The one thing no-one has thought of is if the player is on a match by match payment basis or an increased payment for playing then the contract would be deemed illigal under sports law as it is a restraint of trade.

The one thing ? I think there's a few.

Personally, I'm amazed that the mods are permitting this discussion at all.

Has legal action been initiated?

If not, then discussion is still allowed. And, it will be until proceedings commence. That is, should there be any.

Should proceedings be opened, then discussion is forbidden as it will be sub judice. Until then....

Not at all as then what about suspensions and being cup tied etc? All they would say is... well you knew that when agreed?

Those two examples are covered within the rules of the game, contracts are a different thing (an example is the Bosman ruling allowing out of contract players to move clubs free of charge), and hence why the RFL will not intervene.

Oh yea I agree with that, but that's how I mean Sheffield would just say 'well Barlow knew this' bit like people signing the working time directive in this country... in effect restricts how much you can earn but heh we agreed to it!

Have spent a few days researching this before commenting

Interestingly it makes no odds what is or isn't in the contract because all such loyalty (anti competitor) clauses are illegal anyway under European law. What the extract below says (from a very long article) is that every citizen has the right to work freely and can not be obstructed from doing so. Any contravention of this contravenes the individuals fundamental (human) rights

Another point to consider is that Sheffield effectively broke the agreement by allowing Barlow to play in the 9's. At that point Barlow had played against Sheffield in 2010 and the clause becomes null and void unless there is another written agreement to re-instate it. There is no legal standing in law allowing a contract to be broken by mutual consent and then re-applying it.

Sheffield's claim against Halifax is tenuous at best. Halifax are Barlows new employers but there can be no contract in place between the clubs. The claim seems to centre around influencing Barlow to break his contract. This is virtually impossible to prove. As his employer Halifax have every right to expect him to work and Barlow has every right to work under European law. Sheffield also have to show they took all reasonable steps before commencing litigation (hence the offer to settle) Unfortunately they did not seek legal advice prior to the game or apply to a judge for an injunction to stop Barlow playing. Both Halifax and Barlow will claim that this is because they had no intention of preventing him playing and were only interested in financial reward.

Potentially Sheffield could pursue Barlow for breach of contract, however there is no financial gain to be made from litigation against a part time rugby player. Sheffield also run the risk of a substantial counter claim by Barlow who can claim that the contract (release) agreement he signed contravenes The European Right to Work Act and his fundamental rights as a European citizen. Whilst Sheffield may win a small victory against Barlow financially, Barlow could sue through the European courts for "unlimited" damages.

Seperate to the legalities is the cost. Sheffield United paid out £1.8 Million in legal fees before receiving a settlement from West Ham for the Tevez affair. West Ham spent £1.2 million defending them. Both clubs would go to the wall long before the case got anywhere near a courtroom. Regardless of who won or lost both clubs would be forced to fold as neither could afford the others costs let alone settlement.

Halifax and Barlow probably didn't act in good faith but there is no legal substance for any party involved

[i]The right to work at EU level is guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 15) which stipulates

Are match fees not simply 'bonuses' no-one stops him earning a wage!

I think the club really needs to push this bitterness home next season. And by doing this i think they should come up with some one off t-shirts to generate a bit of extra income for the club for when we play Sheffield. Something along the lines of "How do you like your grapes Mr Aston? Sour?"

How about something along the lines of

Halifax RLFC vs $H€££I€LD €AGL€$ and on the back "Sue Me"

All this is very true, unless your opt out by singing an agreement. I have no axe to grind here but it is clear that SB at the very least is in the wrong, and by picking him to play when knowing about the clause HRFL could be seen to have encouraged him.

Lets just say if the boot was on the other foot you would be thinking very differently.

We don't have the spoilt brat Aston in charge so we wouldn't even be thinking about it by now.

do you reckon, at school aston was one of these kids forever running to the teacher telling tales on the other kids... you know... the ones you just want to slap