For Hocks sake lets hope it wasn't Chris Caisley they consulted

Hock won't play. This circus is just to put bums on seats. He'll withdraw at the 11 hour.

Cant see hock playing, would think it would have been part of severance from Salford that he can't play against them until his contract would have ended.

Either way, hope its a good game, whats parking like around there?

Do we know who the ref is for this game yet?

inb4 Joe Cobb

Phil Bentham

The official car park is free, has spaces for around 900 cars, but as there is only 1 way in or out (onto Atherleigh Way) it could take a while to get off it. If I was you, I would drive into the town centre (a579) it goes across the by-pass (fire station on the left, you need to turn right here), that you can join from the east lancs road (a580). If you have travelled this route, then after about 1 mile (shortly after Pennington Park - watch out for a sneaky speed camera on the bend) then look for either, schofield, etherstone, or diamond street (all on the left hand side and within the next 200 yards) there is a large housing estate (no permits required), with roads aslo running accross from etherstone to diamond st. IT IS A 5 MINUTE WALK TO THE GROUND. If you go over a bridge, then you have gone too far, and will be in the town centre. Safe journey.....but hope you don't enjoy the game too much (sorry couldn't resist)

RE Hock:

1. Restriction on playing against Salford = fair
2. Restriction not to discuss the terms of agreement = fair

Clause 1 + Clause 2 = unfair.

Clause 1 is something a new or prospective employer is entitled to know about.
Clause 2 says he can't tell them.

The two clauses put Gareth in a position where either he does not play again or he must break either the agreement with Salford or his contract with his new club.

I've done a lot of representation of people through employment tribunals and this one should be ruled in Gareth's favour if those two clauses do exist in tandem.

If I were Salford I'd say play him, won't make any difference.

Hock could have always not signed the settlement agreement with Salford.

That's not a defence for unreasonable contract clauses.

who's saying it would. It's the Media & Marwan who've made a 'big deal' about it all.

Just because a contract was made doesn't mean it was fair or reasonable. Just ask the banking sector.


The rules I quoted aren't regarding transfers. They're to do with contractual agreements between clubs and players. For the reasons stated, they only allow certain clauses to be included in both playing contracts and termination agreements.


You've tied yourself up in knots there. Should Hock abide by his contract with Salford then Salford couldn't sue him for breach of contract.

The situations regarding Hock & Harris are not comparable. Leeds' claim was that when Harris left Union he reverted to being a Leeds player and so Leeds were due either Harris as a player or a transfer fee for Harris. Salford are not claiming he's still a Salford player, they agreed to terminate his employment with Salford, they are trying to control who Hock plays against despite him not being a Salford player.

That is unreasonable and cannot be allowed in the sport. If Salford wanted to control who he plays against they could have simply loaned Hock to Leigh for the duration of his contract at Salford. Problem solved.