Quote tvoc="tvoc"I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. '" So it does. The article says "There has been a long-standing objective to encourage the production of more players qualified to play for Great Britain". That does not say there will no be exemptions. Maurie Fa'asavalou will be exempt. He qualified and qualifies for GB (and England). How would YOU treat him? The whole gist is about encouraging clubs to produce more of their own players, not on reducing quota limits. "The RFL also wants to introduce measures to encourage clubs to produce more of their own players" Quote tvocAnd a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697'" Not at all. They have fulfilled their intentions. We have a quota system which now sets minimum requirements for club trained players. That was their stated intention throughout. The article you link to simply demonstrates that the way the RFL had initially tried to go about that was unjust, unfair and illegal. So they have adopted the present regulations, which fulfill their stated intention of ensuring clubs produce more home grown players. "take the case of New Zealander Robbie Paul, who played Academy Rugby League for Bradford on his arrival from his home country and was trained over here from the age of 17 years. Under the current RFL Rule he would have been treated as a Federation trained/Academy player and free from restrictions, whereas Simon Finnigan, a British subject, was caught by the Rule" You seem to want to criticise Leeds for not adhering to a quota limit that was never actually introduced, was shown to be illegal, illogical and unjust despite the fact that Leeds have, for some time, set the benchmark in achieving what it was always the RFLs intention to force other clubs to do, produce their own players. Bizarre.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. '" So it does. The article says "There has been a long-standing objective to encourage the production of more players qualified to play for Great Britain". That does not say there will no be exemptions. Maurie Fa'asavalou will be exempt. He qualified and qualifies for GB (and England). How would YOU treat him? The whole gist is about encouraging clubs to produce more of their own players, not on reducing quota limits. "The RFL also wants to introduce measures to encourage clubs to produce more of their own players" Quote tvocAnd a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697'" Not at all. They have fulfilled their intentions. We have a quota system which now sets minimum requirements for club trained players. That was their stated intention throughout. The article you link to simply demonstrates that the way the RFL had initially tried to go about that was unjust, unfair and illegal. So they have adopted the present regulations, which fulfill their stated intention of ensuring clubs produce more home grown players. "take the case of New Zealander Robbie Paul, who played Academy Rugby League for Bradford on his arrival from his home country and was trained over here from the age of 17 years. Under the current RFL Rule he would have been treated as a Federation trained/Academy player and free from restrictions, whereas Simon Finnigan, a British subject, was caught by the Rule" You seem to want to criticise Leeds for not adhering to a quota limit that was never actually introduced, was shown to be illegal, illogical and unjust despite the fact that Leeds have, for some time, set the benchmark in achieving what it was always the RFLs intention to force other clubs to do, produce their own players. Bizarre.

Where was this "unforseen action of the courts"? The Finnegan article you have provided says explicitly that the courts were not involved and that the RFL accepted that there would have to be exemptions without the matter going to the courts. So it either didn't go to court, or if it did, it can hardly have been unforseen.



And, if the RFL have accepted that exemptions are necessary, as they have, or, if they have been told by the courts they are necessary (which I don't think they have) how on earth will they "get their quota limits"? Will they suddenly not accept the necessity for exemptions or will they ignore this unforseen action of the courts you appear to have invented?



I repeat, the present regulations, introduced by the RFL, are what the RFL had intended to introduce. They carry a minimum requirement for home grown players which didn't exist before. They place a restriction on non federation trained players but accept the necessity, legally and morally, for exemptions to those restrictions.



As far as I am aware, they do not accept exemptions to the minimum quota of home grown players, thus re-emphasizing their intentions were always such and nothing to do with quota restrictions.

If it was foreseen by the RFL I wonder why Finnegan was initially designated as non fed trained which resulted in the player seeking professional advice and having the RFL's ruling overturned.







By reducing the non federation trained quota year on year from 2008 to 2011. The exemptions will not apply as they do now to players who were already under contract in the SL pre 2008 when they were introduced. Over time there will be a reduction in non fed trained players and the RFL have already reported a 6% fall in numbers when looking through the squad lists for the 2008 season. I don't know what has happened since then percentage wise and Leeds for one have increased their reliance on the antipodean contingent in the short term but that will reduce as the exempt players return down under.







