).

15. If the Club was not able to play league rugby, Mr Burgess stated that it would have to find playing opportunities for its players elsewhere. The Club has relationships with other rugby clubs (such as Henley, Barnes and Blackheath) although it stated that there was a considerable benefit in encouraging its players to play under one banner. It was also noted by the Club that two full-time staff had been taken on (employed by Ealing) to deliver league rugby at the University for the coming season.

4 THE DOC

16. The DOC provided helpful written submissions before the hearing in addition to its rejection letter. The position can be summarised as follows:

i. Entry into the leagues above Level 9 or 10 was unprecedented and was unlikely to have the necessary support from other clubs in the leagues.

ii. RFU Regulation 13.3.1(d) requires a university club to prove it has completed a regular Saturday fixture list over two seasons.

iii. The Club would consist of students and members of the Ealing academy and would be far too strong to enter the league at Level 10. Neither Middlesex nor Hertfordshire Constituent Bodies were supportive of the application. The consequence would be that there would be numerous walkovers and possible risk of injury to players in other teams.

17. In answer to questions from the Panel, Mr Williams (Chairman, DOC) said that the Regulations had not been complied with (citing Regulation 13.3.1(d)) and the application was turned down, notwithstanding the discussions between Mr Sterry and Mr Smart. He said that all eight of the Constituent Bodies (CBs) that make up the DOC (Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Surrey, Hampshire, Kent, Essex, Eastern Counties and Sussex) were against the application. The concern was that the team would simply be too good and that there would be 100-0 victories or a lot of walkovers. Mr Williams accepted that the advice given to the Club by Mr Smart had been wrong (in that Mr Smart was unaware of the requirement to fulfil two seasons’ fixtures) and that as a result the DOC would accept an application next year based on one season of Saturday fixtures. He said that the DOC would be duty bound to accept such an application. At that stage, to ward off some of the concerns as to the strength of the Club’s side, Mr Williams said the DOC would place limits on the Club as to the type of players it could turn out. Such limits might be that a player in any league side would:

i. Be a bona fide student, member of staff or alumni of Brunel University;

ii. Not have signed any agreement to receive, nor has received any Material Benefit for playing or being in any way involved in the paid coaching or administration of rugby in the same season;

iii. Not have represented Brunel University in a BUCS competition match in the same season without the express written approval of the League Secretary. For the avoidance of doubt that includes all Brunel University teams playing in BUCS competitions;

iv. Not be contracted to or a member of an ASSE programme of a club playing at Level 6 or above in the ECC.

18. Mr Smart stated that the application was made to join Level 6 and that it was made to the DOC. Mr Smart accepted that there was no consultation with other Clubs. He accepted that he had not informed the Club of the requirement to fulfil two seasons of Saturday fixtures before making an application to join the leagues. In answer to questions from the Panel, Mr Smart accepted that he did not know of that requirement before deciding that he did not think the application should be allowed.

19. Mr Smart was asked by the Panel about two emails he sent in relation to the Club’s application. For completeness, those emails are set out in full below.

20. The first email was sent to the Hertfordshire Competition Committee on 6 April 2020 at 15:12:

Subject: Fwd: League application

Guys

I also circulate the application for Brunel University to enter the ECC for next season at level 6

I would ask that you please keep this application and any subsequent discussion between ourselves until we reach agreement on the way forward. There is no point agitating our clubs until we know even if it is an issue for us.

It is an extraordinary and very impressive application that will rightly terrify our clubs at the thought of having to play them

This is basically the Ealing Traifinders Professional Academy set up in partnership with Brunel University with massive sponsorship from Trailfinders. They are making the application under the name of Brunel University who as you might know have been long time members of the RFU and Middlesex. They already exist as a club who up to this point have always played on Wednesday in the BUCS league

Attached is there application, a detailed analysis of their programme, of the quality of players they have already recruited and those that they expect to recruit going forward by means of scholarships and other financial assisted packages

The fixtures/results across the last season are at the end of the Rugby Performance Programme document and show results such as a 47-17 victory against Cambridge University

As you will see in the same document done on a position basis from 1 to 15 they have six players who have already achieved some level of international recognition and the other nine were all part of Premiership Academies. Next season that increases to 7 and 8

Basically if they came in at the bottom it would devastate our leagues. It is hard not to believe from their results and the quality of player that they are going to be able to attract that even level 6 might be a bit low for them

However their application to enter at level 6 makes it easy for us to refuse them on the basis that we would have to consult all clubs up to that level and even if that happened we would have to relegate another club all the way down our leagues to find them a place

