: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:17 pm  

danny boy wrote:

i know but if we are forced to hold these contracts we need to get someone off quota and mcgoldrick to wakey is picking up some steam especially after this.

youve been on them funny fags havent you

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:22 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

Understand why you would think that, but can’t see it myself.

It is up to individual clubs to manage their quota, not the RFL......Would guess the RFL would have sanctioned the contracts, and they presumed that you were letting other quota players go.

Would have thought that the players would 'win' any legal battle, especially as it would go above the RFL and straight to legal system employed by the UK, imho!

How can you say that when you dont have any details of whats going on, What, if any contracts have been signed

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:44 pm  

there's no proof yet any of this is true

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:49 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

Understand why you would think that, but can’t see it myself.

It is up to individual clubs to manage their quota, not the RFL......Would guess the RFL would have sanctioned the contracts, and they presumed that you were letting other quota players go.

Would have thought that the players would 'win' any legal battle, especially as it would go above the RFL and straight to legal system employed by the UK, imho!

This would seem likely as the quota rules 'enforced' by the RFL are purely a gentlemans agreement, and unless stipulated in the contract given to martin, will mean that he should legally still recieve payment

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:50 pm  

OmneFC wrote:

This would seem likely as the quota rules 'enforced' by the RFL are purely a gentlemans agreement, and unless stipulated in the contract given to martin, will mean that he should legally still recieve payment

if its true

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:52 pm  

Tell you what there's a lot of barristers posting on here of late

This must be the "Castleford Chambers" Of the Royal Courts Eh

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:00 pm  

Speedy wrote:

Tell you what there's a lot of barristers posting on here of late

This must be the "Castleford Chambers" Of the Royal Courts Eh

because the RFL rules employ a quota system which includes EU nationalities, then they cannot be legally binding, as that would break several EU laws on the free movement on labour within the Union

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:30 pm  

If he has signed for us why have the club not said owt on the web site?? can't understand we we are signing such sh*t if true.

Re: Tony Martin : Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:38 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

Only been over for 2 years. Was over for a few years ago playing for London, but think that was like 8/9 years ago.

Didn't Martin start his career with the London Broncos though, meaning he came through their academy and could technically be classed as non-federation? The only problem is that the duration of that was two years IIRC

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:29 pm  

tigerbaz wrote:

If he has signed for us why have the club not said owt on the web site?? can't understand we we are signing such sh*t if true.

is it because they dont want to announce signings whilst players are playing for other teams? gilmour and newton have been disclosed so feck knows.