No, youre just wrong, no matter how you spin it.

The clubs may have given an undertaking not to challenge the legality of the bye-law under statute law, but it doesn't mean a case could not be brought against the RFL, and won.

IIRC correctly you can deregister an injured player, but it does so for the remainder of the season with no possibility of re-registering until the next season (I think Wakefield did it recently, or at least looked into it). So either the Maloney move isn't to make way for Tansey, or the club fancy the chances of all of our injured players returning before the season's out. I'd favour the former, as I don't expect to see Tony or Cusack again this year.

You can de-register as many as you like I believe Carl, but can only re-register a maximum of 2 of them.

Might be back for the play offs

Not sure TBH. The player can still move and sign for a club but then wouldnt be allowed to play unless another player came off, kind of like the US roster systems.

I reckon thats how its been done tbf.

No it isnt and no it doesnt.

Yup. Its in his best interests whatever the situation to go out on loan currently.

You could argue, as a professional RL player, that only allowing x number teams into the elite league, and then restricting said teams to x number of players restricts your ability to gain employment.

And by de-registering are we meaning they come off the 25? (or can you come off the 25 and remain registered?)

But surely the loophole is that it doesn't restrict your chances for employment, only of actually playing. (Splitting hairs I know, but with sport there's never a guarantee of playing, so it could as equally be argued)

That was my initial point.

Also, just of interest, does anyone have any links to the employment law documents detailing restrictions in working guidelines?

You could, but you'd get laughed out of court.

I'd not be so certain.