If they then applied to join the ECCs at the bottom we could still refuse them and let them appeal either decision to the RFU

6 Again I would ask that you please keep this application and any subsequent discussion between ourselves until we reach agreement on the way forward. There is no point agitating our club until we know even if it is an issue

I really cannot be dealing with what we had to put up last season with the application of Ealing Rugby 1871 until we actually have to do it

Anyway comments and suggestions

Andrew

21. The second email was sent to the DOC on 9 April 2020 at 15:19:

Subject: Fwd: League application

Guys

First of all I hope that everybody is well and keeping safe

I would be grateful for a bit of support around this application by Brunel University to join the EEC at level 6 next season. It has gone first of all via the Herts/Middx Competitions Committee but the actual application has been made out to the London DOC

Please read all the attached paperwork to get a proper appreciation of the quality of player that they currently have and expect to have going forward

My comments to my committee members are below and cover my own significant concerns. I will not enclose some of their responses but I expect that you can guess.

Paul and I have come up with a response on behalf of the DOC which is included in the attachments

First of all I would be grateful for any comments about the application and in particular if there is any support for it and secondly if you are happy with the response. I have put it on a document, from me on behalf of the DOC as the application was made by me in the first place but I am more than happy if the response was to come from David for instance as the Chairman. I have included a paragraph about an appeal but if you do not think that is appropriate again I am happy to remove or change it

If you require any further information please ask

All the best and keep safe

Andrew

22. Mr Smart stated that the email he sent to the Hertfordshire Competition Committee was not sent to the DOC. Mr Smart accepted that the first time he forwarded the Club’s application to the DOC was in his email of

7 9 April 2020. Attached to that same email, Mr Smart sent a draft rejection of the Club’s application. That letter was not amended by anyone (aside from the date) and was sent out (as set out at paragraph 8 above). Mr Smart stated that any other member of the DOC was able to disagree and provide comments in support of the Club’s application if they wished to.

RFU

23. The RFU was represented by Mr Barnes. Mr Barnes reminded the Panel that the RFU wanted as many people to play rugby as possible. However, he added that students could register for two clubs at the same time and so opportunities for students existed even if the Club did not enter the leagues immediately. Mr Barnes was assisted by Mr Kaminski. Mr Kaminski has previously chaired Divisional Organising Committees and has considerable experience and knowledge of the manner in which the RFU leagues operate. The Panel is grateful for the assistance he provided. In short, he stated that clubs do not tend to join above Level 9 or 10. An exception to that general rule may occur when a club wishes to ‘level-transfer’ from another league. Such an application is allowed where no other club is disadvantaged (i.e. there is space in that league for the new team). The Panel was reminded that the RFU Regulations exist for a reason. There have been occasions when university clubs enter the leagues and fail to fulfil a full season of fixtures. However, every case is different and needed to be considered properly on its own merits.

24. Mr Kaminski informed the Panel that there is an ongoing consultation to restructure the leagues. That consultation has been delayed due to the pandemic but is likely to be finalised in September 2020. While it is too early to state what any restructure might be, there is a possibility that the current ‘pyramid’ structure would be ‘flattened’ and that there might be opportunities for clubs to be placed at a suitable level (i.e. higher).

DECISION

25. When considering its decision, the Panel noted that it had the following prescribed powers:

Regulation 19.13.3

The Appeal Panel shall only depart from the application of RFU Regulation 13 in exceptional circumstances where the Appeal Panel is of the opinion that the application of RFU Regulation 13 has resulted or would result in a perverse and/or unfair outcome.

Regulation 19.13.4

The Appeal Panel shall (in addition to the power to give any directions necessary for the proper conduct of the appeal as set out in Regulation 19.8.4) have the power to:

(i) Allow or dismiss the appeal; (ii) Vary the decision appealed against in such manner as it shall think fit including the power to increase, decrease or remit any penalty imposed; (iii) Remit the matter, with such directions as it thinks fit, for reconsideration; (iv) Make such further orders as it considers appropriate.

8 26. In so far as this appeal was concerned (where it was said by the Club that the DOC had failed to act fairly in a procedural sense) there was no particular guidance as to the test to be applied to that question of fairness. As such, the Panel’s discretion to assess the issue of fairness was wide.

