FWIW I thought Burrow had an excellent game on Sunday - hopefully this will give him the confidence to kick on.

If you want an opponent to show your skills off against then I would suggest Harlequins at home is as near a perfect fit as they come.

Except that we're back home playing on quicksand.
I hope Delaney's leg stands up to it this time.

It looked worse than ever when they showed some highlights from the Tykes game on Sunday on Look North this week

No grass just sand

I claimed it at the time, not just now. No, I was not in the least bit surprised because, as Tony points out, Donald is a class player. Accepting a player is in bad form is not the same as dismissing that player as a bad player. The latter is fekkwittedry. The former is providing an objective and reasoned analysis of form, irrespective of personal preferences. It's what separates me from most on here.


I'd like the best player available to get the number 2 shirt and Donald is head and shoulders above the juniors you mention, two of whom will be better developed in the current scenario than had we released DOnald anyway.

The quota point is a non point. We're well within it. How many spare places would you like us to keep on our quota, given your criticisms of the club last year in not filling the quota/salary cap.

Here Here.

Regards

Stuart Fielden

Even when that reasoned analysis comes down to Jones-Bishop is a 'poor' winger (without further explanation) and Scott Donald's form for 18 games was 'abysmal' (again without further explanation.)

Are you really that different.... really?



And yet you claim he was 'abysmal' in the opening 18 games of the 2009 season and should have been replaced for an extended spell beyond that by one such Academy graduate.




I'd rather Leeds stayed within the numbers prescribed by the RFL. You may take an opposing view on the matter but will no doubt still bemoan England's inability to compete with the antipodeans over a series and likely as not correctly cite the number of imports as being a factor.

My critism was never about filling the quota per se but of not spending their full entitlement under the salary cap while the squad was vulnerable due to key players leaving and not being adequately replaced, especially when the desire was to challenge on more than one front in this potentially golden period.

Leeds operated with 5 overseas trained in 2009 set against the RFL's intended limit of 8. This season they have 7 when the intended limit has dropped to 6. Leeds have done nothing wrong legally but I'd rather they hadn't found a way around the quota limit. Finding ways around limits is not the way I want to see Leeds operate. The last overseas trained player to sign for 2010 was Scott Donald.

Double Post.

yet more evidence of a personality disorder.

You really should use the internet as sybil, and not one of your many personnas.

Here Here.

Regards

Paul Wellens

Seconded


Regards

Richard Horne

Self evidently.

Which they have done.

If you want to direct such criticisms at the Leeds club you are being unjust IMO, given the number of internationals the club have produced, including those now at other clubs.

The key issue being whether they were adequately replaced. I maintained that they were. A history making 3rd consecutive championship was good enough for me and should, IMO, be good enough for any right minded supporter. Unless, of course, you consider not winning every trophy every year as failure.

No they haven't.

They are within the limit.

They are within the limit. ...and what a good job because, as some have finally realised after last Sunday, he's a quality winger and a clinical finisher and the side is weaker without him.

When I'm not getting a rise out of you, you aren't half as much fun.

It's nice to see people still think highly of us.

Regards


Paul Cooke.

Which bit?

They haven't exceeded the RFLs regulations on non-federation trained players. They are at least one player and possibly two players within it.

Therefore the whole premise for your complaint is built upon foundations that are as dubious as the Steel work beneath the South Stand.

My premise is that the 'new' quota system was designed to do away with the myriad of exemptions which had found their way into the old quota system with a generous allowance of overseas trained players initially (10 in 200icon_cool.gif gradually reducing over several seasons. In 2010 the figure fell to 6 and by 2011 it reaches it's final destination for now of 5.

I agree with the reductions and the RFL's motives behind their implementation. I also accept they were prevented from imposing the numbers as they were intending by legal judgements in favour of existing registered overseas trained players within SL.

Certain (but not all SL clubs) have exploited the legally created loophole within the quota knowing full well that increasing their reliance on overseas trained players is pretty much flying in the face of what the sport's governing body were seeking to bring about.

Which is where you're going wrong.

