how can it be a restraint of trade I think if it was that easy then the nrl clubs would have done it salford broke the rules of the comp and not just by giving someone a car they deliberated payed tp from another company and didnt declair it

Would it be unlawful to exclude a club from a competition ?

Each member club of the RFL is a signatory that they agree to abide by the Operational Rules, including this one :-

[iA1:3 Each Person Subject to the Operational Rules agrees that they waive irrevocably their right to any form of challenge, claim, complaint, appeal, review or recourse (including in relation to any dispute arising out of or in connection with the validity of any Operational Rule(s) or RFL Policies) to any state court or other judicial authority[/i

The laws of a sport have no bearing on the law of the land. Therefore the only way it could be challenged would be if it infringed on a persons right to earn. The Bosman ruling worked purely because it actually kept a player tied to a club even though he wasn't earning or under contract.
The salary cap doesn't stop a player earning as big a wage as he can get, it just restricts what a club can offer. The player can then either accept or reject that offer. No restrictions at all on the person.

1. The salary cap isn't unlawful. Anyone that thinks that is frankly a moron.

2. Let the idiot try take it to court, the RFL would then be allowed to straight up ban him and/or Salford from any RFL sanctioned competition.

The RFL should also strongly consider banning Koukash for continually bringing the game into disrepute, his numerous fines show he doesn't care about them.

NRL is Australia they have different laws.

depends on an awful lot. But to exclude Salford for not abiding by a condition that was judged to be unlawful wouldn't be a strong position to be in.

You cannot sign away your right to legal recourse if the RFL are breaking the law. The courts decision supersedes any and all conditions of RFL membership.

That same clause applies to SC as it would to things like racial and sexual discrimination. By signing that you do not absolve the RFL or the operational rules from adhering to the law.

There is a restraint on the person in both principle and practice. It does stop a player earning his market worth. If it didn't it would exist and certainly wouldn't be called a salary cap. You can't argue that it doesn't stop a player earning x amount just a club offering x amount because they amount to the same thing. If a club cannot offer x amount a player cannot earn it.

The defence of it wouldn't be that it wasn't a restraint of trade but that it was a reasonable one based on its effect on the market, players and fans, that it was procompetititve. A strong argument in theory can be made in favour of the SC on those basis. In practice, in RL, with our recent history, I think it would be a difficult one to make.

That's not true. You can sign away rights to legal recourse, an obvious example being COT3 settlement agreements between employers and employees. After an employee signs a COT3 they waive all rights to any further legal claims.

Similarly, the RFL is not compelled to accept Salford as a member. They have no legal right to membership of the RFL and can be expelled. People forget that the RFL isn't just the people at Red Hall, it is actually a collective of member clubs and by suing Salford would essentially be suing their fellow member clubs.

said employer is still bound by the law at all stages. If part of the process of the COT3 is unlawful it can be challenged.

Salford are a member. They have a contract with the RFL that forms the basis of their membership. They cannot have that membership withdrawn without good reason. Not breaking the law like the RFL wanted them to is not good reason