They could but on what grounds? (pretty sure they wouldnt have an arguement to do this legally)

One thing that does confuse me as that why is Luauki classed as a quota player, although he's carrying a Tongan passport? Is it because he has lived in NZ for 20+ years?

Maybe.

But is a long drawn out court case they way to go???

Possibly so but he wasn't even asked that! I dont see how anyone can say isn't being truthful.

Can it not just be simplifed by saying 6 players allowed who were not born in the UK/dont have a UK passport or that have not spent 6 years playing in the UK thus making them exempt.

Cos he hasnt trained in the UK at U21s. He is classed as trained abroad so will be non-fed wont he?

His exact status is open to question, but irrelevant in terms of the number of spaces we have free next season. He was originally announced as quota rather than non-fed, but with a Tongan passport he is clearly non-fed under the RFL rules.

Maybe someone was just using the term 'quota' in it's wider sense of overseas player rather than specifically non-Kolpak?

Yes, if the RFL are going to abuse their power illegally.

In 2011 it will be that situation exactly, as the total number of overseas players allowed will drop to 5, which is the same as the quota.

I think you're clutching at straws. When clubs agree rules they become RFL Bye Laws and over ride Employment and Contract Laws.

By not telling the truth? (he hasnt lied either though)

I wasnt calling him a lier, i was saying that had he wanted to be totally truthful he would have given the logic behind his comments.

Dont ask me , im as confused as you all



i would think we have 4 Quota players (highlighted) and 2 non federation, but i guess that is all down to Manu's status and the transfer of him to being federation trained.

So Mr Rule may be correct that we have 1 'Quota' place available, although we may not be able to fill it if we have the rest as non federation.

You tell me?

Yeah I guess so.

And like I have said in another thread, you are wrong, you cannot override statute law.

So everytime you are asked a question you give a full and complete answer including information that you weren't asked for and providing links to the relevant sources of information?

Bet your a hoot at dinner parties

Incorrect. Nothing over riders employment law and contract law. You cannot agree to something that would be classes as illegal under those laws.

Rugby League bye laws are agreed between clubs and are bound to but cannot be illegal in regards of the laws above.

Like I said on the other thread. When clubs agree something it becomes and RFL Bye Law and all clubs will abide by it and its spirit. If a club decided to act unilaterally using Employment Laws that is their decision.

I prefer to call myself thorough!!

Is it so difficult to just say "I'm wrong" ?

Precisely.

If Hull want to break that agreement that would be their choice. I very much doubt that would happen else we would have open anarchy within the game.

But the point is that the RFL agreed could not be illegal, thus they could not stipulate that FC cant re-negotiate Manus contract to make him off the non fed list a year earlier. (the point that this debate started about)

My god





If he had of stuck one word at the end of his email this thread would be over, all he had to add in true message board style was ....FACT!

You tried to crack a peanut with a sledgehammer.



Clubs are duty bound to stick within their own agreed rules.