The new quota was designed to explicitly include exemptions and so does. Therefore, Leeds are under the quota and have not exploited any "loopholes".

I will concede Leeds have not stuck to what YOU think a right and proper quota should be, regardless of what that quota REALLY is but I don't think Mr Hetherington will take your views into account as he tries to assemble a squad capable of winning a 4th consecutive grand final.

He might have done had you been a little less negative about the efforts he went to building the squad which won a record setting third consecutive Grand Final.

The new quota was designed to remove/include (if you prefer) the myriad of previous exemptions by use of the catch all terminology of overseas or non federation trained.

There probably wasn't a supporter in the game that knew the status of every overseas trained player on their own clubs register (I know I didn't) previous to the new quota being introduced in 2008. Kolpak, European passport, residency exemptions and the like, it was an unholy mess.

The clubs understood what the RFL were doing and the likes of Stanley Gene and Semi Tadulala were not retained initially as clubs in quota difficulty re-assessed their squads. Then the courts (probably rightly) intervened and Gene and Tadulala were back at their clubs free to carry on as before.

That was not what the RFL intended. Eventually the RFL will get their quota limits but due to the unforseen action of the courts it will take longer than they initially hoped.

You have posted a lot about what the intentions of the RFL were. I do not know if you have anything to substantiate that.

All I have done is refer to the factual RFLs own present regulations which include exemptions, and rightly so.

Quote ="G1"You have posted a lot about what the intentions of the RFL were. I do not know if you have anything to substantiate that.'" I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. And a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697

Quote ="G1"You have posted a lot about what the intentions of the RFL were. I do not know if you have anything to substantiate that.'" I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. And a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697

Quote ="tvoc"I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. '" So it does. The article says "There has been a long-standing objective to encourage the production of more players qualified to play for Great Britain". That does not say there will no be exemptions. Maurie Fa'asavalou will be exempt. He qualified and qualifies for GB (and England). How would YOU treat him? The whole gist is about encouraging clubs to produce more of their own players, not on reducing quota limits. "The RFL also wants to introduce measures to encourage clubs to produce more of their own players" Quote And a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697'" Not at all. They have fulfilled their intentions. We have a quota system which now sets minimum requirements for club trained players. That was their stated intention throughout. The article you link to simply demonstrates that the way the RFL had initially tried to go about that was unjust, unfair and illegal. So they have adopted the present regulations, which fulfill their stated intention of ensuring clubs produce more home grown players. "take the case of New Zealander Robbie Paul, who played Academy Rugby League for Bradford on his arrival from his home country and was trained over here from the age of 17 years. Under the current RFL Rule he would have been treated as a Federation trained/Academy player and free from restrictions, whereas Simon Finnigan, a British subject, was caught by the Rule" You seem to want to criticise Leeds for not adhering to a quota limit that was never actually introduced, was shown to be illegal, illogical and unjust despite the fact that Leeds have, for some time, set the benchmark in achieving what it was always the RFLs intention to force other clubs to do, produce their own players. Bizarre.

Quote ="tvoc"I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. '" So it does. The article says "There has been a long-standing objective to encourage the production of more players qualified to play for Great Britain". That does not say there will no be exemptions. Maurie Fa'asavalou will be exempt. He qualified and qualifies for GB (and England). How would YOU treat him? The whole gist is about encouraging clubs to produce more of their own players, not on reducing quota limits. "The RFL also wants to introduce measures to encourage clubs to produce more of their own players" Quote And a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697'" Not at all. They have fulfilled their intentions. We have a quota system which now sets minimum requirements for club trained players. That was their stated intention throughout. The article you link to simply demonstrates that the way the RFL had initially tried to go about that was unjust, unfair and illegal. So they have adopted the present regulations, which fulfill their stated intention of ensuring clubs produce more home grown players. "take the case of New Zealander Robbie Paul, who played Academy Rugby League for Bradford on his arrival from his home country and was trained over here from the age of 17 years. Under the current RFL Rule he would have been treated as a Federation trained/Academy player and free from restrictions, whereas Simon Finnigan, a British subject, was caught by the Rule" You seem to want to criticise Leeds for not adhering to a quota limit that was never actually introduced, was shown to be illegal, illogical and unjust despite the fact that Leeds have, for some time, set the benchmark in achieving what it was always the RFLs intention to force other clubs to do, produce their own players. Bizarre.

