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!

Erm, they're not.

Once an exempt player leaves, you can't sign another "overseas" player to replace him without him counting towards your quota, unless that player was already exempt due to being in the UK before the rules were introduced.

You seem to be arguing for the introduction of a system that's already in place.

Fair play.



Point still stands though.

or to phrase it another way,

you shouldnt be able to add to your total of overseas players because some have been declared exempt to allow the rules to navigate the complex minefield that is contract and employment law.

i.e you can keep them or you can replace them, you cant add to them.

It's the term "Overseas Player" that's killing this. People are taking it far too literally.

Look at it this way... You're either a Blue player, or an Amber player. You're allowed 5 Amber players but the rest need to be Blue.

Now to qualify as Blue player you need to be either born in England, or be playing for an English club for at least 3 years, if you're neither of those, you're Amber. Those are the RULES set out, by the RFL, which Leeds are following.

Sinfield - Born here, Blue.
Webb - Played here over 3 years, Blue.
Buderus - Not born here, not played here 3 years. Amber.

We're not finding any secret loop-holes, or lying about where players were born, we're not trying do anything underhand, we've been given the rule book, read the rule book, and signed players according to those rule.

How on earth people can still be complaining about this is beyond me.

i understand the rules. I also understand that they were a watered down version of what the RFL actually wanted to bring in, and did originally bring in before threats of legal challenges.

Well you've just completely shot your own argument out of the water there haven't you.

Watered down or not they are the current rules.

Should they eventually get to bring in a non-watered down version, if Leeds decide to break them, you'll have a point. If they bring in new rules and Leeds adapt to fit with them (which I'm sure they would do), then once again you will be talking tosh.

One more time...

Leeds are sticking to the current rules which are currently current and currently in place.

You're disgruntled at Leeds for breaking a rule that you think should be brought in?! That's just ridiculous.

Totally off subject...
I want to bring in a new rule... your pants have to be the exact same colour as your trousers. It's not a rule yet... but the future of my denim boxer short business depends on it and I'd really like it to be a rule so you've all got to stick to it now even though it's not actually a rule and may never be a rule.

i understand Leeds are playing by the rules as they are now, i simply dont believe that we and most other clubs, some by a fair amount more, are playing to the rules as they should be, and as would be in their best interests and as would be the in the best interests of the league or the game in this country.

Excellent. So we've now agreed that Leeds are sticking to the rules, it's just that you personally don't like the rules.

Good solid argument there. Glad it's sorted.

i dont think anyone has argued that Leeds arent sticking to the rules as they are now, simply they arent sticking to them as they originally agreed to, or as would be in their best interests

Best interest is all opinion.

Best interest of who? "The Club" doesn't actually exist does it, "Leeds Rhinos" is a nonentity.
You've got the people who own the club, the people who support the club, the people who want to play for the club, the people who cut the grass for the club, the people who clean the toilets for the club. All of whom will have a different "Best Interest".

I really could discuss this all day but I think we should just agree to differ.

My personal opinion, is that the best interests of the club is to keep me happy. I want my money, that I work to earn, that I choose to spend on tickets, to keep me entertained. If the 16 y/o Leeds lad can do that, fair play to him, but I'm not going to like him because he happens to be young and from Leeds, I'm going to like him because he's the best player for the job and keeps me entertained when I go watch my club.

Supporting Leeds isn't a compulsory thing. It's something that most of us have chosen to do, and something that I've chosen to do since I was 5, but chosen to do it non-the-less. I personally have got more pleasure watching 32 y/o Australian Danny Buderus this year than I have watching 28 y/o academy product Matt Diskin. That doesn't make me a bad person, or a bad fan. That just makes me a human being, with preferences.

What you're saying is by limiting the number of Overseas players, that would improve your personal enjoyment of the game, all I'm saying is that it wouldn't improve mine.

Burrow is not leaving!

Why would he when he has his testimonial at Leeds next season!

No, im not, what im saying is that limiting the number of overseas players, will force clubs to spend more time, effort, money and risk in developing their own players. This will improve the player pool all clubs have to choose from, replacing the average overseas players with better British players. This will in turn improve the quality of the league, increasing the quality of the 'product' you are choosing to buy.

Did you derive more pleasure from Buderus because he was a 32 year old? Australian? or because you thought him better than Matt Diskin?

Would you derive more or less pleasure from a league which had higher quality British players with a smattering of the better overseas players or a league of lower quality overseas players with a smattering of the better ones?

and that is before we address the by-product of improving the international game and its related benefits to the game as a whole and clubs individually.