So I've heard.

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.

I would.

For a start, limiting the number of teams in any given league does not preclude you from trying to gain employment. For second, the number of players at a club isn't limited - just the number of first team players.

All the rules do is make it a competitive environment.

Where are the rules captured in relation to employment?

Your interpretation of the law differs from mine.

Said the defence barrister to the prosecution.

Seems the legal 'experts' can't agree on the Law.





Anyway....Dominic Maloney anyone???

I'd hope not, I'd hope they would argue that your interpretation of the evidence what was differed, not the actual law

The fact he is out of contract for next season, or may not make it as an SL prop are irrelevant. Fact is we are short of props, and I would personally say Maloney has offered more than both King and Radford in the prop position (as well as Thackray, but hes still injured). Maloney should have played ahead of Cordoba last week as it was obvious Cordoba wasnt ready as he was battered all over the pitch.
Hall has been drastically messed about, iirc Houghton and Lee have both been dropped this season and now Maloney, and all for overseas players originally, and Agar had the cheek to say in his HDM article hes one of the biggest advocates of bringing through youth! Agar= complete joke