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?)

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

God knows what you'll think when Houghton's loan deal for next season is finalised!

Laws can often be inperpretted differently too!

Are we short of props for next season?

Dowes
Cusack
Lauaki
Radford
O'Meley
King

With maybe Moa staying too.

If we do pay off Radders and King then Maloney may stay as cover but wont regularly feature.

Dowes, Cusack and Lauaki are injured, Radford is in awful form at the moment, as is King and O'Meley doesnt come until next season. Also I would definately say that Moa will still be here tomorrow.

Or of course, you could have for some reason thought I meant for next season and not the current times

Ah, i did think you meant for next season. (mainly as you started your sentence by saying he was ooc for next season then saying we were short of props)

I have a pretty good idea where Dominic will be playing next year too

Prop?

I think people are saying we need to keep hold of Maloney because of his potential rather than his current ability, personally I've never seen him play so can't really comment.

He has plenty of ability and potential for me. However, if we have better in place i would allow him to go. If he is here as cover and wants that role then so be it. Im not fussy either way to be honest.

Yet again we let promising players go, and keep the ordinary, the guy has played well when given the chance and like Moa had good reviews from the u21.

Why do we stick with King Radford, Lee all have been given numerous chances to prove their worth, this guy has not had his, but I guess if you have ability you don't belong at our club.

Now what will our age of the pack be .

Lauaki and Radford are not props. King has already agreed a deal with another club. You are short of props next season.