so this is purely a hull kingston rovers thing is it?? I'm sure last time I looked salford have 10 foreigners on their books for 2011 and wakefield who everybody is applauding for signing young british lads have 9 foreigners playing for them next year with another 1 to come. I guess you're not bothered about them though as you don't think they'll do very well?????

So you would agree then that the superseding of the "club specific" dispensation with the "player specific" rules as they are now does in fact mean I was right, the "dispensation" or however you want to phrase it applies to the player and not the club.

Nothing gets past you does it


Actually, it's more a roofs thing....he has often said that in principle that FulhamcrusaderbroncoQuins RL should be ejected from Superleague on principle so I was just pointing out, no matter how HKA circumnavigate the rules that they are not applying the quota as it seen on Principle.
Joking aside, your stadium isn't that bad and will gradually get better once you hit the 10,000 fans your CEO/Chair has stated are needed. Your youth set up will start to produce players in time (something we london fans never got but always said was needed BTW) and financially, once you get to 10,000 you will be in a much stronger position than you are now. Even the missile throwing section of your crowd are accepted as a few mindless idiots who do not reflect the true nature of your core supporters.....but none of this changes the fact that the RFL wanted teams to cut back on overseas players and HKA are one of a few teams who are actually ignoring this. Ergo...this 900+ post thread....which if I am honest, should also include posts about the other offending clubs.

Still, if HKA, Salford, Wakey and all the other teams don't sort out their quota, I am sure it will get a mention when they are allocated their next 3 years in the summer.......it realy isn't right that these teams will field more overseas players than English.


BY THE WAY....."roofs"...I like the new 2011 season HKA Jumpers

The story of how you got here, frankly is irrelevant. The fact is we are here, now, and its a pretty p1sspoor position.

No, some players are exempt. Some clubs got a dispensation. If you are still benefiting from the dispensation then you still have the dispensation.

So it hasn't been superseded? It's just that a couple of hours ago you said it had? Has it or hasn't it? Does the "dispensation" as it is now apply to players or clubs? Nobody is concerned about rules that were applied in the past and are now defunct.

If a player as the rules are now is eligable for exemption does he apply in his own right in his name or does the club claim some random number of exempt players which it can decide to allocate as it sees fit? i.e. does the exemption apply to the player or the club?

Bottom line is , if you were doing something wrong , the RFL would either prevent it or stop it , they aren't so you arent , simple as

Sorry, I thought you and Gutterfax were attempting to apportion blame - in which case the story of how we got here would obviously be relevant.

If we're ignoring context then you think it is weeweepoor, while I think it is tres bon.

Unfortunately the long-established SL clubs failed to match the NRL in producing a surfeit of quality players for us to sign on our return from the wilderness. Happily the rules have fallen in a way that allows us to ameliorate the cost, to us, of your failures. Lucky us.

Yours was a failure relative to the NRL, which is just stronger. Calling the performance of the long-established SL clubs p!s5poor is maybe harsh in absolute terms.

May I anticipate your next question? That is 'how are things ever going to get better?'.
If by 'better' you mean more British kids getting a chance then the player exemptions passing in to history and the economic strength of the NRL will see that happen. If by 'better' you mean an England team that can regularly compete with Australia, this is trying to fight a forest fire with a water pistol. One day we'll contribute more fully to squeezing the trigger - but competing today is the priority.

An individual player can apply for an exemption. That is between him and the RFL.

Hull KA asked for a dispensation, they were given it, they are still deriving benefit from it.

or try, and be threatened with numerous court cases, and cave in.

You think the lack of youth development, the failure to give opportunities to young british players, the poor standard of coaching, the absence of player pathways, and the overall failure in producing players is a good thing?
Its not their job to produce British players for you. Its your job to find them.

No, it isnt, in large parts all clubs have failed, Some have done pretty well, Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Hull, Bradford have all produced a good amount of youngsters, unfortunately they have a couple too many overseas players but you would have to be an idiot to expect them to produce the same amount of players as the entire RL system in Australia.

And clubs will always make the same argument. They always have. Fact is it is damaging the clubs themselves, and the league as a whole, the international side and the game as a whole. This attitude, which is repeated by other clubs, simply proves that HKA and other clubs arent ready for SL. SL is too big, it should be cut by at least 4 heartland clubs who cant seem to cut it.

