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).

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 always been acknowledged it doesn't excuse Leeds exceeding the 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 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.'" I agree with you 100%, the only mitigation i can offer for ourselves is that if everyone else is doing it we would only be damaging our potential for success by not, and being by some way one of the better clubs and giving british youth a chance it does excuse it a little. As for international RL. It is integral for the spreading and survival our game. There is no better hook, no better marketing tool, nothing better for gaining new fans to our game that could possibly exist other than International RL. It unites the nation, it gives them a vested interest, it gives them a common good, a common enemy, It instantly makes heroes and it makes villains, it instantly gives someone who has never watched the game before the same bond to the game, the same tradition and history of the game as we club watchers built up over years. And it does it to everyone, nationwide just by sticking them under the banner of St George. This game, no game, will spread or survive without a viable international

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 always been acknowledged it doesn't excuse Leeds exceeding the 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 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.'" I agree with you 100%, the only mitigation i can offer for ourselves is that if everyone else is doing it we would only be damaging our potential for success by not, and being by some way one of the better clubs and giving british youth a chance it does excuse it a little. As for international RL. It is integral for the spreading and survival our game. There is no better hook, no better marketing tool, nothing better for gaining new fans to our game that could possibly exist other than International RL. It unites the nation, it gives them a vested interest, it gives them a common good, a common enemy, It instantly makes heroes and it makes villains, it instantly gives someone who has never watched the game before the same bond to the game, the same tradition and history of the game as we club watchers built up over years. And it does it to everyone, nationwide just by sticking them under the banner of St George. This game, no game, will spread or survive without a viable international

I don't think the RFL could afford to take on the additional expense of a court case to enforce the principal nor do I think they should have to even consider it. Even if a case is winnable you could never guarantee the outcome anyway. Often disputes are settled outside of the courts these days not on the basis of right and wrong but purely on the basis of the costs involved should you lose.

As others have said (and as I have already) once the CEO's lined up behind the planned reductions over a four year period it was entirely reasonable and feasible for no heartland club to have more than the intended 5 for 2011.

Leeds have 6 (at present), Hull KR (for example) will have 8 (although Galea, Newton and Vella I'm guessing will be exempt)

I'm with tvoc and Batley on this.

The legality issue has always been a smokescreen. Clubs don't 'have' to sign anybody - English or Australian. The clubs are the ones making a mockery of the supposedly clearly agreed intent to cut imports and replace them over time with English players. People are happy to have a go at the likes of Hull KR for having a ridiculous number of imports, but get very touchy when its pointed out that Leeds are doing exactly the same thing albeit slightly less flagrantly.

Whilst fans of all clubs continue to make excuses for their own club ignoring the spirit and intent of the development of the game in the name of short-term success then we are equally culpable.

Who's had a go at HKR?
Who's got touchy about Leeds doing it?
No excuses whatsoever if this is what's best for us (Rhinos) to remain a competitive force and to challenge for honours without breaking any operational rules at this moment in time as far as i'm concerned it's fine.
What our club has done development wise is far from ignoring the intent of any agreement and like i whilst this rule DOES NOT EXSIST we are doing naff all wrong.

You can't run a Business on "spirit"! That's just a ridiculous thing to say.

"We're not going to charge taxes any more, but we hope that people take this gesture in the spirit it was intended and still voluntarily donate 20% of their income because we all know it's the right thing to do."

If it's not a law, you can't enforce it on moral or spiritual grounds. Leeds are sticking to the rules of the game, if the RFL made them tighter, I'd sure Leeds would stick to the new tight rules too. The fact is they haven't, so we're not.

They're trying to run a business, not save the planet one good deed at a time.

Rhinoms, I think you might find this interesting:

[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346[/url

Check out the bit towards the bottom of the page, which clearly states "engage Super League XIII is likely to have the most club trained players taking part in the competition for nearly five years thanks to a new rule introduced for 2008."

This is from Super League's own website, I don't think they would be in the habit of claiming rules were in place if in fact they were not...

That's very clear mate i agree but what they have'nt published is the "exemption" rule which is also clearly in force other-wise how have we registered so many over-seas players?
We can have all the good will in the world mate and like i said i'd love us to have a squad of only Home-grown players but we don't and whilst we are able to register these overseas players and they can play without any sanctions or punishments then we have broken no rule as far as i'm concerned.
Just to add we also saw how good the RFL were at publishing/implementing rules when Lindsay ran rings round them at the Wigan Fielden/cap punishment hearing.

Dull I know but...

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/Operational%20Rules%20Part%202.pdf[/url

Pages 2 and 3 explain at length the definition of home grown, and club trained.

I'm not saying for a second that we're not exploiting the clauses by classing Webb etc as Club Trained. But the RFL write the rule book, they put the clauses in black & white. We're playing to the rules we've been given. If they change the rules, and remove the clauses, we'd play to those new rules too. You can't blame the club for playing to the rules it's given.

It's the same as only half of Sinfield's wage counting towards the salary cap. They put that rule in to reward longevity of service, and we're playing to the rule.

Imposing it initially upon those clubs with more EXISTING non qualified players on the rosta was correctly called unfair. However, when one of these players moves on they should not be allowed to be replaced by non qualified.

In Leeds case recently for example, when Eastwood quit he should have to be replaced by a UK trained player, or not replaced at all.

In a few years through natural wastage all clubs would then be under the quota.

Seems quite simple to me

Why? The rules say we're allowed 5, [iwhat the RFL consider to be[/i overseas players. If selling Eastwood takes us down to 4, then we're allowed to sign another?!

I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

X is how many overseas players you're allowed.
Y is what the RFL consider an overseas player.

Thus, you're allowed X people that meet Y criteria.

Was Webb born in New Zealand? Yes.
Does he meet Y criteria? No.
So he doesn't count, still leaving us X players to find meeting Y criteria.

Does Cross meet Y criteria? Yes!
We're now allowed X-1 people matching Y criteria.

Morals, ethics, spirit, the future, youth development or anything else simply do not come into it. We're sticking to the rules, end of.

I'm in full agreement RR but Webb was born in Cairns Aus.

Because Webb was here before the rules were in. The exceptions were only allowed because clubs would have had to SACK contracted players in order to come in under quota.

Said clubs should not be allowed to use this exception to sign more oversees players. It's simple if you really want to think about it

While I agree with most of the above only point I have is that I am pretty sure Webb was born in australlia??? Thought I heard that somewhere but I have been wrong before and no dbout will be again!