The requirement of including home grown players increases year on year as the non fed trained quota reduces year on year. If as you say Leeds currently have room on the quota then that is because of the exemptions given to Webb, Donald, Leuluai and Lauitiiti in 2008 as they were already a part of SL when the new quota was introduced, after Gene had challenged the new system with regards to existing non fed trained players already here. When those players leave, Leeds for example will not be able to replace them like for like with 'non fed trained' unless they have quota spaces available within the reduced limit or can find other exempt players who will be comparitively rare. So the numbers of non fed trained will reduce eventually and I imagine that is what Nigel Wood was getting at when he said it will take a while longer than they had initially hoped or words to that effect.

I repeat, where was this unforeseen action by the courts you spoke of?



Very interesting.



Now, why have Leeds exposed any "loopholes" exactly?



I repeat, Leeds have worked within the guidelines set and are under the present quota. When the players you mention leave I am certain Leeds will continue to operate within the quota, as they presently do under its' present format.



So, just what were you being critical of Leeds for doing again? Oh yes, operating within the quota and the criteria set down by the RFL at present.



Hmmmm.

In 2008 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2009 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2010 Leeds have exceeded the original quota the RFL set www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 They are able to exceed the quota presumably because of the exemptions granted (again presumably) to Webb, Donald, Leuluai and Lauitiiti in 2008. Those exemptions came about after Gene challenged being placed on the non fed trained quota and won his argument with the RFL which led to the wholesale lifetime exemption of 'overseas trained' players that were contracted in SL in 2007. I'm disappointed that the SL Champion club have more overseas trained than the new system was intended to allow in 2010 especially considering the allowance started at ten.

In 2008 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2009 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2010 Leeds have exceeded the original quota the RFL set www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 They are able to exceed the quota presumably because of the exemptions granted (again presumably) to Webb, Donald, Leuluai and Lauitiiti in 2008. Those exemptions came about after Gene challenged being placed on the non fed trained quota and won his argument with the RFL which led to the wholesale lifetime exemption of 'overseas trained' players that were contracted in SL in 2007. I'm disappointed that the SL Champion club have more overseas trained than the new system was intended to allow in 2010 especially considering the allowance started at ten.

So why haven't they been sanctioned? Because they haven't exceeded it. You cannot rationally consider a quota and ignore exemptions written into that very same quota.



It would be like you complaining that Leeds players being given a the prize money from last Sunday meant that we had breached the salary cap despite the fact that the RFL regulations exclude such payments from the salary cap.



You're complaining about us breaching a rule that we haven't breached. We might have breached it had exemptions (for all clubs) not been put in place. But back here in reality they have been put in place so we haven't breached it.



Erm, if a player is exempt from the quota how on earth can that player count on the quota? Hence they have not exceeded the quota.



Thanks for that. So, to recap there are players who are exempt from the quota, do not count on the quota and therefore Leeds have not exceeded the quota.



Well perhaps you should consider the glass is half full and be proud of the number of club trained players Leeds have been producing for many years that have gone on to play for GB/England. Because that was what the new system was intended to make other clubs do. Follow our lead as it were.



Then again, how disappointed are you really? Bearing in mind you have already expressed the view before a ball was kicked (and repeated it again despite the WCC failure) that this is a greater squad than last years' squad (which had one less overseas trained player) that disappointed you en route to a record 3rd consecutive final.

No-one is saying that Leeds have done anything illegal with regards the quota.



The quota on overseas players was increased from 3 to 10 between 2007 and 2008. Was the RFL trying to triple the number of overseas players in SL, no they were trying to reduce the numbers. Gene successfully challenged his being designated 'non fed trained' and that led to the wholesale exemption of every non fed trained player in SL as of 2007. So a player such as Donald went from quota to non quota overnight, not by the RFL's design but by the RFL's incompetence. Was it the RFL's intention for this to happen? or another fiasco to add to the Wigan eight point deduction that never was.



I believe this to be the strongest squad Leeds have assembled for some time with the addition of quality in Delaney and Eastwood together with potential in Amor and Pitts (if the coach decides to use them.) I would still hold that opinion had Donald not been re-signed and one of Broughton/Watkins/Jones-Bishop been promoted from within in his place as I advocated last season. And had Leeds done that (Donald being the last of the non fed players to sign on for 2010) they would have also remained within the quotas as the RFL had intended them to be.



Just because the rules allow you to do something doesn't always mean you have to or necessarily should. MP's erecting duck houses at the tax payers expense comes to mind here.

