If Salford are still paying part of his salary you would expect them to have a clause saying he can't play against them, don't know why it needs to be so cloak and digger with a secrecy clause though, opens up for these type of problems

Salford knew of the agreement----- Hock and his agent knew of the agreement----- Leigh didn't know of the agreement. If he plays he faces legal action from Salford. If he doesn't play he faces legal actio from Leigh. I feel a slight thigh strain in training coming on! Problem solved.

Trouble is, these clauses would normally be between two clubs and a player, as part of a transfer or loan deal. This is a contract between a club and a player that they don't own the registration for.

It's something that the RFL should rule on, as they should be in charge of what players are eligible to play in games. If you take it to it's extreme, what happens if Leigh were to make an approach to a player at another club, not to sign him, but to pay him a monthly payment in return for refusing to play against us?

As for the secrecy clause, that's just ridiculous.

I agree just saying you could understand Salford not wanting someone playing against them who is still on the payroll, truly ridiculous situation tbh

Paul Rowley - "Salford fans will give him a warm welcome" I don't think they will after allt his. You don't keep receiving payments from our club, agree not to play against them then go against any such agreements.

Gaz will get his fair share or stick, no doubt about it. All adds to what should be a firey atmosphere!

Rowley said that tongue in cheek. He knows full well what kind of reception Gaz will get.

I'm sure we all know too.

Yes but he is still receiving payments because Salford refused to pay him his severance money in a lump sum therefore not entirely breaking that link. You could have kept him in the reserves for 2 years. Please name one other rugby league club that has ever done this type of thing. No club these days will stand in the way of a players wishes.....except yours of course. Yes RL is a business, but it is also a sport and Marwan would do well to remember that.

This is standard practice with the majority of rugby league clubs, particularly in the NRL and is the reason why most Super League teams can afford the players which they have. One of MANY examples is Terry Campese, who agreed a severance with Canberra from his contract to sign with Hull KR. Canberra are continuing to pay Campese as a wage throughout 2015.

It makes perfect business sense, who in their right mind would pay an initial lump sum payment if it could be spread over x amount of months?

Demon, you need to get off your anti-Koukash horse and accept the fact that the only person in the wrong in all of this is Gareth Hock. He signed and understood the agreement, end of.

I would question whether he understood it!

I am sure Gareth has reasonable legal representatives, at least ones who are able to read a severance agreement. I have no doubt he understood it. The reason he most probably didn't mention it to Leigh was because he didn't think it would be an issue, he couldn't have envisaged we'd be drawn against each other just weeks later.

In addition to all of this, surely Derek Beaumont asked his own legal guys to review the severance agreement before signing Hock?

I wonder how many pages his severance agreement covered ?

Salford are running scared imo.

Somebody missed the obvious

I don't disagree about Gareth and the agreement. I am glad that Leigh will not be the subject of any legal action. The question the judge would have to decide on is are the clause/causes fair. My views (to which I am entitled) on Marwan will unfortunately remain unchanged until he stops acting like he is superior to everyone involved in RL.

PS You signed Tomkins then?

Payments from a club that you no longer play for may be commonplace, however, eligibility to play in games should be a matter for the RFL as the governing body.

As I said before, what's to stop us offering contracts to Salford players, not for their registration, but to refuse to play against us. Allowing clubs to negotiate terms on availability with players they no longer hold the registration for is effectively third party ownership. RFL need to clearly state if such a thing is valid.

I doubt it. I don't see where he would fit into our team, as we already have Locke and the emerging Niall Evalds at full-back and of course the magic man that is Rangi Chase at 6. I would be amazed if he went anywhere other than Wigan.



Because surely they have an existing contract with Salford which I assume prevents any such offers being made? Difference is Gareth at the time of the agreement only had a contract with Salford.

But Hock has 2 contracts now.

Technically he has one contract and one agreement

Either way, my point was that if you can have an agreement that has implications on availability to play, on top of a contract, then there is a 3rd party ownership issue that the RFL should clarify the validity of. If not for this case, then for future agreements

I wonder what the level of damages would be if Koukash did sue Gareth for playing in the game? Would it be potential loss of earnings from future Challenge Cup games etc? Or would it just be the remainder of his severance deal. I genuinely don't know - but could be costly.

Both of those things seem to be paying him money though.

The contract & agreement would have been fine - [iwithout the sodding secrecy clause![/i It's the secrecy that messed things up.

So - I assume he was on £z at Salford. Leigh offered him £x and he took it as he knew he was on £y from his severance agreement from Salford which made up the difference. If he plays, I would assume he would lose his severance payment. Leigh will be unwilling to fund the difference as they have salary cap to consider and they also have no legal reason to. Mr Hock & his representatives have made this bed, and will have to lie in it.

I agree with the poster a few above - I think a slight "hammy" is pending for Mr Hock in training next week....

Imagine the solicitors of both chairmen are suggesting both extremes in terms of how costly it will be. Which is why the solicitors will be the biggest winners.

RFL should get involved, if they haven't already. Crazy situation, and getting quite boring now......

No need for the RL to get involved.

Leigh will win easily wether Hock plays or not.

Just shows you how worried Salford are imo.

Why would you play Hock at all against Salford. The damage to the player financially and he could start to disappoint because of it. Hope he is not being advised by people that have nothing to lose.

Leave him out and get on with it.

Interesting post from Derek on Banter page .
Think Salford have lost this one