Hmm, could maybe manage to break my principles to attend that one, but would be much more preferable somewhere along the M62 corridor though (you know, where people actually care about RL





).

And only one from Leeds , and Saints , and many other clubs with none , so whats their excuse , how many from Hull FC ?

Why none from Widnes ? , they finished above many of the SL clubs in the academy comp didn't they

Just like Franchise criteria judging , selection of squads at all levels is ' subjective ' , and not always fairly applied

Seriously...I understand that you dislike the licence/franchise situation and the way in which the RFL are running the game in general, but are you seriously suggesting that players were selected for the academy squad on anything other than merit


Are you hinting that our player was only selected because he's from London and it makes the RFL feel all warm and fuzzy when they seem to have done something right?

I would say that the squad that was assembled for this series was the best available........unless you can prove otherwise

Quote ="SmokeyTA"here you go fella, [iThe Crusaders will also be granted special dispensation over the overseas quota in order to make them instantly competitive, with Wood making it clear recently-promoted sides Hull KR and Castleford - as well as the Catalans - were also given exemptions.[/i www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Snap.html this quota exemption meant that at the time the quota rules changed, Hull KR had more overseas players signed, than other teams could have.'" So we are talking about two different forms of "dispensation" then. One which is referenced in the article you found which applies (applied) to three clubs, and another which is referenced in the article I found which is player specific determined by when they signed to their existing club?

Quote ="SmokeyTA"here you go fella, [iThe Crusaders will also be granted special dispensation over the overseas quota in order to make them instantly competitive, with Wood making it clear recently-promoted sides Hull KR and Castleford - as well as the Catalans - were also given exemptions.[/i www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Snap.html this quota exemption meant that at the time the quota rules changed, Hull KR had more overseas players signed, than other teams could have.'" So we are talking about two different forms of "dispensation" then. One which is referenced in the article you found which applies (applied) to three clubs, and another which is referenced in the article I found which is player specific determined by when they signed to their existing club?

What I am saying is that in most cases coaching staff are club based , ie they learn their trade at a particular club , be that an amatuer or proffesional one , and it is only human nature that a coach given the job of controlling a representive team will naturally look at their own ' club/area ' more favouably than others , it quite simply is human nature to do so

I have seen this at all levels from town team /service area all the way to senior International level , a coach will take opinions more readily from people he knows

I have seen a situation where a club will appoint say a skolarship/academy/reserve coach from a particular local amatuer club club , strangely that amatuer club will then start to produce players for whatever team he has been appointed at , generally the first port of call for a representataive coach will be his old club , and sometimes ' token ' gestures will be made so as not to look like favouratism is occuring

Having 2 of the top amatuer clubs on our doorstep at Leigh has seen this happen many times , quite often alienating one or the other , personally I would appoint a coach with no local connections if I was looking for a represntative coach

Quote ="SmokeyTA"here you go fella, [iThe Crusaders will also be granted special dispensation over the overseas quota in order to make them instantly competitive, with Wood making it clear recently-promoted sides Hull KR and Castleford - as well as the Catalans - were also given exemptions.[/i www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Snap.html this quota exemption meant that at the time the quota rules changed, Hull KR had more overseas players signed, than other teams could have.'" So, just to be clear - do you accept that [uHull KR[/u do not [unow[/u have a dispensation? Gutterfax used the present tense. In the [upast[/u Rhys Lovegrove had a club-specific exemption and, although it was never acknowledged, we [umight[/u have been allowed an extra spot, relative to other clubs in 2008 (my reasoning for this is pretty convoluted and half-forgotten - but Wood's quote supports the theory). If you're saying that the residual benefits of that dispensation amount to a [ide facto[/i continuing dispensation then I'm happy to discuss that, but it is a pretty narrow point so it is important to use precise language.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"here you go fella, [iThe Crusaders will also be granted special dispensation over the overseas quota in order to make them instantly competitive, with Wood making it clear recently-promoted sides Hull KR and Castleford - as well as the Catalans - were also given exemptions.[/i www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Snap.html this quota exemption meant that at the time the quota rules changed, Hull KR had more overseas players signed, than other teams could have.'" So, just to be clear - do you accept that [uHull KR[/u do not [unow[/u have a dispensation? Gutterfax used the present tense. In the [upast[/u Rhys Lovegrove had a club-specific exemption and, although it was never acknowledged, we [umight[/u have been allowed an extra spot, relative to other clubs in 2008 (my reasoning for this is pretty convoluted and half-forgotten - but Wood's quote supports the theory). If you're saying that the residual benefits of that dispensation amount to a [ide facto[/i continuing dispensation then I'm happy to discuss that, but it is a pretty narrow point so it is important to use precise language.

yes, Hull KR as a club were given a special dispensation that applied only to them, cas and catalans were also given a dispensation, Cas is no longer relevant, and as far as i am aware Les Catalans is still in place, but it is different.

That is only what i have argued. That Hull KR's special dispensation means that at the time the rules changed, they had more overseas players than the rules allowed, in effect giving them a dispensation from the rules as they are now in all but name.

I'm not sure how important the dispensation was in getting us to the current situation, tbh.

In 2008 you were allowed 10 non-fed and we had 11 foreigners at any one time (Dobson coming in after James Webster was released). I think Vella might already have become non-quota (Maltese) and fed-trained (here for 2007 - before that deadline was subsequently extended for a year). I'm not sure. Fisher maybe too.

In 2009 the quota fell to 8. And yes, Aizue, Gene and Lovegrove did get (initially club-specific) exemptions. With Crossman leaving, we were possibly technically a couple of spots under quota! Those exemptions ceased to be club-specific or even necessary as the rules 'evolved'. Gene and Aizue are gone, so the only remaining benefit we feel is that we were able to retain Lovegrove who qualifies as club-trained, as currently defined. A bridging exemption, as it were.