So what are you saying?





So you want to criticise Leeds for not adhering to a rule the RFL wanted to bring in but would have been incompetent in doing so. yet you're unhappy Leeds have complied with the sensible rule that was eventually brought in? Rrrrrrrriiiiiiight. How dare leeds no abide by the incompetent rule the RFl sensibly abandoned.



yet they couldn't regain the WCC, something you were very critical of last years' record breaking 3rd consecutive championship squad for not doing. Personally, i will wait and see what they actually achieve before I deem the greater than last years team.



Will you still hold that opinion if they win nothing and will you still be critical of the strength of the record setting squad from last year?



The incompetent quota that they rightly abandoned? Are there any other imaginary rules not in force you would like to see Leeds adhere to?



I think my WCC prize money/salary cap analogy was more on point and note you haven't addressed it, or indeed, this Court case that made the RFl see sense.

The homo-erotic tension on this thread is almost unbearable.



Still not sure who is the giver and who is the taker.

I reckon they swap ends at half time.

Will you two please stop using such big words, it's fking with my head.

Wouldn't surprise me at all.



The image I'd got was of tvoc letting Gareth finger him whilst the former has a good suck on the latter's mamaries.



(Nothing to do with this thread - its just an image I like to think of.)

I'm waiting for one of them too break into a song like West Side story

It takes longer than 15mins to walk round G1











Sorry, sorry mate, couldnt resist.

If that happens I want to witness it. I can then die a fulfilled man.

I don't think it was sensible to have an increase in the quota from 3 to 10 and then exempt every overseas trained player in SL in 2007 but I don't think that was the RFL's (with the support of the SL clubs) intention either. That situation only came about when challenged by Gene and he won the argument.







Do you think Leeds have assembled a stronger squad in 2010? That's all I've said.



Whether that produces a stronger team is a seperate matter altogether and like you I will await further evidence as to whether the pieces fit together.







Of course. The squad is I believe stronger than the one assembled in 2009. That is irrespective of what this squad go on to achieve in 2010. Leeds are not an island and their chances of retaining trophies (or adding new ones) will be affected equally by many forces beyond their control. The improvement of other squads, the quality of coaching, hunger for success (which may well be greater), a referee's decision, a video referee's decision, a bounce of the ball, fate.



As a general point are you happy to see Leeds' reliance on oversees trained increasing?

Think "Ollie Reed and Alan Bates in Men in Love".

Have you two been battling it out off board?



You have both gone missing at the same time for a long period.

No, it was the RFLs stated intention to increase the amount of GB/England qualified players each club produced. the limits set (which haven't altered for that) are limits Leeds were and always have been exceeding. In fact, the RFLs intention was to force other clubs to do what we had been doing all along.



Unless you think the RFL are a bunch of BNP voting zealots who want to drive "bloody foreigners" out of our game?



Did it? Is this that mysterious Court Case you mentioned but won't expand upon?



The only way to judge that is seasons end, based upon what they have achieved. That is what I have always maintained.



How do you define stronger? If, for example, Eastwood had "done a Mullins" and barely played and been garbage would you consider the squad stronger because a player like him has a better pedigree than a player like, say Worrall, regardless of what they actually do for us on the pitch?



In your opinion. Ah, we're in that realm again where strength doesn't bear any correlation with what they actually physically achieve. Its' the same realm where Leeds get criticized for not adhering to rules that were never introduced. Has Gotcha stolen your login details?



Quite, which is why, unlike you, I wasn't prepared to deem last season as a failure because of what manly and Saints did in one off games. Very little criticism from you of this season's "strong" squads' failure to reclaim the WCC still I note.



Can't answer that when I don't accept the premise that Leeds have a reliance that is increasing.



I can say that as a general note I am pleased to see Leeds continuing to develop young British Talent like BJB< Watkins and Tom Bush and am pleased the RFLs new regulations are finally forcing other clubs to follow our lead. Its' something any self respecting leeds fanshould be proud of, especially one who would never tip against the club they profess to hold dear.

I'm back and even left a little snippet for you in my latest offering.



I do occasionally do some work you know.

It's like the Magic Roundabout this thread, only without the Magic.

"Women in Love", surely but I understand the point you're making.

Was a freudian slip

On a Friday? Who you trying to kid?

Hey, some important high rollin Clients came in.



I had to make the coffees.