There's a third...

I'm all for blooding the young ones, and all against overseas dross, but there's an argument for somewhere in between.

My country plays 4 (Maybe 5?) competitive games a year, and costs me £0.00 to support. My club plays at least 28, possibly 37 with a WCC, PO/GF & CC run, and costs me over £2000 a year to support. As a person, and a fan, I would much rather see quality week in, week out, than once an October for 4 games.

If there were two players with very similar stats for a season, except one is 20 and English, and one is 35 and Oz, then clearly, you'd have to be an idiot to not want the 20 y/o Brit. I also agree that signing "overseas dross" is not a good thing, but I'm far from against signing an overseas player if he's right for the job and what the club needs.

Take our new prop... The requirements for the job role was an experienced powerhouse forward, hard hitting, high work rate, solid tackler with a proven track record guaranteed to strength the pack.
Does Cross fill that role? Yes
Would Lynch fill that role? Yes
Would promoting Ambler? No
Was Lynch available? Clearly not.

So as a club, Leeds have to go with who best fits that role, it just turns out he's Australian.

Take our new hooker... Promoting McShane to 2nd Hooker suits the club. It also happens to help the International game in 2 years time but that is very much a bi- product.

GH & the board are running a business. As owners of a business their absolute paramount priority and responsibility is to keep the people spending the cash on the gate TODAY happy, and to endeavour to keep the people spending cash on the gate coming back and spending the cash next season too. Not to help England beat the Australians in 2015.

Does anybody really, REALLY think that GH will be sat watching the 2013 WC, in 3D on his new TV, from his villa in Spain thinking, "If only I'd promoted Ambler instead of signing Cross 2 year ago we'd have scored that try!" (Yes I know Ambler is playing for Ireland but the point still stands).

It's all about the business, and short income & bums on seats and not at all about the long term development of the national team, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Sounds like you are "Club" and not "Country" to me. The thing we need here is patience. If we could get the club chairmen to see beyond the next two or three years to set up a proper feeder programme for young British talent then we can have a strong and vibrant Club game and a better International side. This only works if the Club Chairmen all agree to stop signing the "space fillers" from overseas and give the kids a chance.

Yes but the Club Chairmen don't make any money out of us having a better International side do they?

If anything they lose money. As a CLUB Chairman, Internationals are neutral at best. Certainly on the negative side of neutral more so than the positive. You ask Alex Ferguson how he feels about having a team full of Internationals, all it does is increase the risk of injury, increase the amount of time away from the club, and possibly mean you're going to get a lower crowd turn out if star players are away or injured.

There's no doubt that somebody in Dramaball is getting rich out of Internationals, but it's more likely to be the TV execs and certainly isn't the Club Chairmen. RL would be the same if our International game was as big. Thus, no incentive whatsoever for the Chairmen to give two shiny $hites about the long term development of International RL.

Well said. The problem lies in that there's a lack of young talent that's good enough to make it in superleague and internationally. Is that the sole responsibility of the chairman of each club? I think not.. It's the game as a whole and there's not enough young kids playing rugby league at school level.. the reserve grades are poor.. and possibly coaching is not as good as it should be at junior level?

I agree with the above - sadly there is a major flaw in your arguement - the most important revenue stream to the club is TV monies - without a viable international the sport will never command the revenues the likes of RU and cricket get. We will never have a viable international game until we increase the pool of GB eligible players playing in the elite comp.

Soccer is different where the club game is what TV is paying for - but you only have to look at the dismal display by England in the world cup to see what happens when you fill your domestic comp with overseas players

The TV revenue is purely based around how club perform. Huddersfield have the majority of England internationals. Wigan won the league. Who do you think will appear more times on TV next year? Wigan or Huddersfield? Who has been the most televised club over the last 3 years? Leeds by a long chalk. Sky aren't going to put Leeds on TV more because we chose to promote Ambler instead of signing Cross (theoretically, not specifically).

I know what you're saying, and totally get the point, you're saying that without anybody at all paying any attention to the international game, the whole game (including domestic) will eventually suffer. But the key word there is EVENTUALLY. As I mentioned before, short term profit, short term bums on seats.

Nobody really cares about where things go after they're dead. Some people might say they do, but nobody does really. Would the country be in the state it's in now if the people in charge had made any attempt whatsoever to plan for "eventually"?

This attitude is the reason why England / GB will be just as far behind the Aussies / NZ in another 40 years as they are now. It smacks of "I can see the problem, but I just don't care enough to do something about it".

Shame really, as when you take away the International game, we will fail to attract new teams to the game as they won't be able to attract players from other predominantly RU towns and thus when you take this argument to it's end, we finish up with the small parochial sport that all the media currently claim we are.