The universal 'by-2008' change made Aizue and Gene's club-specific exemptions redundant and later led to Galea and Newton qualifying as fed-trained. Hull KR ultimately benefitted from this more than most, but it wasn't club-specific and those players were free to take their exemptions with them to other teams. We were lucky that of our recruits for 2008 Newton and Galea were 'hits' and eligible for EU passports, no doubt about that.

The one place I think we might have had an advantage over other clubs in 2008 is in the number of 'old quota' players we could include in our 2008 10 non-fed. For most clubs it was 5 and 5. James Webster (later replaced by Dobson), Jake Webster, Crossman, Galea and Fitzhenry were 5. Not sure whether Newton initially non-quota non-fed (Kolpak equivalent) - but I don't see why not as his mother is English iirc.

You have missed a little out, because the club specific exemption was superseded by the universal exemption. This is where Hull KR were still receiving the benefit of the exemption.

Had they not been in receipt of the club specific exemption, they would have had fewer players eligible for the universal exemption.

Gene, Aizue and Lovegrove. For 2 of those the residual benefits have passed. Lovegrove I accept. If it had come down to it, we'd have released Gene and Aizue rather than Galea and Newton - contracts and importance to the team indicate that pretty clearly.

Beyond that, if you look at the numbers it isn't easy to see where we used a bigger quota than the normal rules allowed.

2008: 10 non-fed allowed. HKR - 11 overseas players, likely [uplayer[/u exemptions for Vella and/or Fisher.
2009: 8 allowed. Crossman leaves. Aizue, Gene and Lovegrove exempt. 2 or even 3 (depending on Fisher and Vella) under ?
2010: 6 allowed. Fitzhenry leaves (as do Aizue and Gene, but they were exempt), Clinton comes in. Presumably 1 under (Newton now fed-trained), as...
2011: 5 allowed. Galea fed-trained - sign Green and Mason.

That won't be 100% accurate - it is pretty complicated. But the [uclub-specific[/u exemptions for Hull KR were either not huge or not fully used, and have mostly now lapsed.

from 2009 you havent been under, still over, but having players exempted because you received dispensation in 2008.

Had you not had that exemption then you would have had at least one overseas player every year after. I doubt there was 'likely' player exemptions otherwise why ask for the dispensation?

Only if you look at it as foreigners, rather than fed-trained as the rule is/was applied. The temporary exceptions of Gene, Aizue and Lovegrove apart, as discussed above.




Well Crossman's departure wasn't planned for - he had another year on his contract. When Aizue and Gene each got an extra year we didn't know that Crossman was going, iirc. Lovegrove's dispensation made him 'club-trained' so may have been as much about meeting that minimum as getting under the non-fed maximum.
Exemption may be a poor choice of words for Vella's situation - once he got his Maltese passport he was off-quota and fed/non-fed hadn't started. Never known what the deal with Fisher is - my guess is that it is similar.

If Rovers club exemptions did extend beyond Gene, Aizue and Lovegrove, it isn't clear to me how and so it is difficult to assess its impact. Could Wood have been referring to a dispensation on the old quota during our first season in 2007?

what would be the point of looking at it any other way? HKA's attempts at circumventing the quota dont justify or mitigate it.

Nobody other then you seems to care Sad Act.

You seem to care enough to post a nonsensical sentence which I assume you mean as an insult.

Not wishing to criticise anyone here but surely calling another forum member 'sad act' breaches some part of the AUP?

And when the person doing the calling is a forum moderator too.....


Hmmmmm

not a sad act Barry, but a Sad Act.

Those darn capital letters really get to me.

Shouting is sooooo rude isn't it

So the "club specific" exemption has been superseded? Doesn't that bring us back to my original point that the "dispensation" as it is now is awarded to the players and not the clubs?

There isnt any 'dispensation' now. There was a 'dispensation' for rovers which meant when the new rules were brought in, then amended, rovers benefited because of their dispensation, and still continue to do so.

Had rovers not received the dispensation they wouldnt be allowed to have the amount of overseas players they have now, this season.

How many less would they have?

at the very least 1, maybe 3.

However my point wasnt that the exemption led us to this point, simply that HKA did receive and are still benefiting from their dispensation

Because we were looking the long-term impact of a particular issue, it only makes sense to discuss it in terms of how the rules are/were and how they changed.

My contention is that the club-specific dispensations ongoing effect is limited the presence of Lovegrove in the squad.
The rest of the fed-qualified Aussies are down to the universal 2008 and EU passport rules that we have benefitted from through 'luck' in the way the comp-wide rules have developed. Vella, Fisher, Newton, Galea - basically it's just we lucked out when we signed them. The outcome is the same, but the story of how we got here that is been spun on here is misleading IMO.



In defence of Smokey - he is always polite. In defence of GML, Smokey spent [ua lot[/u of time politely trolling on the Hull KR forum until about a year ago. I guess I've kind of missed him.

I do


Seriously, I spent many an evening debating the pro's and con's on these boards in 2003/2004 of London Broncos and the fact that we were a team full of aussies. Now we have turned full circle and are producing our own players, it is interesting to see some of the excuses rolled out bu a 130yr old club as to why they can't find 25 locals to play for them but instead are employing twice the number of overseas players as they should.......all in the pursuit of their better run more recently successful neighbours.
Hull Kingston Australians will make the 8, proabably a quarter or semi of the cup but essentially win nothing in 2011........so this askes the question why they just don't bite the bullet and field more brits.......

very grown up...especially for a moderator. You'd fit right in on the NRL boards