I believed the basis premise was sound and I also understood that the employment law monster was always going to raise its head at times (such as the Stanley Gene ruling) which I believe was fair for the individuals involved. However, if what appears to be the general perception of the Mason situation is correct - i.e. that any Tongan counts as federation trained (and probably, therefore, other south sea islanders) - then it =#0000FFis a complete farce and I think that clubs who have looked to follow the spirit of the quota system will curse the day they ever invested in youth.

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not but the whole system is pretty shambolic imo.
either introduce a place of birth system, which as you say would probably not be possible due to employment law or just scrap the whole idea and throw doors open and have unlimited non UK players as in the Prem League.

I'm saying I agree with the idea of a quota =#0000FFif they stick to it but if this Mason thing turns it all on its head then it's not only shambolic but also completely unfair to clubs who have invested heavily in the future development of youth.

The rule has changed there also, 8 of their 25 man squad must be 'homegrown'

So in short the RFL have either messed up big time or Rovers are cheating and we now only have 2 non fed trained players.

As I have posted on the VT, you can now have a 25 man squad as follows:
8 homegrown players
5 Australians
12 Tongans
So if you don't have any injuries, you don't need to field any British players at all.

Scrapping the academy and spending the money scouting in the South Sea Islands would appear to be the way forward.

Jesus.....how will the young ones ever get a chance with that...very poor

Indeed.

The RFL needs to make it simple. Something like 3/4/5 non British/French players per SL side, all these Maltese and other EU passports coming out of the woodwork are making a mockery of the system.

To make sure all clubs agree just make it part of the SL rules and if they dont like the rules they are more than welcome to drop out.

havent really read previous posts and pages so dont have a go, all this quota non quota bussiness all got scrapped and changes to fed and non fed now players like galea,vella ect count as fed trained because they were here before the new rule was introduced so how on earth does mason count as fed trained it dosent matter wether hes got an tongan passport so has moa and lauaki but they still class as non fed

That's the point, they're fed now, so we have 3 spare quota spots.

thanks for that, well the rfl have made a right joke of this then. right then lets just sign a load of aussies get them a tongan passport and get them over here

[urlhttp://www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/?page_id=4027[/url

Might be worth some clarification from the club?

The thing is, you can't limit a team to players 'just because they are foreign' and as we are part of the EU you cannot deny ANY EU person entry/work.

Can you however do one of the next 2 things:

1. Effectively charge per non-UK player. ie: You can have as many Aussies, NZs or Tongans as you like but it costs 25/50k per 'quota' player from the salary cap thus limiting your financial capabilities.

2. A player becomes 'homegrown' after completing 4 full seasons at one club (transferred players would have this reset to 0) so maybe eventually you could have loads of 'foreigners' but would encourage to at least give longer terms contracts, which clubs would be unlikely to want to do with older players, and thus encourage the use of younger players from abroad. Only 3 players at any one time on the 'non-homegrown' lists

ATEOTD, Aussies have been coming over for a final contract/paycheque. If any players really want to test themselves in the Superleague, they will have to do it earlier or while they are in their prime!!

So if all this is true why was Melli of St.Helens [not George frozen out by the visa people, when infact had a job and by EEC law was entitled to come and work here???

Can he now take them to the European court and claim loss of pay and inconvience money.

Hell of a can of worms some one is opening up here.

Have just emailed the club asking about Sam Moa and Lauaki getting dispensation to become Fed trained, freeing up 2 non fed spots in the squad.

They should just bring a ruling out that 12 of the 17 need to be EU trained as per the old/currentish rules. Let teams have as many foreign players as they like but they can only play 5 in any game. Clubs wont want to stockpile aussies etc if they have to pay they but cant play them. Its not stopping any player from employment then is it?

I thought everyone was upset about British players not been having opportunities in the game? Why would we want three more overseas?

I'm sure some argument could be made for un-equal opportunities.

Me too. Something or someone (you'd have thought the RFL) must have led the club to believe that Lauaki and Moa are non fed trained, though. Lauaki got a Tongan passport too, there was a delay with the whole speaking English test that it entails. Would be interesting to see a list of all the players at all clubs split into homegrown, British, Quota, Exempt (pre 200icon_cool.gif, etc.

You're right but I think people are making the point that it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to invest in youth whereae it is a lot cheaper to import players who play at a higher skill/fitness-level: not world-beaters but better than a 17 year old. So why bother if it doesn't count for anything in the domestic league? Why not just bring 'em all over and don't worry about youth?

Because that's what our CEO agreed to in 2007.

We've done more than many clubs on the homegrown side of things, and also paid fees for Tansey and Westerman thinking it would secure us advantage in the long term tying down young British talent. We probably paid over the odds for Tickle with this as a factor as well. In hindsight we may as well not have bothered to the same extent that we did as it won't give us the expected advantage.

Can any Hull FC fan on here say that they would be up in arms over this if at your club you had 5 quota players, and say 2 who were classed as federation due to their passports and like rovers, everything is within the understanding of the RFL?

Would you be protesting the case then? Serious question, not an enticing one.

Yes.

Next question.