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.

Personally I do agree with you on this issue, and am merely playing devils advocate. Unfortunatley where people's livelyhood is at stake, the governing body has to be very careful.

My opinion is that Leeds are not finding loop holes, like paying wives as cleaners etc, but playing to the rules, no matter how those rules were arrived at.

Bradford were in the process of releasing Semi Tadulala at the end of 2008 (IIRC citing the drop in the quota, ie. playing by the RFL rules) but then Stanley Gene challenge the ruling and the RFL caved in (perhaps they had no choice) and Bradford immediately got Tadulala re-signed before he got away.

Another instance where everyone in the game knew what the RFL were introducing but just like the Wigan salary cap breach in 2006 found a way to thwart the full impact of their best intentions because of selfish interests.

Absoluletly, the rules are different (as they are every year with the RFL).

Leeds are presently operating 3 players under the present quota.

Still, that won't stop TVOC finding something to criticise the club for.

So the RFL changed the limit to [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346ten in 2008[/url but that figure was intended to exclude all the overseas trained players already under contract in this country? No that can't be right unless there were no overseas trained still under contract as miniumums were also set for home produced and home trained within the named twenty five man squads.

Leeds have never before gone outside of the limits set by the RFL. That they choose to in 2010 is a retrograde step both for the club and the future of the International game in this country.

Even as recently as 2008 and 2009 Leeds had managed to stay within the quotas laid down by the governing body.

I'm not being funny mate and don't take this the wrong way but IF the RFL have ratified our signings and they are clear to join our squad for 2010 how have we gone outside the limits on overseas players????????
There's no such thing as a loop hole if it's been accepted by the powers that be then we haven't broken any guideline or rule!!!!!

Have the rhinos exceeded the salary cap?
Have the rhinos broken any rules?
Have the Rhinos exceeded the new limit set by the RFL, in principal only in 2010, purely due to the fact that all the overseas players at the club were under contract?

Answers on a postcard to
wigan/bradford/wakefield/love their overseas players.com

I'm with TVOC on this. The rules may not have been broken but the spirit of the rules that were originally intended have. IIRC the clubs, recognising the need to increase the number of homegrown players, ratified these rule changes before they were implemented. (Just like the original rules on overseas players). The fact that these self same clubs quickly used whatever means possible to get round the rules that they themselves ratified (and I'm thinking more about the Kolpak/European passports here) says more about the moral standards of our club leaders than anything else.

Don't forget the need to bring in the rules on federation trained players was brought in because it was seen as the only legal way to avoid the abuse of the original rules on overseas players.

I might've been if he were consistent.

You see, earlier this season he was unhappy with Gibson, Ablett, Smith or Watkins as our options at right centre and wanted Mr Hetherington to scour the planet for q "quality" player to play there. He voiced little or no concerns about the RFL's new relaxed quotas then.

His consistency is in the fact that if we had signed an overseas player we would not have broken the spirit of the federation rules for 2009.

His argument was purely on a playing staff basis as opposed to an adherence to the rules basis.

If the rules aren't within the "law" then the spirit of the rules don't exsist imo.
In an ideal world we'd have a 25 man squad of leeds lads all from this service area but it's not gonna happen i would of loved smithy to of stayed and if it was a straight choice between him and delaney it would be smithy every time.
Lets not also forget GH has actively tried to recruite more english players with offers for the likes of atkins and ferguson to name just 2 the fact he wouldn't break the bank for 1 and wakey refused to sell the other is pretty irrelevant tbh.
The squad has been assembled WITHIN the current guidelines set down by the RFL.

That's fine to take that stance, but the current guidelines changed from the original guidelines due to the threat legal action against the RFL.

This allowed the clubs, who don't forget were the ones who ratified the rules in the first place, to break the spirit of the original rules that they had been party to. Exactly the same happened with the overseas player rule.

Which is why the "spirit of the rules" doesn't exsist imo because it wasn't a legal guideline to set in the 1st place!

Actually that is not strictly correct.

He often offered several names of English origin that he would have preferred.

I never saw him advocating specifically an overseas player.

And I never saw anything from tvoc to question Ablett or Smiths right to be in the team, far from it.

I disagree, last year (2009 season)even with the players that were at the club before the rules were brought in and taking Eastwood into account Leeds wre below the threshold for non federation trained players. This year (2010 season) they have signed additional player that takes them over the threshold and used the fact that some players are exempt as a reason to exceed the threshold. That IMO is against the spirit of the rules.

If they are EXEMPT and that's clearly within the RULES how can we be breaking the spirit of a rule which clearly states those players are exempt!!???????

Yes it is.


Preferred to the incumbents. Not preferred to overseas players that he also wanted us to procure.

I never said he did.

I never said he did. Read again what I put.

Take your fog and knit it somewhere else.

I don't think his appalling lack of support for the young English lads vying for the jersey this year is consistent with his current thinking at all.

Exactly. He deemed them not good enough. He didn't care their back ground. He wanted players he considered of sufficient quality.

That is why his new viewpoint is not consistent.

BTW, before we continue this discussion, which we're having on the basis that Leeds have broken some rules or the "spirit of the rules" does anyone have a link to the rules or a definition of what "the spirit of the rules" means?