[It says that they have 30-50% fewer than Wakey

Are you sure about that??

You say Wakefield arent within the spirit of the rules.

I dont recall it being Wakey that set the ball rolling,looking for exemptions,i would say Simon Finnegan and Bradford(although i recall Bradford denying anything to do with it) starting the ball rolling when challenging the new quota rules.Was it then followed HKR who started looking for exemptions for Stanley Gene.

I doubt if any club isnt actually manipulating the rules to their benefit.

As ive already said 10/11 is very poor,but Wakey are just the poorest of the poor when it comes to overseas signings,no club has anything particular to be proud of when the best we can get to is 5 overseas players.

Leeds are equally guilty with 7 overseas players next year. I know some Leeds fans don't care so long as we win things, but I'd like to see no more than 4 at ANY club (with allowances for maybe 1/2 more at Quins and Crusaders).

The problem with some arguments is its based on where a club is today. Well, had Wakey - and others - started on a half-decent youth development program five years ago they wouldn't be where they are 'now'. Instead of a bunch of 17-year olds who I would agree aren't ready for SL as a bunch, they should have a host of lads in their early 20s in the squad, and need only to promote a couple of juniors each year.

Where Wakey are now - needing up to 11 overseas players just to make a possible mid-table team - should be considered an abject failure, not just for Wakey but for SL as a whole.

The same argument was being had last year re KR, and I wish fans would stop being so oversensitive when their club is mentioned. Quite happy to go on record as saying Leeds' current direction with respect to overseas players is completely wrong.

how is having 7 equal to having 11? its not really is it


however saying that, and i said this last season, i would have been happy to see Donald and Lueluai go and be replaced by british talent, and i think we could still be successful with replacing those two players with players already in our squad, which is the most disappointing part,

we also need to bare in mind though that the Rhinos dont exist in a vaccuum, and it is only fair that numbers are brought down throughout the league, rather than expecting some clubs to sacrifice success to so they can make a statement

i completely agree with everything else you have said

Totally agree,nobody has anything to shout about,Wakefield are just the worst of a bad bunch.

At least get the facts right.It was actually =redSuper League that tried to impose the 4 point penalty,based on a 74% spend.The RFL then looked at it and decided that the spend was in fact 58% and it only merited a 2 point deduction.Huddersfield were relegated because they were gash and didnt win enough games,not because Wakefield were only deducted 2 points and not 4.

you see I have an issue with that!!!... look at the tri nations final...

two players playing for england who came through the Trinity Junior ranks... Ellis and Westwood, another one (Fox) who cut is teeth at Belle Vue after being discarded by Leeds and, had he been fit, another (big four) discard in Ryan Atkins who also came to Wakefield to make his way...

the big issue is not for Wakefield to produce players... nor indeed their ability to bring them through to first grade and then to border international selection... the difficulty is keeping them once other clubs come sniffing round.

Compared to the structure here in Australia... where pay structures are pretty good on the whole... the UK is prepared to pay far too much for average (comparitively) players... the four nations showed that these young UK players are NOT prepared to work hard enough for their money.

Smokey - 7 obviously isn't the same as 11, but it is in the sense that its too many. I'm just throwing Leeds in there because as the 3-time winners of the Championship, whatever approach Leeds take is going to set a benchmark for other clubs, and IMO where we're heading is the wrong way.

Underground - I do take your point about wakey produced players elsewhere. From Leeds though (for example) we could add Mathers, Calderwood, Walker, Fox (if you can have him so can Leeds), Carvell, Morley, Newton, Fozzard etc etc at other clubs.

Genuine question - why do you think they have moved - money or improved chances to win things?

The point with Fox is that he had no future at Leeds ... and had been pretty much discarded... it wasnt until he went to wakefield that be began to blossom as a player... and by the time he went to HKR he was a genuine talent!

other players that fit that mould are Sean Gleeson (Wigan) and Ryan Atkins (Bradford)...

why do players leave Wakefield... usually for money.... and generally because the club has to sell them to stay afloat!

only Ellis has left when the money on the table at Wakefield was more than on offer at Leeds... but Gareth is a unique player amongst english RL players ... he is a man who wants to challenge himself... thats why he is now playing is the NRL.

