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.

A decent walk up will see a gate over 8000 with over 7000 presales tonight

Very few people know what was written as part of the severance agreement.
Usually, when a contract of employment is ended there is no clause preventing the employee working for any other organisation. If Salford wanted to prevent Hock from registering with another club, they would normally have to take the option of "gardening leave" - ie continue to pay him but not require him to fulfil his duties. However, often employees can then claim constructive dismissal as they are being prevented from undertaking their duties.
The idea of inserting a clause in a severance agreement that prevents an employee disclosing any restrictions on his future employment (ie not allowing Hock to tell future employers he cannot play against Salford) is interesting and one I have never seen before. My gut reaction is that Hock (and his advisors) would need to be extremely naïve to accept it, and Salford would be naïve to think it's enforceable.

So that makes the east stand open I presume, great stuff - enjoyed it in there against Bradford

Paul Rowley on Serious About RL: SARL : There's been alot on social media , especially between Derek (Beaumont) and Marwan Koukash , about the game tomorrow if Gareth Hock does play tomorrow will the club back him if it ends in court? PR : It's an easy one really , the official document actually says that Gareth Hock can't play for Salford City Reds against Salford Red Devils it's that poorly written that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it ends up in court, the threat is to stop the money that is due to Gareth Hock as part of the compromise agreement , it isn't a large amount of money well not for a billionaire. Gaz will play tomorrow. www.seriousaboutrl.com/1/post/20 ... voice.html That's so funny if it's true!

Paul Rowley on Serious About RL: SARL : There's been alot on social media , especially between Derek (Beaumont) and Marwan Koukash , about the game tomorrow if Gareth Hock does play tomorrow will the club back him if it ends in court? PR : It's an easy one really , the official document actually says that Gareth Hock can't play for Salford City Reds against Salford Red Devils it's that poorly written that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it ends up in court, the threat is to stop the money that is due to Gareth Hock as part of the compromise agreement , it isn't a large amount of money well not for a billionaire. Gaz will play tomorrow. www.seriousaboutrl.com/1/post/20 ... voice.html That's so funny if it's true!

I have come across such contracts preventing people for working for other organisations. Ive come across it in sales, where reps aren't allowed to work for similar organisations so customers can't be taken by rivals, and also where employees are involved in aspects of research and developmemt. To prevent someone from admitting that he has such a clause is just bizarre!
Either way- I think marwan has come out of this looking, at best petty at worst clueless.

You're right clauses restricting working for another organisation happen in certain industries but it's unheard of in British RL. Because the clauses a club can attach to a severance agreement are limited by the RFL, and IIRC no such clause exists in the list of acceptable clauses.
It's also because it's unnecessary. If Salford wanted to restrict Hock playing against them all they had to do was loan him to another club.

Isn't a crucial point in the Hock severance deal the fact that Salford are continuing to pay him?
It would then be a tad odd if you were paying an opposition player to play against yourself!

Barton who drew up and proof read the settlement agreement then. Marwan won't be happy and I quote.

.....unable to play for Salford City Reds against Salford Red Devils......

That's assuming we believe that was actually written?

Highly unlikely Paul Rowley would be involved in fabrication of this. Marwan even intimated this was the case on twitter. Believe what you like.

Some dodgy refereeing in this game already.

Patterson should've been shown red imo.
Barlow in the bin.
Taylor gets smashed on the jaw and it's a knock on?

I thought Wayne Godwin had retired??
Patterson very lucky not to see a card IMO