That is exactly what it will be Alan. Marwan is sticking to his guns on this one, although it does seem a very 'childish' clause to put in.

rlhttps://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/9784100/rugby-league-news-salford-say-former-star-gareth-hock-cant-play-against-them-for-leigh-in-challenge-cuprl

"As part of his release agreement that he signed with us, it was agreed that he couldn't play any competitive games against us," Koukash said.

"Gareth was fully aware of that. The discussions were with Gareth and his agent and, from what I'm hearing, Leigh were made aware of the clause. It's in black and white and agreements are made to be respected."

You cant really get much clearer than that. For all Koukash knew, Hock could have signed for another Super League club and therefore the clause makes absolute sense from a Salford perspective. If we hadn't been drawn together in the Challenge Cup this clause wouldn't have ever been discussed or known of to the general public.

Wouldn't be surprised if Leigh weren't aware of the clause, certainly seemed that way. MK's quote suggests it wouldn't have been Salford that made Leigh aware of it. And why should they.

Either way, if it's in a signed contract, it should be honoured. Will be annoying if it's Leigh and Salford in the million pound game.

If its an agreement with Gareth to get released then if broken it would Gareth who is sued by the Doc - we can have a whip round to pay his fine/compensation. When Wigan released him to Widnes they dealt with Widnes so insisted he didnt play against them - different scenario.

Restrictive covenants cannot be used as a restraint of trade. Marwan would have to prove that by stopping Hock playing against them it protects his (Marwans) own business interests. I think the time period, till the end of 2016, would also make this clause challengeable

Honestly think you are better off without him in this one. He's a cracking player, I loved watching him at Salford always one of the top performers and never lacked effort. But his brain farts let him down, he'd be bound to do it against us. I wish him all the best and think he'll be the icing on the cake to make sure you are promoted this year, but you've already got enough to cause us problems without him.
Cant wait for the game, it will be a belter. Think we'll win, but I thought that last time we played you in the cup...

If he can't play then move on, concentrate on the players who can play and who probably can do without this distraction.

I do agree with reffy here. On the subject of compromise agreement clauses, its just Marwan playing God again

Yeah..I would even think if he breaks the clause on this occasion,the first thing a court would look at,is if the clause is reasonable? Indeed I think we all agree whatever clause was put in place, was put there with the Superleague in mind..Which yes would have an effect on Salfords proprietary interests.

Hock now playing in the "championship" doesn't effect Salfords proprietary interests. Seeing the Challenge Cup is a ball out the bag competition and neither club has control over that,I'd deem the court would find the clause unreasonable in this situation.

On a more soften note, if the clause was put in place for a superleague point of view,and the Doc is enforcing it against us,shows to me Salford have a very worried back-room staff..

IIRC we had a similar clause for Tim Smith last year, which we relaxed when playing Wakey. Low and behold he has a stormer and they stuff us, scuppering our top 8 ambitions. So I can see why we wouldn't want to tempt fate.

Like everyone else on here I am not privy to the agreement around which this dispute is centred. However, as I see it - and providing the RFL confirmed that playing Hock was not contravening the competition rules - if he was to play against Salford his former employers would need to take action against the player (not Leigh Centurions) for "breach of contract".

This action would be determined in accordance with English Law and would examine the release agreement - if indeed one such exists. For that agreement to have been valid, in return for the inclusion of a "can't play" clause there must have been 'consideration' e.g. a golden goodbye payment or a release from paying certain sums due under his original contract when he signed for Salford . The courts would look at this and determine their reasonableness or otherwise. It should mean, however, that the amount of any "damages" would be known at this point and a decision could be taken as to the value for money or not of playing him in the cup tie.

Never knew there were so many employment lawyers in Leigh - can't wait for the court case

When words like 'Court' & 'English Law' come in to the equation then it gets expensive, are we so desperate for him to play? Move on.