Westwood went for a fee because we needed the money... Fox was out of contract and we couldnt/ wouldnt match HKRs contract offer

Atkins has gone to Warrington because we needed the money!!

DO NOT FEED

Is there an echo in here?


[size=75in here?[/size


[size=59in here?[/size

this isnt an acheivement by Wakefield, allowing other clubs to do your development work for you isnt a good thing,

Had Fox not gone to Wakefield he would have gone elsewhere,

a better example would be Jason Golden, a player Wakefield were in an ideal position to sign, who went to school a few hundred yards from their ground, yet only ever got to Wakefield via Hunslet Leeds and York

being a dumping ground for cast-offs isnt a position we need filling,


all of which surely questions Wakefields ability to be a top flight club

in your map of the world.... maybe....

but we have a club who continually confound the nay-sayers and last season finished a very creditable 5th and a group of youngsters who won the academy league... easily!
there are genuine prospects... with solid backers ... for a new staduim.

we ahve an excellent coaching and backroom staff

I prefer to see the sitution as positive with real hope of planned and sustainable progression....go figure... I am an optimist.

with a squad full of NRL developed players, anyone could do that



The academy league is nothing, good luck to the lads who won it, but that wasnt the important thing, becoming SL quality players is

and Wakefield should have been doing that 10 years ago



how many times have Wakfield said this? you apparently had Geniune prospects and solid backers for the Thornes Park project, how'd that turn out?



do you apply that optimism to all clubs?

Of course it does dear!

why why why do seemingly intelligent posters continue to respond to these complete bell ends? your rational arguments are falling on deaf ears and are a complete waste of virtual breath.

DO NOT FEED

I've put the case across - I won't keep repeating it, so they can take it or leave it but, for those who read the threads and aren't sure, there is something to balance the argument.

We know where we stand - and I'm not at all uncomfortable with it!

Perhaps some posters do not share your views. You may wish to insult posters who think 10 / 11 overseas players is pathetic, or that the 11th player chasing around to be 'macedonian' / 'serbian' is ridicuous, so be it.

For people who have some knowledge of RL taking on 7 international academy lads would be seen as stretching credulity. 7 from a club looks ...questionable.

As a follower of Wakefield yes iam not happy at the amount of imports we have next season. But this is not just a Wakefield thing. All clubs in SL show similar symptoms tbh and it needs to be sorted. For example i couldnt understand why Ainscough of Wigan was dropped after a very good start of the season for a second rate Aussie in Phelps. Would never happen in the NRL. I feel the quality in SL has been slipping for a few years now (from an already average standard to begin with). Dont just wave the sick at Wakefield just because you dont particularly like us because it does come across as being a little petty.

Which other teams that have been in SL 10 continuous years still have 10/11 overseas players?

(when the Giants played Wigan they targeted Ainscough and got 2 tries + Phelps has done every good job at fb for Wigan)

I think Wakey got a couple of tries on him but that is not the point. It is evident Ainscough is ready for SL IMO. We should show faith and perseverance in the likes of Ainscough. Teams across the board in SL seem to go with the quick fix aussie to gain wins now instead of showing a little faith in the good young uns like Sean and looking at the big picture.

Anyway Marsden wasnt it Wakefield who gave second chances to English players such as Moore, Blaymire, Golden, Fox, Bibey and Wilkes when certain posters on here ridiculed the signings? 4 of these are now SL regulars and 1 now plays for England. We gave these lads a shot when they seemed to be on the scrap heap. All teams seem to be trying get around the quota rules not just us.

Doubt he was ready. The point is that Wakey rely on quick fix overseas players more than most. Chasing around after a mecedonian passport when you already have 10 uch players is pathetic.

Many clubs have given players 'second chances' you are not alone there. Which clubs in SL for 10 years have been more active than wakey in signing nonfed trained players?

Yes,youre right,were bl00dy good at it.

We arent breaking any rules.

And isnt it quite ironic that it was the RFL that suggested Stosic play for Serbia,to get round the rules.

So please dont pity us.