Importing a shedload of overseas players is a temporary fix for expansion sides while they work to mature the amateur game around them so they can pick from them, When you have one of the strongest amateur games in the country on your doorstep and you can find 18 lads to fill your top 25 then you are simply failing.

You may be happy because your one-club myopia distracts you from the rest of the game, but when you take off your red and white glasses you will see how badly it affects the game, for no benefit at all to the game.

No. Being lucky enough to not have use so many of the products of a failed system that we were not responsible for is clearly a bonus for Hull KR.



Not that easy though is it - due to 'the lack of youth development, the failure to give opportunities to young british players, the poor standard of coaching, the absence of player pathways, and the overall failure in producing players is a good thing' of Super League clubs over many years.



So given that, isn't it natural that we would look to the superior system in Australia to make up the shortfall, until we start producing more players of our own (both as a league and a club)? There's a chicken and egg argument there, but we have to get on our feet before we can concern ourselves with it. You talk about heartlands club not being able to hack it in SL and I assume HKR are one. But, without wanting to turn this into a P and R debate, the chasm that any club has to overcome in coming in to SL is enormous. Despite being a heartlands club, I think Widnes should be given a quota dispensation if they are elevated. And they've had time (if not cash) to prepare.





Maybe. It is something I've thought about too - but it is a much bigger argument, with all sorts of other implications.




18 better or as good as Galea, Vella and Newton? No. Good enough to play SL - probably, but not in 4 years.




That's not very nice. True, but not very nice. Bit hard to swallow from a big-club anti-capper, too.


Look, if I thought the quota would solve the problems it is designed to deal with I'd feel a little more guilty by association. But I'm very far from convinced that increasing the amount of demand for British players will significantly increase the [iquality[/i of the supply.
If the aim of the RFL is simply retain the British character of the sport, perhaps allowing fans to identify with SL teams more than they maybe can with multi-national EPL clubs, this'll work. To get us competing with the Aussies we'd need something =#FF0000much bigger, bottom up from the grassroots of the game.

You are responsible for it. You, Hull KA are responsible for the players that come through the Hull KA system, and the 'rough diamonds' you are failing to find from elsewhere. You are responsible for it being a failing system.
Well other clubs are doing it, much better than Hull KA. There are surplus players out there who you could make a very competitive team out of. You choose not to because you are trying to take a shortcut to success, and failing. This Hull KA side wont win anything, they arent good enough, so why not build towards the future?

Widnes, like yourselves, cant sell yourself as being in a heartland area, then ignore the fact you are in a heartland area. One of the things you, along with Widnes sold themselves on was they could take advantage of the strong amateur scene on their doorstep. If you arent going to bother doing that then what is the point of having it?


This is super league, its supposed to be hard. If you cant do it, you have no place there.


You dont need 18 hull kr products in 4 years, just 18 english products. The fact is there is no reason that Hull KR couldnt cut 2 or 3 imports this season and still put out a competitive side. There is no reason all clubs shouldnt be at a maximum of 7 or 8. There is no reason most should be a little less than that. The ONLY reason hull KA have 10 next season is because they think they can gain advantage on a club which has given a shot to a young british player by bringing in an old australian. Thats it.

if there is no demand, there is no reason to improve the supply. Its normal market forces, once the clubs who bring through the most, best british players are the most successful, and the only way to compete is to rely on british players, then clubs will have to put more effort in to young british players.

Whilst ever they can rely on overseas players, they wont bother, there is no incentive.

Normal market forces are distorted by quotas. It is protectionism. Tariffs and caps might protect, but they don't usually improve.

I'm pleased with how Hull KR have built their SL squad over 4 years, in all 3 areas - club-trained, other Brits and overseas. If we'd succeeded in signing Radford and released Galea, we'd maybe have got a bit less grief - but it'd be a political rather than a rugby improvement and it wouldn't have made much difference to anybody.

We've consistently ignored your 'build for tomorrow by being pants today strategy / if you're not going to win a trophy why be bothered about winning games' and I hope we continue to do that. You're alright, but your advice is filed alongside that of Hull FC fans under 'ill-wishers'. I'm not saying that you don't care about the good of the game first - just that if Hull KR were a casualty you'd see it as a fringe benefit. Less than 80 posts to the 1000...

