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

Why, because Derek says?

It would be best if this topic was allowed to come to a conclusion.

It will on the 18th one way or another. Until then it's not really concluded is it!

I don't know if we'd want Hock to play but this ridiculous clause needs sorting now. If Salford end up in The Qualifers (don't think they will but if), the last thing we want when trying for promotion is all this again. Same if we do win promotion this'll all go on next year when we're trying to stay up if it's not sorted now; it's not just the unprecidented situation it's how long it goes on for too! Best to get it sorted now.

Unless he's trimmed his gut by the CC match I can't see him making a positive impact against SL opposition anyway. If he is picked, I'll be amazed if he gets through the match without picking up another ban. Struggling to see the positives for Rowley picking him and I actually expect he won't do after all this anyway. He'll probably have picked up some sort of 'hamstring injury' to save a bit of face. I genuinely believe Leigh have a better chance without him on the pitch and I reckon you'll beat Salford without him.

Would agree if the game was being played this weekend, but if he goes well today, then will be picked next week (if available).

Re: Derek's post on banter page, really only says that his lawyers back his case up, will only reach a conclusion once both sets of lawyers can reach an agreement. Even if Hock sits this game out, need to sort out what would happen if we both make middle 8s.

More worried about today's game to be honest. A cup run is always nice, but lose today, and there's a 3 way tie for top spot.

That only works if Bulls win and that's not a given.

Sheffield have won all their home games. They have some good players. Their full back and left centre in particular are decent.

Overall, Leigh have the much better side so should win on paper. But mentally the Eagles will be up for it and Leigh need to match that first, otherwise game might get away from them.

I'm still backing our lads though.

I'll be there too.

Bit worried about today's game......come on Leigh !!!!!

Your probably right,but do we need these sort of agreements in our game without a governing body to oversee them? If know one stands up against them,then we are all allowing this to happen in every club,and the RFL just becomes a mockery.