27. The Panel considered all the evidence and submissions it heard and read with care. It made the following findings, and reached the following conclusions, on the balance of probabilities:

i. It is unfortunate that neither the Club nor Mr Smart were aware of the requirements contained in Regulation 13.3.1(d)(i) (i.e. that a university club should be able to demonstrate that it had played a regular fixture list on Saturdays for over two seasons) before the Club made its application to join the leagues.

ii. The reason for the DOC’s rejection of the Club’s application was said to be twofold: (a) that no other club had been allowed to join the league at Level 6; (b) it was perceived that the Club would be too strong to play at Level 10 and there was a concern that injuries may be caused to those in weaker teams or that other teams at that level would forfeit their matches.

iii. When the DOC rejected the application, it did so without regard to the requirement in Regulation 13.3.1(d)(i). Any suggestion by the DOC that the reason it rejected the Club’s application was because the Club had failed to fulfil this requirement would be misplaced.

iv. The DOC appears to have had no concern at all at the time of its decision as to the Club’s ability to fulfil a full season of fixtures as would be required by entry into the leagues.

v. Mr Williams stated during the course of the hearing that the DOC would be duty bound, if the Club made another application next year having first completed a season of Saturday fixtures, to allow such an application. If the Club did so, the only difference between the recent application and an application made in a year’s time would be the Club’s ability to demonstrate a season of Saturday fixtures. Yet the DOC had refused the recent application without taking account of the Club’s ability to fulfil the fixtures because it had not recognised that such a strict requirement existed. This appears to drive a coach and horses through the DOC’s rationale for refusing the recent application.

vi. The decision to reject the application was driven by Mr Smart. When Mr Smart forwarded the application to the Hertfordshire Competition Committee and to the DOC, it is abundantly clear from his emails that he thought the application should be refused.

vii. Mr Smart’s email of 6 April 2020 to the Hertfordshire Competition Committee demonstrates that he thought the association with Ealing would cause the Club to be too strong and that he thought the application should be rejected as a result. However, Mr Smart had been aware of the association between Ealing and the Club from the various discussions he had had with Mr Sterry between August 2019 and March 2020. Indeed, it was Mr Smart who had advised the Club to try to distance itself from Ealing when making the application because he said the DOC would frown upon that association.

viii. Mr Smart and/or the DOC made no attempt to carry out any consultation with clubs either higher up the leagues (as required by Regulation 13.3.2(a)) or at all on the basis that the application did not have the

9 support of the relevant CBs. While the Panel accepts that an application to join Level 6 was highly unlikely to succeed (unless a place became available in the league), this highlights the manner in which the decision to reject the application was made summarily.

ix. For Mr Smart to forward the Club’s application to the DOC by email with a draft rejection letter attached was wholly inappropriate. It was inevitable that the application would be rejected as a result.

28. In conclusion, the Panel found that the process adopted by the DOC in this case fell a long way short of that which should ordinarily be expected. The DOC had no apparent regard to the Regulations which applied to this application and instead made a decision, driven by Mr Smart, that was reached without any proper regard for the principles of fairness or transparency. There was no attempt properly to assess where the Club should be placed or, if it could only be placed at Level 10, to attempt to address the concerns that the Club would be too strong for that level by properly considering potential measures to guard against those concerns. That the decision to refuse the application turned out to be correct in a regulatory sense, because of the requirement in Regulation 13.3.1(d)(i), was purely a question of luck.

29. For all the reasons above, the Panel concluded that the DOC failed to act fairly in a procedural sense. On that basis, the Panel allow the Club’s appeal.

CONSEQUENCE OF THE DECISION

30. The Panel then went on to consider what, if any, further steps it should take. In particular, it focused on whether it ought to direct that the Club be allowed to enter the RFU leagues (at Level 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10) at the start of the 2020/21 season.

31. The Panel did not find this issue straightforward. Indeed, there is an obvious desire for as many people as is practicable to play rugby. That desire is tempered only by certain constraints such as ensuring that players are able to play in a safe environment at a level that is suitable for them. The Panel approached this issue on the basis that it should direct that the Club be allowed to play league rugby if it could do so within the RFU Regulations.

32. The Panel again reminded itself that the RFU Regulations prescribe that an appeal panel should only depart from Regulation 13 in exceptional circumstances where it is of the opinion of the appeal panel that the application of Regulation 13 has resulted or would result in a perverse or unfair outcome.

33. The Panel noted Regulation 13.3.2(a) that states:

In the Season any Club applying to join the League Competition(s) must be placed in the bottom League in its Division subject to the following two exceptions:

(a) Where an application made for a variation of this Regulation is made under RFU Regulation 13.1 with the support of not only the Constituent Bodies concerned but also the Clubs in the League concerned (and the consent of the Clubs in the Leagues below) that a Club joins at a higher Level is approved by the Committee; (b) Where there has been a bonda fide corporate restructure of a Club… [this element is not relevant].