For the record, I'm firmly in the Country over Club category, along with GH and precious few others it seems...

On Ambler, I watched him play for Ireland last Sunday. He played about 70 minutes in the back row and didn't look out of place, albeit in a poor quality game.

FWIW Andy Kelly thinks he's !

That same small parochial sport that I love to go watch week in, week out and that I can afford to go watch week in, week out.

That same small parochial sport where you can share a beer with your favourite player, or approach them in the White Rose and get them to sign your kids top.

That same small parochial sport where the players aren't plastered all over the front page taking Birthday trips to Dubai, complaining that £150k per week "isn't enough", or sleeping with X-Factor judges and page 3 models (at the same time!

), or crashing their £1m Ferrari's into bridges, or falling over if another play breathes on them.

That same small parochial sport where the players actually care more about putting in a decent performance than they do waiting for the wage packet.

That same small parochial sport where the fans manage to go to France to watch a game and come home without stabbing anybody.

The ONLY thing wrong with RL (in my opinion) is that sometimes the Aussies hammer us. You know what... I can deal with that just fine thank you.

I think its just the two of you actually.

In fact I suspect that when it comes to the crunch you might be on your own.

Look at the most successful enterprises you know and they will be the ones who have sacrificed short term gain over long term prosperity - that's why you should always think long term. Investment is the key - it takes years to get returns back on strategic investments but when they start coming in they follow the Boston Matrix.

Taking a left-field perspective, I wonder in the current era of globalisation whether contests between nation-states are actually a bit outmoded. The domestic game is clearly healthier in both hemispheres so why not just replace internationals completely with an expanded and meaningful WCC competition? There would certainly be more popular support for this at a grassroots level, and would encourage the quality of RL to increase in the UK by removing barriers for the best players to be employed regardless of nationality. I'd argue that the current fixation with nationality in RL is unhelpful - clubs should be able to employ the best players regardless of the passport they hold or where they trained. When has international RL ever been a big money spinner in the way it has for football? Why should this ever change? I'd argue that the current international set-up with only two decent teams does more harm to RL in this country than it does to help it, so why not abolish it in the current form and play to our strengths?

FWIW I think a radical step is needed to change the situation - so if the RFL are not capable of implementing change by tinkering with quota rules etc then why not abandon international RL completely?

RR, I'm not sure why you started talking about a comparison with Football, but it's clear you have no interest in the International game whatsoever. If we can bumble on with 3 or 4 games a year, always beating the French then that's enough or you. Nice to see you are so easily satisfied.

Carry on with the One Club view, I'm glad you enjoy it.

Totally agree. Champions League style. It's the one everybody wants to win.



Because the conversation is discussing the growth & popularity of International RL, and Football is the most fully grown & popular international sport. If we're discussing the pros and cons of having a well established & popular international sport, it seems only logical to compare it to a sport that is already fully grown and established. It's not like I compared it to fish finger sandwiches is it?!

Rugby League is the way it is because it's the size it is. Football is the way it is because it's the size it is. All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.



I am, I will, and I do! Thanks for your message of encouragement.

I support the RFL's genuine attempts to reduce the quantity of overseas trained players and increase the quantity/quality (hopefully) of home produced players to improve the pool available to the national team coach.

It's a pity IMO that the moves are constantly undermined by the majority of club CEO's (including our own unfortunately) whose actions often speak louder than words.

It's the RFL's job to attempt to reduce the quantity of overseas trained players and increase the quantity of home produced players.

Just like it's those CEO's job to get bums on seats, and keep the crowds as high as possible by winning games.

Neither is going to do the others job for them.

Not back to this again


Our CEO has ensured our club more than contributes to having home-grown talent within it's squad and whatever way you dress it up he's undermined nothing whatsoever where over-seas recruitment is concerned.
Just check how many players are around the SL and below that came through our acadamy i think that more than counts towards "doing our bit".
This undermining you keep mentioning that clearly grates doesn't exsist when no rules are broken it's straight forward and if it can't be legally applied it doesn't exsist.

I think Bats has realised, that apart from David he's ploughing a lonely furrow. Most fans pay their money to watch their team being successful, and can generally take or leave internationals.

I'm firmly in the Club camp, as it matters not a jot to me what the colour, nationality or political views are of the guys out there on the pitch. It's simply about how the play when they've pulled on the jersey.

Congrats by the way to Exeter rhino, who has posted an excellent and thought provoking post, which offers up the prospect of an exciting competiton for the future.

