Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"It is a restraint of trade. But by definition every contract is a restraint of trade. The question is is it an unreasonable one. The answer there is clearly not. There was a fair agreement between the two parties . Hock got an early release from his contract and some severance (something Salford weren't obligated to provide) and Salford protected themselves from being disadvantaged by his decision to do that. Salford are perfectly able and justified in protecting their interests. There is also nothing within the operational rules to stop Salford having an agreement with Hock that he would face them until the end of his contract with them.
Salford have no right or recourse to stop Leigh picking hock, their agreement is with Hock. Should Hock choose to break his agreement with Salford he would be liable for any loss and compensation necessary arising from that. Hock would be, without a doubt in breach of contract with Salford. The decision is entirely with Hock. Leigh cannot force him to break his terms with Salford their recourse would be he presented his employment with them originally under false pretences.'"
It most definitely is unreasonable for Salford to release Hock (and his registration) but then put conditions on his registration by other clubs.
Salford are most likely in breach of the Operational Rules by placing such a clause in the termination agreement. This isn't like any other job like you or I would have. There are set terms and conditions by which players can be employed and also by which their employment can be terminated.
[i
Section C1:Players
The purpose of these rules shall be:
...
(b) To ensure the integrity and fairness of competitions;
(c)To encourage Clubs to develop, train and educate young Players without unreasonably restraining Players from moving freely between Clubs;
(d) To ensure that Players have security of contract and that Clubs have security of squad available to them to ensure that the competitions can take place in an orderly manner.
These regulations are to be interpreted and applied by reference to and in a manner that advances their purpose as set out above and when an issue arises that is not expressly provided for in these Operational Rules the interpretation and application shall be consistent with the purpose of these Rules.
C1:1:7 Players’ agreements may be terminated by Club or Player in accordance with the procedures for termination as set out in the Standard Player’s Agreement from time to time and there shall be such rights of appeal as set out in the Standard Player’s Agreement.
C1:1:8
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAUSES
C1:1:9 Other than clauses from the Supplemental Clause Bank, no additional clauses may be inserted into a Player’s Full-time or Part-time Contract and no additional agreements may be entered into between a Club and a Player (or any Relative or other associated party of a Player or any Related Party of a Club) with the intention of amending the terms of a Full-time or Part-time Contract or the rights of a Player under a Full-time or Part-time Contract (including the salary payable) or which ultimately have the same effect on the Player. [/i
You cannot have clubs releasing a player and then deciding who he plays for. Salford can try to pursue Hock if he plays but I reckon they'd come up against anti-competition and sports laws and any financial benefit they may receive if they happen to win such a case against would be very much offset by the financial implications of breaking the Operational Rules and a fine or worse from the RFL.
Not to mention it appears as if they are about to be sued by Puletua. This kind of reputational damage won't help them get top players.
