You'd be wrong. I've stated on this very thread that I hope he's a first choice winger at Leeds by 2011.

He's shown nothing so far to suggest he merits a wing spot ahead of Hall or Donald.

If Stains hadn't made so many late attempts to win the award, that would have scooped 'Funniest Moment Of The Season' by a mile.

its a good break for him he might get a better contract with first time

He's still got 2/3yrs left on his current one!!

It was a question rather than a statement.



Difficult for him to show when his first grade opportunities at Leeds are so limited.

Perhaps had Leeds not busted the import quota for 2010 by re-signing Donald we'd have seen. As it is will Leeds now lose Broughton and if they do.... for what?

Then you'd be wrong to question me



He's had plenty of opportunities to show what he's got at 1st grade level on loan with Hull and when their 1st choice wingers were fit (and their first choice wingers aren't as good as ours) he was dropped.

Leeds haven't busted any quota. They've abiding by the RFL regulations in order to obtain the best possible players they can in their quest to win everything. You know, like you were complaining they weren't doing this year.

If we lose Broughton its' because he wasn't good enough to dislodge the incumbents or patient enough to wait his opportunity wit us. I can live with that. We've lost better players.

While I expect Leeds to give 100% in all aspects of running the club to be as successful as it can be, I stop well short of wishing them to exercise loopholes left by the RFL.

Leeds have managed to get by without breaking the spirit of the quotas set in the past and still remain competitive despite doing so.

I enjoy it when people throw the 'cheat' jibe at other clubs because it's something that can't be thrown back at Leeds. Those jibes will be lessoned for me in 2010 with Leeds operating at seven overseas trained where the limit is set at six.

Have we broke ANY rules?????????

Not officially, but as tvoc says we have broken the 'spirit' of the rules by having more overseas players than we should, but have just used loopholes to get round it.

I think we have enough "spirit" in the bank due to our youth development!

Oh absolutely, its slightly disappointing that we have to rely on foreign imports but Im not that worked up about it, we're no way near as bad as other "big" clubs.

Leeds probably only have three players counting on the overseas trained quota at present (Buderus, Eastwood and Delaney) allowing them to bring in a further three and still not break the RFL's limit of six.

The type of situation Leeds fans will have mocked a Bradford or a Wigan or a Wakefield over in the past.

Leeds should have remained above using such tactics.

Any future success will now be tarnished as a result.

I agree but i don't have any problem with it as it stands either tbh!
GH and the Coaching staff have seen this as the best way to go this year so i'm happy to back their judgement!
FWIW I'd be surprised if donald and buderus stay beyond this year anyway so that's 2 overseas stars off the quota!

C'mon yer not serious???????
The difference with our situation imo is that English and acadamy grown players have been offered deals to stay and a chance to prove themselves whereas at "other" clubs their homegrown lot were as good as ditched!
Plus we have situations crop up ala Danny Allan where the players in front of them sre just too good for them to get in the team.

Perfectly serious. There is a quota set by the RFL (it's set for a reason) which Leeds have never broken in the past despite the availability of loopholes.




There is no difference when clubs are exceeding the quotas laid down by the RFL.




Which isn't helped by overfilling on quota players.

And that quota is six non federation trained players, with the exception of those players already in the UK at the time the rule was brought in.

So at the moment, Leeds are only exercising the right to take up half of their quota. That's not "exploiting a loophole", it's abiding by the same rules - as set down by the RFL - as everyone else in the competition.

The original rules didn't have the exception. That was brought in when players threatened to challenge the rules in the courts IIRC. It's a mute point, IMO, whether that is a loophole.

I thought the last tackle play Saints invented and unleashed on Bradford(?) when they lost to them earlier in the season was my funniest moment.

It's between that and Sheriffe(?) trying to save a goal line drop out and conceding a try instead V Warrington(?) at Odsal.

I still think Sherriffe wins.

I agree mate that was funny as fook!!

And that was the intention of the RFL making the change, to allow an increase in overseas trained players registered in the SL?

I missed that. That must have been pretty funny.

It was the weekend before the Saints fifth and last move. Just as the engravers were getting to work on the correct spelling of Ricky.... then Potter comes up with that.

No other contenders that I can think of at the moment.

True, but given how quickly they backtracked, it seems that they were attempting to enforce something which was illegal.

If the RFL decided that no SL could have more than 2 black players in a team, but revoked it on threat of legal action, would you hold the same opinion?

The league doesn't have a quota on black players does it?

The quotas on overseas trained players is being reduced year on year and for good reason. You only have to look at Tony Smith's choices for outside backs to see why SL clubs need forcibly weening off their addiction.

That individual players (probably fearing for their own livelihood) challenged the RFL is a shame IMO because the result of that selfish action granted immunity to every overseas trained player already contracted in this country and IIRC that remains even if they change clubs over here.

The nett result being an even longer wait for British eligible players to increase our chances on the International stage.

That Leeds are now making themselves part of the problem saddens me.