I'd be all for that. Would increase anticipation and the number of teams 'competing' I emphasise competing because lets face facts,in reality at the elite international level there are only 3 teams 'competing' England,New Zealand and Australia and we're not exactly doing a great job of that apart from the odd win here and there.

Whilst some will argue with some merit that international RL is played by many more countries ie Wales,France,Scotland,Ireland,PNG,Samoa,Fiji,Russia etc they are not and nor are they likely to be 'competing' for a long long long time,if ever. I mean we are still light years behind the Aussies when it comes to beating them more than the once in a flood so all those other countries with the exception of New Zealand are not even in the same universe.

Whilst the southern hemisphere teams in an expanded champions league style World Club challenge may still dominate (depending on venue) you'd have much more interest and competition and our club sides with their overseas players may end up winning more than just once in a flood. Either way it would be better and surely create more interest than what the current international programme brings at the elite level?

I mean our first game this 4 nations was essentially seen/viewed by most as a winner takes all game to decide who plays Australia in the Final and thats just the first game of our tournement FFS

Quote ="rhinoms"Not back to this again Our CEO has ensured our club more than contributes to having home-grown talent within it's squad and whatever way you dress it up he's undermined nothing whatsoever where over-seas recruitment is concerned.'" Exceeding the intended RFL limits on the overseas trained would suggest otherwise. www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 Leeds' overseas trained: 2008 - Webb, Donald, Toopi, Leuluai, Lauitiiti, Anselme (?) - Within Limit 2009 - Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti - Within Limit 2010 - Webb, Donald, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Eastwood - Exceeding Limit 2011 - Webb, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Cross - Exceeding Limit Quote ="rhinoms"Just check how many players are around the SL and below that came through our acadamy i think that more than counts towards "doing our bit".'" While that has always been acknowledged it doesn't excuse Leeds exceeding the intended limit. Quote ="rhinoms"This undermining you keep mentioning that clearly grates doesn't exsist when no rules are broken it's straight forward and if it can't be legally applied it doesn't exsist.'" Ways can be found around a lot of rules it doesn't make it right to do so in the face of the ruling body, even when most of the other CEO's are doing the same. If a team (other than Leeds) goes over the salary cap by £5 you'd be one of the first to advocate removing any titles won and throw them out of the competition if you could but you're prepared to turn a blind eye when a loophole is found for the same club CEO's to jump through with regards a surplus of very average NRL rejects. The overaseas quota in 2011 is coming down to 5 and that is the correct number with 1st grade squads limited to 25 players able to receive more than £25K. It's the famous 80/20 split Hetherington advocated. Even with Donald and Eastwood cutting and running it still leaves Leeds with one too many after signing Cross. The CEO's backed the proposal only to break it.

Quote ="rhinoms"Not back to this again Our CEO has ensured our club more than contributes to having home-grown talent within it's squad and whatever way you dress it up he's undermined nothing whatsoever where over-seas recruitment is concerned.'" Exceeding the intended RFL limits on the overseas trained would suggest otherwise. www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 Leeds' overseas trained: 2008 - Webb, Donald, Toopi, Leuluai, Lauitiiti, Anselme (?) - Within Limit 2009 - Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti - Within Limit 2010 - Webb, Donald, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Eastwood - Exceeding Limit 2011 - Webb, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Cross - Exceeding Limit Quote ="rhinoms"Just check how many players are around the SL and below that came through our acadamy i think that more than counts towards "doing our bit".'" While that has always been acknowledged it doesn't excuse Leeds exceeding the intended limit. Quote ="rhinoms"This undermining you keep mentioning that clearly grates doesn't exsist when no rules are broken it's straight forward and if it can't be legally applied it doesn't exsist.'" Ways can be found around a lot of rules it doesn't make it right to do so in the face of the ruling body, even when most of the other CEO's are doing the same. If a team (other than Leeds) goes over the salary cap by £5 you'd be one of the first to advocate removing any titles won and throw them out of the competition if you could but you're prepared to turn a blind eye when a loophole is found for the same club CEO's to jump through with regards a surplus of very average NRL rejects. The overaseas quota in 2011 is coming down to 5 and that is the correct number with 1st grade squads limited to 25 players able to receive more than £25K. It's the famous 80/20 split Hetherington advocated. Even with Donald and Eastwood cutting and running it still leaves Leeds with one too many after signing Cross. The CEO's backed the proposal only to break it.

Unless of course one of the above leaves before the season starts.

