Tbh it's not like Wigan need him really as well with the likes of Farrell, Bateman and Joel Tomkins. If he's going to be money hungry (which moving to Salford in the first place suggests he is) then a few big clubs might not bother.

Leigh fans at Halifax the other week were crowing they had signed the pair for 2016

Looks like Leigh are going for a period of stability led by seasoned professionals again next season then?

Hock and Chase, reunited to work the same magic they did at Salford...

Surely Leigh will be over the cap with all these players on the SC, I can see a Melbourne style meltdown on the horizon.

Their owner said this week that he's going to sign several more stars and take the RFL to court over the salary cap.

Did you not see Beaumont's comments in the MEN last week? He going to take the RFL to court apparently and argue that the cap is an illegal restraint of trade.

Someone needs to point out to him the bit in the RFL constitution which says that any club taking legal action against the governing body automatically forfeits its membership.

I contacted the RFL last week to ask which part of the season any points deductions would apply to for salary cap breaches - whether it would be the weekly rounds pre-split, or the Super 8s and Qualifiers. They've not got back to me yet, presumably because they've not thought it through.

Leigh (or any Championship club for that matter) could presumably breach the cap, take the points penalty prior to the split then have it wiped off when the points are reset for the Qualifiers which would be ludicrous. Likewise a SL club could lose all its points for the season for a deliberate cap breach, then reset again for the Qualifiers on a level playing field and keep their SL place.

You'd have thought that if the SC was illegal that someone would've pointed out in the last 12 years!

From what I can gather there is a suspicion that it might not hold up in court. No one has tried yet as an unsuccessful attempt would be very expensive, possibly costing millions?

You could, for instance, offer a player who was released from his previous club because of cap-pressure a contract that the RFL couldn't possibly register under SC rules. You could then offer to pay for and support said player in a case they bring against the RFL in their name and never actually bring the case yourself if you wanted to possibly get around such an issue. I'd wager a player had a far better case to bring than a club anyway.

The NZ version of a 34 years old Gareth Ellis with serious achilles injury, agreed.

Isn't Hansen from Swinton?

In what way is the player's trade being restrained, other than that they cannot possibly earn more than the cap? How a club chooses to allocate its salary cap is not determined by the rules. There is no maximum spend per player, nor is there a limit on the outside earnings a player can make from endorsements etc generated by being a professional rugby league player.

Even if there were, by signing a contract as a professional rugby league player is that player not accepting the potential restraint and the consideration that comes with it in terms of earnings?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would say you'd have a very weak case if you accepted the terms of a contract you said were restraining your trade then tried to argue that was an illegal restraint in a court of law. Given the contract is between the employer and the employee, rather than between the employee and the RFL, would any case for restraint of trade not have to be brought against the club anyway?

He went to school there, though I think he was actually born in NZ. He did play for GB at youth level.

He's Lee Hansen's son. Born in NZ but came over here as a young boy.

there is a maximum spend per player, both in theory and in practice. There are limits on players earnings from endorsements and money generated by being a professional rugby league player. It is a fact that a company, say Caddick Construction, could not sponsor a player, say Zak Hardaker, without it effecting the amount Leeds Rhinos are able to spend on the cap. That is a ludicrous state of affairs.

The point which should attract real ire, is exactly as you have spelt out here. A player, who gets no say in the agreement of the cap, is forced to abide by it if he is to practice his trade. Not only that he cannot sign agreements with outside companies who arent under the jurisdiction of the RFL, if he is to practice his trade.

If Hardaker were to be sponsored by Caddick Construction for say £100k, a figure which isnt unachievable for a player such as himself, his registration as a player of RL would be refused as it would break an agreement between Leeds Rhinos and the other SL clubs.

That is just idiotic, but it is the state of affairs we have. The legality of that is actually secondary to the idiotic nature of it.

As for who the player could bring a case against, well the say Club A offered you a contract of £400k a year, you signed and accepted that, you wouldnt have a case for anything against the employer, you wouldnt have any need to bring one. The issue would then arise when the RFL refused to accept your registration.

As i say, i dont think there would be any arguments about whether or not a Salary Cap is a restriction, and as has been said such a restriction in and of itself isnt illegal. There has long been accepted that certain sports specific restrictions are necessary. However there are many markets, parties, and different laws and principles these need to be balanced against. In principle a Salary Cap is not different to how the Football Transfer market worked prior to the bosman ruling. It was a principle, agreed between clubs and associations, imposed on players. Football still has a transfer system because they can find a way to balance the respective rights, privileges, laws, and principles for the different markets and parties and as a whole.

My argument would not be that these things can't be balanced or that a Salary Cap cannot be justified or fair or suffice every doctrine it needs to. My argument is that ours quite clearly doesnt.

Hansen would be an upgrade on Achurch imo

So would Baldwinson though

I'd rather give youth a chance than Hansen . Must be a better class we can get.let him go to Leigh

So not content with Dr Gobs**te in SL there is a follower in the championship at Leigh.

It's not going my way. I can't win every week. Whahhh whahhh whahhh.

These idiots are terrible for the sport and prioritise short term gains over anything approaching stability for clubs that are long standing parts of the community.

They disgust me and the sooner they leave the better for all.

Neither of these two appeal to me.

Leigh chairman has come out and said they've signed both Chase and Hansen for 2016.

Wonder what effect signing Chase has on Brierley's future at Leigh?

Remember when Rangi Chase was an England international and in the Dream Team.

That's quite the career decline in a short period of time, isn't it?

Thing is he could quite easily get a gig in SL if he wanted to. I know the old thought of it's a short career and you've got to make what money you can whilst in RL......but surely you want be in the top league if you can.

It's also quite a decline for Hansen too to find himself in that league. At least the likes of Chase and Hock have had a number of issue that makes them unappealing to some/most clubs but Hansen hasn't. He should still be at Wigan with the chance of winning trophies.

It looks like Leigh are trying to build a SL standard team on Championship wages and managing it being Salford's dumping ground.

Salford barely proved to be SL standard this season!! Leigh signing players from a struggling SL team will in interesting. It should help them dominate the Championship again, but can quite easily see them struggling again in the middle 8's. It would be such a shame too