It isn't difficult at all, in fact that's exactly [iwhat has already happened[/i to one Bird, G., Esq.



He does not "have clearance to play in the EU". There is no EU body (yet) competent to give such clearance.



France can admit him if it likes, but France does not (yet) issue visas for admission to Britain, and he won't get in, as his visa application has been refused. He did not appeal against the refusal so end of story. It's as simple as that.

So if he'd never bothered applying for the UK he'd have been better off?



My knowledge on this is mainly gleaned from TV, but it seems that they stop people on hunches, ask them a few questions then let them go on if their story sounds reasonably plausible. Hence that Mexican chap getting the boot because he had a 'Good luck in your new life in the UK' greeting card with him when he was reckoning on he was only holidaying.



I'm still scratching my head as to how refusing Bird either helps the UK economy (he's a skilled worker who the Bulls have little to no chance of finding an immediate replacement for) or the war on terror (or is that over now?)

Could the Bulls have not jointly registered themselves as a company in France and had Bird (and Crocker and Carney) employed from there.



I can't see that the RFL could have a rule against multi-national companies owning teams.



There is no way that the immigration authorities will refuse him entry - even if they recognise him and once he's here the fact that he's working for a French company means he won't be touched.

No, he'd still need a visa to enter from France, bein' a forriner 'n all.





But while he hasn't actually been convicted of anything yet, the Border Agency are perfectly entitled to take any relevant information into due account, and it seems obvious that he wll end up doing time - otherwise why is he called "Bird"?



Eh? EH??Answer me that!

If anything, going by the TV shows that rationale is slightly too sophisticated for them...

He got a visa to enter an EU country, therefore as a visa holder he is entitled to "work" in other EU countries temporarily for his employer.



Sorry to say it is a back door route but legitimate all the same. I don't want these double standards but maybe it is a bit of Karma.

No he isn't. A visa is per country. A visa for France doesn't permit you to enter the UK any more than a visa to enter say Poland does.



You are confused with the exemption that IF HE WERE GRANTED A VISA, he could do paid work here for 80 minutes a fortnight for his French employer.

So why didn't the bulls work out a deal with say a french RL team like toulouse. they "sign" him, we loan him. play the system

Didn't redeverready post a link that showed the terms of a french visa etc. That would be really helpful again

But seen as he "works" and is based in France wouldn't he only need his passport to enter the UK on a temporary basis? If your argument is true then surely all Catalans players MUST have both French and UK Visa's?

No. the aardvark is right. All people from outside the EU need leave to enter the UK. Catalans Aussies must satisfy an immigration officer on arrival in the UK that they qualify for entry to do what they want to do, even for a temporary stay. They don't need UK visas, just permission to enter the UK.

In my opinion, The RFL should insist that all teams agree that if a player is refused entry in to any state which has an SL team, they are refused permission to play in the comp. this could easily be written into the competition rules and would make the comp fair. It requires no action by MPs or UK border authority. If catalans dont agree to it, chuck them out!



this would not help us now, but would ensure fairness in the future!