I'm surprised no ones asked where are these players coming from?

I agree with rewarding teams for retaining home grown talent but isn't this the case as it is. something to do with only half the players wage counting against the cap if he's been at a team for x number of years? I thought Horne fell into this bracket.

I'm not sure on varying the cap in line with profitablity, is the cap there to stop teams blowing their budget or to even up the comp and make it more competetive. In essence warrington and hudds have a large backer who are happy to write off huge losses year on year. So they aren't actually going into debt. If for instance if I had a spare £750,000 I could 'sponsor' Billy Slater for 3 years at £250,000 / yr and not cost the club a penny. Similar to the way Wigan worked in the 80's and this nearly killed the game.

Absolutely spot on.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about

Great post and 100% correct, the salary cap is on on the best things about RL.

It stops the like of Wigan doign what they did in the 80's/90's, I like nothing better than seeing the young players been given a chance, they is some great talnet coming through in SL, Wigan are a great example of this, if the salary cap wasnt in place you have to wonder if these players would be given a chance.

Would like the RFL to sort out the quota rules to make it easier to understand.

IMO a club should be allowed 3 players who can't play for England, 5 if france or Wales.

Easy.

This is the bit I've never understood really, I wouldn't have thought French players would be classed as non fed, quota or whatever they are as Catalans are part of SL. Surely if they wanted to encourage the game in Europe they would be classed as fed trainied. But as far as i'm aware a French player is classed the same as an aussie over here.

i dont think they are now, someone like Bosc will be classed as fed trained i would think, due to how long they have been at the club and from what age. Where they are from is not an issue as they have european passports

For as long as we persist without a head coach it's all irrelevant anyway, it is funny though to see jowlls acting like he'd like to spend more money; so disengenous it's untrue...

Just make that Europe and I'm with you on that.

I don't think that's the case. Bosc is classed a french fed trained player only, its similar that if say Tom Briscoe wanted to go to cats he would be classed as non fed trained in France and would be classed on there quota. I seem to remember it being mentioned when a club where looking to sign one of the French Catalans players.

Nope.

England and France have their own RL Federations, so French players are classed as non-Federation trained as far as signing for English clubs are concerned, and vice versa. They don't count as quota because they have European passports, unlike most Aussies.

From next season it will be 5 players who can't play for England, regardless of where they come from. So not far off.

Didn't some bizarre aspect of teh quota regs mean we couldn't sign some RU player who was from Hull last season?

It's not bizarre, it's very simple. Any player who wasn't trained in the home RL Federation of the team wanting to sign him counts as non-Fed trained. It's fair to assume that someone completely new to RL wasn't trained in the home RL Federation.

It is a simple rule but it doesnt stop it from being bizarre. There is no way that clubs can entertain signing a Rugby Union player under the current format which is a crying shame given the success of converts over the years. I am not just talking about internationals either. Both Hull and Rovers for example have had success with local Rugby Union converts.

It's a consequence of the only legal way of limiting the number of foreign players in SL. That's hardly 'bizarre' IMO.

And clubs can still sign RU players as long as they're good enough to warrant a non-Fed player spot.

Remember that the quota rules are also intended to encourage clubs to develop their own players rather than just sign ready-made alternatives.

You do not know if a Union player is good enough until he has played our game so they are hardly ready-made. I appreciate the legal reasons for the rule but i am in favour of some positive descrimination towards Union players or we may never see the likes of Marlow and Barkworth again.

Not exactly what the rules are there to guard against though is it?

I do see your point, but I can't think of any way to positively discriminate in favour of RU players without blowing the entire quota system out of the water.

Just use the place they played their first pro RL game

simplez

That's just made me think of another anomaly - I wonder how things would stand should Gareth Widdop come home? Will he be classed as non-fed trained?

And probably illegal. Or at least a whole lot more difficult to defend from a challenge.

I can see where Rule is coming from but don't agree with him. It would lead to misuse of the system as teams look for loopholes to gain the slightest advantage.