What you are failling to understand is that by taking Radford and releasing Galea, whilst YOU may not have had to bring through a young british player in this example, Hull FC would have to bring in a youngster to replace Radford. Thats where we need to get to, competition for british players meaning you need to have british players coming through, you need to replace british with british.


But you havent done anything with it. This is the point, you dont have to be pants today, you can be decent today, and good tomorrow. Losing lovegrove, Fisher, and Galea, and replacing them with Amor, Diskin, Lunt wouldnt drop you to the bottom of the league.

Whilst you may argue that Diskin is getting on a bit and he wouldnt be giving a shot to a young player, signing him means that Leeds have promoted McShane and Hood.


I dont care where HKA finish. The only reason I dont want them to do well is I want a club like Cas who only have very few overseas players to be rewarded rather than punished for it.

I agree, it's clearly all Mild Rover's fault, despite the fact he lives about one hundred and twenty miles away from Craven Park and only visits a couple of times a year.

They'd have signed Galea.




True - they'd have been excellent signings. We don't operate in a vacuum though and the chances of getting all three would be remote. Lunt particularly shows that there are rough diamonds out there. But we've helped progress the careers of a few players ourselves - Murrell, Netherton and Cockayne had very few SL appearances between them before joining Hull KR in NL1. Josh Hodgson was more a poach than a second chance, but Craig Hall is one from Hull's discard pile. These are gambles and they don't always pay-off (see Mike Ratu or Luke Menzies). But Rovers do give players chances. Plus we now have Welham and Watts as genuinely club-trained regulars. When we buy in the finished article (as sometimes you must), there has been a tendency to recruit and, when the opportunity arose, retain Australians. Briscoe, Fox and Colbon, plus maybe Wheeldon and Matt Cook are the extent of it.
If Blake Green doesn't work out then we'll maybe regret not pursuing Kyle Briggs or Gareth Moore, but who was there who was proven, British and available in SL? Because I can accept we don't sign enough proven British players - simply because they aren't available. The idea that we don't gamble enough on British players is absurd, IMO. The shortage of safe bets is the problem and not one of our creation.



I'd rather you want us to do badly and actually do better, than you want us to do well and end up with naught but sympathy. Nothing personal.

The only people I blame for this are the RFL (and roofs).
The Quota was put in place to try to reduce the number of non british SL players......regardless of how HKA, Salford, Wakey or anyone else gets around it, the RFL should be making it clear that anyone who has more than say, 6 or 7 overseas players in their squads will be in danger of dropping out of SL.

HKA just happen to be an easy target (as this thread shows), but if I am honest, I can't really blame them......if the RFL are letting them do it then good luck to them.....although their development programme had better be the Mutts nuts....because in 2 or 3 years time they will have to abide by the regulations.....

Personally I blame Roofs TOTALLY

I have to agree with you...on principle

Giants have launched their squad. Only THREE overseas players. Of the others ALL eligible to play for England EXCEPT Brough Scotland, Grix and Mc Nally Ireland.

A strong emphasis on youth as well.

1. Scott Grix
2. Michael Lawrence
3. Leroy Cudjoe
4. Lee Gilmour
5. David Hodgson
6. Kevin Brown
7. Danny Brough
8. Eorl Crabtree
9. Luke Robinson
10. Darrell Griffin
11. Luke O’Donnell
12. David Fa’alogo
13. David Faiumu
14. Shaun Lunt
15. Keith Mason
16. Andy Raleigh
17. Danny Kirmond
18. Larne Patrick
19. Graeme Horne
20. Jermaine McGillvary
21. Josh Griffin
22. Keal Carlile
23. Kyle Wood
24. Adam Walker
25. Elliott Hodgson
26. Jamie Cording
27. Jacob Fairbank
28. Gregg McNally
29. Joe Wardle
30. Matt Dawson
31. Greg Johnson
32. Jon Molloy
33. Ross Peltier
34. Connor Mitchell (Fans Season Ticket Squad place winner)

So...I was right then. Hull Kingston Australians do have more overseas players than Huddersfield and Harlequins RL combined......good job they aren't breaking any rules then isn't it

yep it is.

Proof of the pudding, lets see where they finish season end.

we ended up with more [url=http://www.league.quins.co.uk/news/12410.php[uSILVERWARE[/u[/url than Hull Kingston Australians in 2010...and did it with british players