Mason does not fit in with any of the rules. Being off quota is not the same as being Fed Trained. This is what I meant when I said that you don't understand the rules.

The problem with that is the use of the phrase Federation Trained in the quote from the RFL. This is a phrase with a clear definition within the Operational Rules, and Mason equally clearly does not qualify. If they've just dropped the whole Non Fed/Fed Trained scenario then why bother to mention it and shine a light on the fundamental contradiction?

Anyway - I've actually emailed the RFL politely asking for a clarification. If I get a response I'll post it here. Not holding my breath, mind.

Please, read what I am writing.

I am well aware that fed trained is not the same as being off quota. Quota, Non-Fed trained, Fed-trained and home grown are the 4 categories of players correct?

But, read what that link said. Wigan had their 5 spots filled by genuine quota players, at the time of writing that post, clubs were then allowed 1 further NON-FED trained player, and the rest had to be (minus the 6? I think homegrown players required) federation trained. However, it said they had 3 further players who were not on the quota. So at least 2 of them had to be in the same situation Mason is now - going on the FED TRAINED list due to passport - correct? Or does Pat Richards suddenly count as home grown?

And I also emailed the RFL asking for the situation to have light shed on lol. And it was an impartial email, clearly identifying that by the rules stated by the RFL, Mason should not be allowed to be fed trained. Equally, if I recieve a response, I will post it

I think what's encouraging is the way that Rovers are doing their very best to stay within the spirit of what the RL are trying to achieve with the quota rules. It's important not only to even up the competition but to develop British talent so that the northern hemisphere can compete at international level. Long gone are the days when Rovers needed to look for loopholes to get players such as Gene off the quota because they've been working hard on local player development. I applaud them.

This is from a club who have used a loop hole to get a coach here.

The difference between Richards and Mason is that Richards was here in 2008. If Richards came across now, he'd be non-fed.

It would be so counter-productive if such a loophole exists. It would blow a hole in everything the RFL has been trying to achieve over the last 10 years with regard to British and mainland European player development. Very disappointing for the game as a whole if true.

I am.


You need to go back and read that link again. It doesn't say what you think it says.

I hope Scott isn't advising Rovers on this

But Leo-Latu the Kiwi who also played for Tonga has been playing in this country for a few seasons and is refused a re-entry visa.

That's nothing to do with the quota or where he trained.

But that's possibly down to the more strict visa process now and his less than clean off-field record.

I think that would have been the simplest way out of this situation.
My own take on this is that at some point last year the RFL gave rovers an assurance (either verbal or written) that Galea would not count as a quota player because of his new maltese passport. At this point rovers went ahead and signed Mason. With the delay to Galea's passport, rovers have gone back to Red Hall to clarify the situation.
Realising they'd painted themselves into a corner, the RFL have taken their usual action by fudging the issue and have made a mountain out of a molehill. I can't believe they would allow themselves to be bullied by Hudgell. Not even the RFL are that weak-kneed, are they?

I'm amazed that there is so much fuss over hull kr cheating again. they've been doing it since I started watching the game and probably were a long time before that. It's in their blood

Why should galea get a bridging visa? What if his passport doesn't turn up?

To save face and as an alternative to all Islanders (and maybe EU passport holders?) qualifying as fed-trained even if they arrive now or in the future. They've chosen to bin their rules rather than fudge them, when that alternative existed - that is curious and has some dramatic implications for SL. In theory at least - when the NRL gets more TV money, that'll change things again and maybe more profoundly.

So what if all the clubs put applications for bridging dispensation? What they should have said is no, not until Galeas passport comes through.

When the NRL's salary cap and league grows ageing players will still come to sl for a easier time and so will the poorer players who can't get contracts in the nrl.

An explaination of the different classifications just for Scott, Im sure you understand homegrown and quota so I'll explain non fed vs fed trained:

Non Fed - A player who has not spent 3 years training at a UK club before reaching the age of 21
Fed Trained - A player who has spent 3 years training at a UK club before reaching the age of 21

There is an excemption to this ruling (The Gene ruling) whereas if you were signed up for a UK club pre Feb 2008, you could apply in the last year of your current contract to become classed as a Fed Trained player as long as you wasn't classed as a quota player.

Mason falls into the non fed catogory and is not elidgable for excemption so unless Rovers have invented a new way of getting a player classed as a fed trained player(like they did with Gene), he should be always classed as a non fed player regardless of passport.

Perhaps HKR have managed to register the Toronto Scorpions as a UK club? That would do it!

Are you still sticking by your "eventually it will resolve itself as Galea/Vella retire" mantra or has that been abandoned now? I did say a while back that those teams with a genuine commitment to the long game, developing youth and acquiring British players, are in fact being penalised by others not bothering and seeking dispensations after the event. Take Westerman. We played the long game there in anticipation of him being at a premium, naively believing that quotas would actually come down, and it cost us a big fee. In hindsight, would we have signed him with only 2 quota players at the club and the possibility of getting a South Seas Island prop instead?

Let's face it hkr will probably lose 4 of their overseas stars after this year but now they've had another rule change they'll sign some more, as will others.

And a excellent point mrs b

No - this completely undermines that argument, which is why I'm so surprised. I think the quota was sold on a very shaky premise - that it'd improve the England team. Where it is was more likely to succeed, though I'm personally a little ambivalent about it, was in retaining (or regaining) SL's flavour as a British competition.

Whether Hull FC have been naive, as you put it, or just victims of bad luck I don't know. The RFL does seem to be acting randomly and making policy on the hoof in this instance - which'll create luck, good and bad, and see good and bad judgement go unrewarded/unpunished.

I'd love to know the thinking (I'm assuming there must be some) behind the new policy, and await the RFL's replies to Kosh's and Scott's e-mails with interest.

People need to stop worrying about Rovers, massive losses, unpaid debts and uncontrolled budgets do not make a sound business plan!

Does anyone else think this whole overseas players question is an absolute farce?
Quota, non quota, fed trained, not fed trained...
The whole thing is a joke and the rest of the sporting world must be look at RL and its constent tinkering of the rules as a laughing stock.
Surely it should just go on where you are born, end of story, agree on a number of non UK born players alowed in a squad and stick to it, simple.