Quote ="tvoc"Exceeding the intended RFL limits on the overseas trained would suggest otherwise. www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 Leeds' overseas trained: 2008 - Webb, Donald, Toopi, Leuluai, Lauitiiti, Anselme (?) - Within Limit 2009 - Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti - Within Limit 2010 - Webb, Donald, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Eastwood - Exceeding Limit 2011 - Webb, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Cross - Exceeding Limit While that has never been denied it doesn't excuse Leeds exceeding toe intended limit. Ways can be found around a lot of rules it doesn't make it right to do so in the face of the ruling body, even when most of the other CEO's are doing the same. If a team (other than Leeds) goes over the salary cap by £5 you'd be one of the first to advocate removing any titles won and throw them out of the competition if you could but you're prepared to turn a blind eye when a loophole is found for the same club CEO's to jump through with regards a surplus of very average NRL rejects. The overaseas quote in 2011 is coming down to 5 and that is the correct number with 1st grade squads limited to 25 players able to receive more than £25K. It's the famous 80/20 split Hetherington advocated. Even with Donald and Eastwood cutting and running it still leaves Leeds with one too many after signing Cross. The CEO's backed the proposal only to break it.'" The salary cap is set and clear and if we were to be found in breach of it i'd advocate the punishments dished out completely and i'm a firm believer that we don't do enough to those found cheating it either. The oversea quota ,federation trained or those deemed exempt whatever the "intention" has not been breached other-wise we would'nt be able to register the players in question and whatever the "intentions" it can't be implimented legally so like i said this "rule" you suggest we are breaking does not exsist.

Quote ="tvoc"Exceeding the intended RFL limits on the overseas trained would suggest otherwise. www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 Leeds' overseas trained: 2008 - Webb, Donald, Toopi, Leuluai, Lauitiiti, Anselme (?) - Within Limit 2009 - Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti - Within Limit 2010 - Webb, Donald, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Eastwood - Exceeding Limit 2011 - Webb, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Cross - Exceeding Limit While that has never been denied it doesn't excuse Leeds exceeding toe intended limit. Ways can be found around a lot of rules it doesn't make it right to do so in the face of the ruling body, even when most of the other CEO's are doing the same. If a team (other than Leeds) goes over the salary cap by £5 you'd be one of the first to advocate removing any titles won and throw them out of the competition if you could but you're prepared to turn a blind eye when a loophole is found for the same club CEO's to jump through with regards a surplus of very average NRL rejects. The overaseas quote in 2011 is coming down to 5 and that is the correct number with 1st grade squads limited to 25 players able to receive more than £25K. It's the famous 80/20 split Hetherington advocated. Even with Donald and Eastwood cutting and running it still leaves Leeds with one too many after signing Cross. The CEO's backed the proposal only to break it.'" The salary cap is set and clear and if we were to be found in breach of it i'd advocate the punishments dished out completely and i'm a firm believer that we don't do enough to those found cheating it either. The oversea quota ,federation trained or those deemed exempt whatever the "intention" has not been breached other-wise we would'nt be able to register the players in question and whatever the "intentions" it can't be implimented legally so like i said this "rule" you suggest we are breaking does not exsist.

Of course it exists it's just that the RFL are toothless to implement it in the face of potential (expensive) legal challenges by individual players.

My issue is not with the players, their agents or the RFL it's with the club CEO's who voted to adopt the principals behind the re-designation of players (in an attempt to remove the myriad of exemptions already present in the then system) and then happily started exploiting a loophole created by the likes of Simon Finnigan and Stanley Gene.

The CEO's had a meeting and agreed to the new quota rules, Hetherington in particular talked of the 80/20 (20/5) split to be reached by 2011 as being the correct balance for club rugby in this country. I imagine he's as disappointed as I am that he's so far been unable to meet his own expectations in this regard.

How can it be exploiting a "loophole" if it isn't a rule that's backed legally?
If they (RFL) thought they could win they'd try and implement it the fact is they can't so it does'nt "legally" exsist.
I would love us to have a FULL squad of british players for every club in SL but it is far from happening and whatever the "intentions" it hasn't come to fruition.
Now i've no doubts GH has backed this but his job is still to provide a squad that's competetive and to make the best of what's available within the "rules" that apply and that imo is what he is doing and i don't have a problem with it especially when we have the youth development record we have.
We will continue to disagree on this no matter what "intention ,spirit" or otherwise you state this rule has because ATEOD IF we were breaking the rules the players in question could'nt be registered to play for Leeds or in the SL.

Without wishing to interject too much, I think the issue is that whilst the rule exists, due to other legal precedents such as Bosman, it is entirely unenforceable in a court of law.

The only point I'm disappointed with in this whole affair is that the club CEO's voted to bring in a rule which they knew was legally unenforceable (so it would need their discretion to make it work) and then promptly rode roughshod over their own agreement.

It shows them up for what they are, gloryhunters (or ex double glazing salesmen).