34. The Panel accepts the evidence it heard that no club has been inserted into the league structure as high as Level 6 and that it is inevitable that the Constituent Bodies and other clubs would not support such an action. To that end, the normal position is that Clubs join at the lowest level in any division. The Panel concludes that it was not appropriate to depart from Regulation 13 and to attempt to place the Club at such a high level because it could not be said that the application of Regulation 13.3.2 would result in a perverse or unfair outcome.

35. The Panel then went on to consider whether it was appropriate to direct that the Club be placed in the leagues at Level 9 or 10 (both of which, the Panel was told, had space to accommodate the Club without affecting any other club directly).

36. As has already been set out on numerous occasions in this judgment, Regulation 13.3.1(d) states that a university club must be able to demonstrate that it has completed a regular fixture list on Saturdays for over two seasons. It also states that a university must be able to demonstrate that it has sufficient number of players in residence locally to its club. The rationale behind this Regulation is obvious. Students of a university tend to be based at the university for term time only. Those terms do not necessarily coincide with the rugby season. Before a university is admitted to the leagues, it therefore needs to demonstrate that it will be able to fulfil an entire season’s fixtures. Contrary to the Club’s submissions on the point, in normal circumstances, such a requirement is perfectly reasonable given the particular context of a university rugby club. Indeed, there would be little point in admitting a university to the RFU leagues if it was then unable to play a significant number of its fixtures.

37. The Club accepted that it is not able to demonstrate that it has played a regular fixture list on Saturdays for over two seasons. In order to direct that the Club be allowed to enter the leagues at the start of the 2020/21 season, the Panel would have to depart from Regulation 13.3.1(d). As such, the Panel then considered whether requiring the Club to fulfil a regular fixture list on Saturdays over two seasons before being admitted to the leagues would result in a perverse or unfair outcome.

38. In assessing this question, the Panel took account of all the circumstances of the case, including the Club’s submissions that it was due to have a considerable number of players join the Club in the 2020/21 season and that many of those were likely to be based locally (and thus be able to play outside university term-time without having to travel too far). However, the Panel noted that the Club was (understandably) not able to predict the effect of Covid-19, if any, on the numbers of people joining the university (and, thereby, the Club). It also noted that the Club had only played seven fixtures during the 2019/20 season and that none of those matches were played on Saturdays. The Panel also noted that the Club was unable to say what effect the DOC’s proposed restrictions might have on the number of players eligible for selection if the Club was to be allowed to enter the leagues immediately at Level 10.

39. The Panel accepts that the variables here are considerable. However, Regulation 13.3.1(d) is designed to ensure so far as is possible that a university can demonstrate to a satisfactory level that it could fulfil all its fixtures before it is permitted to join the leagues. While other universities might have been able to escape these strict requirements in the past, the Panel have considered this case on the evidence before it, in accordance with the Regulations. The Panel entirely accept the genuine and credible belief held by those at the Club that the Club would be able to fulfil a full fixture list. However, on balance, taking account of all the factors above,

11 the Panel could not be satisfied on the evidence placed before it that the Club had shown that it could fulfil a full season of Saturday fixtures such that it was unnecessary for the Club to play regular Saturday fixtures over a period before being admitted to the leagues. On that basis, the Panel was not satisfied that the application of Regulation 13.3.1(d)(i) has resulted or would result in a perverse or unfair outcome. The Panel therefore concludes that it is unable to direct that the Club should be admitted to the leagues for the start of the 2020/21 season.

40. In so far as any future application by the Club to join the leagues is concerned, the Panel endorses the stance adopted by Mr Williams that the DOC would depart from the strict requirements contained in Regulation 13.3.1(d) in that the Club need only demonstrate that it has completed a regular fixture list on Saturdays for one season. This takes due regard of the poor advice given by Mr Smart to the Club and the time that the Club has lost in following that advice.

41. In addition, the Panel considers that, on any future application, the DOC should assess whether it would be appropriate to allow the Club to enter the leagues at Level 9, depending on the prevailing circumstances at the time of the application, to ensure that the Club is placed at the appropriate level. Further, any restrictions the DOC proposes to place on the players eligible to play for the Club in the league are to be made with due regard for any evidence and/or submissions from the Club on the point.

CONCLUSION

42. In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, the Club’s appeal is allowed in that the Panel accepts the DOC failed to act fairly in a procedural sense. However, the Panel concludes that it would not be appropriate to allow the Club to enter the RFU leagues until the Club is able to demonstrate that it has completed a regular fixture list on Saturdays over one season.

43. The Panel directs that the fee paid by the Club for the appeal should be returned to the Club.

Gareth Graham Chairman 22 May 2020