Where was this "unforseen action of the courts"? The Finnegan article you have provided says explicitly that the courts were not involved and that the RFL accepted that there would have to be exemptions without the matter going to the courts. So it either didn't go to court, or if it did, it can hardly have been unforseen.

And, if the RFL have accepted that exemptions are necessary, as they have, or, if they have been told by the courts they are necessary (which I don't think they have) how on earth will they "get their quota limits"? Will they suddenly not accept the necessity for exemptions or will they ignore this unforseen action of the courts you appear to have invented?

I repeat, the present regulations, introduced by the RFL, are what the RFL had intended to introduce. They carry a minimum requirement for home grown players which didn't exist before. They place a restriction on non federation trained players but accept the necessity, legally and morally, for exemptions to those restrictions.

As far as I am aware, they do not accept exemptions to the minimum quota of home grown players, thus re-emphasizing their intentions were always such and nothing to do with quota restrictions.

If it was foreseen by the RFL I wonder why Finnegan was initially designated as non fed trained which resulted in the player seeking professional advice and having the RFL's ruling overturned.



By reducing the non federation trained quota year on year from 2008 to 2011. The exemptions will not apply as they do now to players who were already under contract in the SL pre 2008 when they were introduced. Over time there will be a reduction in non fed trained players and the RFL have already reported a 6% fall in numbers when looking through the squad lists for the 2008 season. I don't know what has happened since then percentage wise and Leeds for one have increased their reliance on the antipodean contingent in the short term but that will reduce as the exempt players return down under.



The requirement of including home grown players increases year on year as the non fed trained quota reduces year on year. If as you say Leeds currently have room on the quota then that is because of the exemptions given to Webb, Donald, Leuluai and Lauitiiti in 2008 as they were already a part of SL when the new quota was introduced, after Gene had challenged the new system with regards to existing non fed trained players already here. When those players leave, Leeds for example will not be able to replace them like for like with 'non fed trained' unless they have quota spaces available within the reduced limit or can find other exempt players who will be comparitively rare. So the numbers of non fed trained will reduce eventually and I imagine that is what Nigel Wood was getting at when he said it will take a while longer than they had initially hoped or words to that effect.

I repeat, where was this unforeseen action by the courts you spoke of?

Very interesting.

Now, why have Leeds exposed any "loopholes" exactly?

I repeat, Leeds have worked within the guidelines set and are under the present quota. When the players you mention leave I am certain Leeds will continue to operate within the quota, as they presently do under its' present format.

So, just what were you being critical of Leeds for doing again? Oh yes, operating within the quota and the criteria set down by the RFL at present.

Hmmmm.

In 2008 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2009 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2010 Leeds have exceeded the original quota the RFL set www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 They are able to exceed the quota presumably because of the exemptions granted (again presumably) to Webb, Donald, Leuluai and Lauitiiti in 2008. Those exemptions came about after Gene challenged being placed on the non fed trained quota and won his argument with the RFL which led to the wholesale lifetime exemption of 'overseas trained' players that were contracted in SL in 2007. I'm disappointed that the SL Champion club have more overseas trained than the new system was intended to allow in 2010 especially considering the allowance started at ten.

In 2008 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2009 Leeds stayed within the original quota that the RFL set In 2010 Leeds have exceeded the original quota the RFL set www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 They are able to exceed the quota presumably because of the exemptions granted (again presumably) to Webb, Donald, Leuluai and Lauitiiti in 2008. Those exemptions came about after Gene challenged being placed on the non fed trained quota and won his argument with the RFL which led to the wholesale lifetime exemption of 'overseas trained' players that were contracted in SL in 2007. I'm disappointed that the SL Champion club have more overseas trained than the new system was intended to allow in 2010 especially considering the allowance started at ten.