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?

Specifically how did this lack of support manifest itself?

I stated that Worrall and Gibson were not good enough, it now appears neither will have much of a role to play at the club in 2010 and I saw weaknesses in Watkins game that needed work but also stated that I expect him to be ready to replace Senior mid to late 2010.



The squad was understrength in 2009, a position the CEO and Club President accepted (when they had no need to) during the 2009 season. Any potential signing (Pitts, Amor and Coady) would have had to be made within the constraints of the salary and quota restrictions and I never argued otherwise.




Posted a link to the RFL quota rules earlier in the thread, the spirit you will have to use your own moral compass to attain.

The spirit of the rules was a reduction in the number of overseas players. Leeds are increasing their number. That, IMO, is against the spirit of the rules.

When the re-classification was adopted by the RFL for the 2008 season:

2008 - Overseas trained limit 10 - Leeds 5 (Webb, Donald, Toopi, Leuluai, Lauitiiti)

2009 - Overseas trained limit 8 - Leeds 5 (Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti) or 6 (Eastwood) and still places available for a squad strengthening signing if desired

2010 - Overseas trained limit 6 - Leeds =red7 (Webb, Donald, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Eastwood)

A retrograde step for the Champion club who previous to this had no record of breaching the cap or quotas?

Eastwood has british passport, so he is exempt.

He's exempt from being overseas trained?

Somehow I doubt that.

I do have some sympathy with TVOC's position on this and agree with him that it does not appear to be in the spirit of what was intended. However I can live with it, as we are not breaking the rules. But if we win the GF next year it may just take the tiniest edge of the pride I have felt the last three years.

I would have preferred to have signed an English centre or, better still, retained Smith, rather than sign an overseas player. However, this is not the first time we have used 'loop-holes' around the quota: the old quota system used be 3 and we had 7 in the 2004 squad. I don't think our success that year was tarnished and any success in 2010 won't be either. The problem is that the RFL's quota rules on overseas trained etc. don't seem watertight which is why they caved in so easily and allowed exceptions soon after they introduced them, presumably because they wouldn't stand up to legal challenge. Idealistically, I think tvoc is right and, as I said, I would have preferred to buy British, but practically, I don't think anyone can blame any club for building the strongest squad possible taking advantage of whatever 'loop-holes' are available. The RFL needs better rules, perhaps.

I don't think that was the same situation as we have today. Whatever the limit was set at in 2004 (and Leeds did have seven overseas players turn out for them in total over the course of that season) the limit was specifically set with a whole host of exceptions present in the system. The new quota was designed to remove the exceptions (it started at ten to allow teams the chance to adjust as the limit decreased over a number of years.)

Back to the present situation:

Is it the RFL or the clubs at fault where the intended limit is exceeded and is it a deliberate act on the club's part to work around the limits they all presumably agreed to introduce?

The limit is set to lower to six (from eight) but Leeds will have seven (up from their recent average of five.)

How did such a situation come about at Headingley?

1) Webb - 2011 - and
2) Buderus - 2010 - deals were negotiated in 2008 so were always part of the plan.

In order of announcements to the press

3) Leuluai extends his existing deal - 2011 - 29th May 2009

4) Lauitiiti extends his existing deal - 2010 - 2nd June 2009

5) Delaney's capture is announced - 2012 - 4th August 2009

6) Eastwood wins his Visa appeal - 2012 - 13th August 2009

=red7) Donald extends his existing deal - 2010 - 17th August 2009

So retaining Donald appears a deliberate act on Leeds' part to exceed the spirit of the quota and perversely could lead to the loss of one or more promising Academy players such as Ben Jones-Bishop and Jodie Broughton who could (and should IMO) be fighting over a place in the first grade at Headingley.