From the Salford site:

This may be old news and I've missed it,apologies if that's the case,but the League Express says that Hock has a clause in his compromise agreement that he cannot play against us until the end of 2016.
Apparently he is claiming he didn't realise it was in there.
MK could be big hearted and allow him to play,or he could enforce the clause and keep 26 players on the pitch.
I'm not worried about Leigh,with or without Hock,but MK would look stupid if he allowed Hock to play and Leigh won.

Surely he had his solicitor or at least his agent read the release agreement before he signed? I don't buy this line that Koukash "hid" the clause - it was either there or it wasn't.

He wouldn't look too clever if he refused to let him play, and further motivated Leigh for this game.

So he wants Marquee player rules to get the best players for his side, along with stopping any players who leave Salford playing against them. Wants the best of both worlds.......no surprise there then.

If he's signed an agreement to not play against Salford as part of his severance package, then that's that. I assume he wouldn't want to pay back whatever pay off he's been given to leave Salford, and Beaumont shouldn't even entertain the idea of covering that cost for the sake of 1 cup game.

Shows the difference between attitudes to player welfare between us & Salford. We release players we want to keep because it's good for their careers, like Ward & Duffy, while Salford hide clauses in the small print of the release contracts of players they don't want.
Be interesting to see just how this sorts itself out, wouldn't want to be involved with deciding what happens. From our point of view we have Hock's registration & have no agreement with Salford not to play him, Hock agreed not to play against Salford (has any released player ever agreed not to play against their former club before? (know there's been agreements between clubs but for a released player?))despite not realising this was the case (or he knew full well & deliberately mislead Leigh when he signed for us & said there was no problem). Interesting to see what happens. Think we're good enough without him anyway though.

The deal was you sign Hock with a clause in the contract or you sign Hock with no clause and pay a transfer fee. If you choose the second then you accept it or make an offer to buy the clause out.
It's almost the same as the Taylor deal at Salford Hull would not match Wigans asking fee so he goes on loan at Salford and when he becomes a free agent he goes wherever he chooses.

Bezzer this contract is nothing to do with Leigh, his contract with Leigh contains no such cause. As I understand it this was a contract connected with the compromise agreement Hock had with Salford to enable him to gain employment elsewhere and leave with some cash no doubt too. Either way this has nothing to do with Leigh. As for Hock/his agent knowing the clause was there...his agent definitely should have known. The issue that Leigh have now is surely more to do with what Hocks agent did/didn't say when his Leigh contract was drawn up.

The issue is with the compromise deal nothing to do with Leigh's contract with Gareth and we signed him as a free agent.

Having been involved in such deals they will be littered with numerous clauses and Marwan's certainly playing games. It certainly explains why his only comment on this is 'Gaz wont play' .

and all this as he said he loved Gaz and wanted him to wave farewell to the loyal 2.5k salford faithful... yet wont let him play against them for 18 months....The Doc is running scared from little Leigh...

I'm sure Gareth won't mind too much, he'll get his chance to play in the cup in the next round

Spot on Jenky' we can afford to rest a few of our lads in this cup tie..

We will win naturally

Come on Ste, it is a shrewd move by Marwan. If you were an owner of a club releasing a player of Hocks ability, would you not insert such a clause within the agreement given how promotion and relegation will be played out this season? He didn’t know at the time he was signing for Leigh, he could have been going to any other Super League or top Championship team, so I don’t think he is playing games and running scared of ‘little Leigh’.

Gareth’s legal representatives have obviously overlooked the clause, as have Leigh Centurions whom I imagine would have undertaken the necessary due diligence. It sounds like a bit of a balls up on both parts.

There was no deal between Salford & Leigh, Salford released Hock, Leigh signed him. Now it turns out there's this, as far as I know completely unprecedented, clause in his contract to leave Salford saying he can't play against them, which he (claims he) never knew about.

Has he said this Lowton Sparrow, if so, where?