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.

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.

It isn't an unreasonable clause. As you have already stated.

Even if it were unreasonable it would only invalidate the NDA not the entire contract. That Hocks terms may have been covered by an NDA is at this point irrelevant because people know about it and Salford aren't suing him for breaching the NDA.

Besides your conclusions simply aren't true, you have created a false dichotomy, not only did Hock have the option of refusing the settlement agreement (for which he has and still is receiving his consideration), he was under no obligation to negotiate a contract with Leigh knowing it would break his agreement with Salford. He could have negotiated a contract with Leigh without breaking his NDA or his agreement with Salford (i.e he was under no obligation to tell Leigh why he wanted certain clauses within his contracts, clauses which would have allowed him to fulfil both contracts), he could have negotiated with Salford to release him from his NDA. Hock had many many options open to him besides the one he has taken which is to agree to an NDA, to agree to a clause, and then break the NDA and the clause.

Nor have you made any argument why it was legally unenforceable in terms of fairness or being reasonable. Simply that you do not like it.

RFL rules do not usurp the law. Hock also wasn't a player at this point.

I think you misunderstand me, should hock abide by his contract with Salford then he is fine. Should he not, by playing, they can sue him for breach of contract.

That's simply not the case. As part of the settlement of Harris contract with Leeds he agreed that should he exercise and option to leave Cardiff that he would return to Leeds. He was not a contracted Leeds player, Leeds did not hold his registration, nor was there any agreement that should Harris not return to Leeds that they would be due a transfer fee. Harris employment with Leeds had been terminated. Leeds were trying to control what Harris was doing despite him not being a Leeds player.

Harris decided that he didn't want to abide by that term in his settlement agreement, and Leeds could not stop him doing so. What they could do was sue him for breach of contract. This did not result in a transfer fee being paid to leeds nor did leeds seek a transfer fee. What they got and what they sued for was to recover the loss they suffered from Harris' breach of contract. This is what they negotiated with Bradford.

One of Harris' defence was that the term was an unfair restraint of trade, this was rejected. Whilst it was a restraint of trade, it was entirely reasonable. Harris received a consideration (release from his contract) in return for his agreement. Similarly it is entirely reasonable for Salford, in exchange for allowing Hock to break his contract AND receive payment, to insist they aren't disadvantaged by him facing them.

Hock had many opportunities and options to avoid putting himself in a situation where he signed two contracts that meant he needed to break one of them. That he didn't take any of them does not make either of them unfair.

Good on yer Pie Lad

Errr....

Did I just say that.

Oh we'll, you will be very welcome to join in our little soirée down the road at the Big Club.

Marwan is a self publicist with an ego the size of a mountain, Hock is thick and being used.

Genuinely nobody in Salford cares less if Hock plays or doesn't. The majority of us have seen pictures from his debut v Workington and the highlights reel from the Sheffield game, he looks majorly unfit and I have absolutely confidence that our set of forwards will target him and have him blowing after 20 minutes.

On a positive note, Salford are close to selling out their 2,000 allocation and sales from the Leigh end are going well too. A crowd of 7,000 is expected which is a great effort for a 5th round televised Challenge Cup game.

Has hock broken the terms of his NDA agreement - or was it the doc let that one out of the bag? As far as Im aware Hock hasn't spoken about the subject at all. Most of the noise has come from Salford with the leigh chairman chiming in more recently. He will be loving the extra publicity - more bums on seats.
Unless we see the wording of a contract then we cant really say whether the terms are reasonable or not. Leighs legal advisors have and seem happy that Hock can play as far as Leigh are concerned. whether they've advised Hock himself is a different matter.
lets face it - we all know Hock aint too bright - but then we all know that the doc is good at shouting off his mouth with no substance..... it wont happen again, I will break the salary cap, etc etc. Its all great publicity for Salford as far as Koukash is concerned - Whether that coupled with Puletua is going to affect his ability to attract players to the club - he doesn't really seem to care - he will just do what he usually does and appeal to greed.