As i said, Mason isnt the issue, its Mason + Newton, Galea, Dobson, Webster, Lovegrove, Vella, Clinton, Fisher, Green

Mason likely will benefit the young crop of English players, Lovegrove, Clinton, Fisher and Green wont.

Because Blake Green has prove nothing more than I'anson. Green is 23 and has 39 first grade appearances, I'anson is 23 and has 33. They are basically at the same stage of their development yet Hull KR are taking an opportunity from a young unproven english player and giving it to a young unproven Aussie. Something they have done with Lovegrove and Fisher previously.


yet he has played for two teams, both of whom finished above you.

Indeed I can also see Fisher going.
Hang on did we lose 3 and gain 1 last year (Out Fitzy, Gene, Macca)(In Clinton)?
This year we will probably lose 1 and gain 2(Out Fisher)(In Mason, Green).
So in the last 2 years we have had a net loss of 1 none SL trained player.
That cant be right can it?

Stanley Gene?

Then add the fact that Vella cant have long left in him
That would mean another 1 going then next season.
Galea the year after probably.
Who would have thunk it HKR sheading none SL trained players.

Nope.
I belive it was a certain English born Aussie trained Bradford player.

no, you could quiet easily have signed english players instead of australian ones, its not impossible.

Infact [url=http://www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697HERE YA GO[/url
So HKR will have that appology any time you feel up to it.

you might want to read it again,

Finnegan argued that he should count as federation trained as he was English,

Gene argued for exemption as he was already here, which was then applied to everyone in his position

Matt Diskin is playing ahead of McShane,

wow, a net loss of one whole overseas players, which is dependant on someone wanting to take Fisher. That really is some acheivement

you mean in three season, they may only need 7 overseas players? WOW

Nope.
Finnigan blew a massive hole in the whole 'fed trained' issue.
Stan came in on the back of it.

Quote ="Roverswall"Nope. Finnigan blew a massive hole in the whole 'fed trained' issue. Stan came in on the back of it.'" yes, the 'fed trained' issue. That is all Finnegan challenged, that a british subject should qualify as fed-trained Gene challenged the fact players not on Quota with existing contracts were then put on 'quota' this only shows that Gene needed to argue, himself, that his situation deserved exemption www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 34059.html ill try and find you a bit more detail when i can be d

Quote ="Roverswall"Nope. Finnigan blew a massive hole in the whole 'fed trained' issue. Stan came in on the back of it.'" yes, the 'fed trained' issue. That is all Finnegan challenged, that a british subject should qualify as fed-trained Gene challenged the fact players not on Quota with existing contracts were then put on 'quota' this only shows that Gene needed to argue, himself, that his situation deserved exemption www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 34059.html ill try and find you a bit more detail when i can be d

Quote ="SmokeyTA"yes, the 'fed trained' issue. That is all Finnegan challenged, that a british subject should qualify as fed-trained Gene challenged the fact players not on Quota with existing contracts were then put on 'quota' this only shows that Gene needed to argue, himself, that his situation deserved exemption www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 34059.html ill try and find you a bit more detail when i can be d'" Whilst you are at it can you find me a link that says HKR were behind it as that seems to be what you were suggesting.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"yes, the 'fed trained' issue. That is all Finnegan challenged, that a british subject should qualify as fed-trained Gene challenged the fact players not on Quota with existing contracts were then put on 'quota' this only shows that Gene needed to argue, himself, that his situation deserved exemption www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 34059.html ill try and find you a bit more detail when i can be d'" Whilst you are at it can you find me a link that says HKR were behind it as that seems to be what you were suggesting.

Infact I cant see either webster or Newton getting new deals either.
So lets knock them off as well.

So in conclusion HKR will be reducing their overseas players by 1/2 every year until they meet the quota figures.
They wont in fact have 10 overseas players for ever as some would have everyone belive.
They have infact promoted acadamy lads in recent weeks.
They have blooded Latus, Spaven and Taylor not long ago.
They have taken Liam Watts someone who openly admited he was a problem on national TV and turned him into a level headed SL player.

Not hear about what happened when he went out on the pi$$ in Wakey last week then?

How can you say that? No one would have predicted in 2006 with the franchise guidelines set out by the RFL on quotas that Rovers would be going into their 5th SL season with only 41% of their first choice 17 as British, so how can you predict what it will be like as they go into their 10th season? Are Rovers the only club that promotes academy players or is it actually a requirement now with the homegrown rule?

I don't see particularly abstentious attitudes from the fans of other teams, even those who profess to outrage at the number of overseas players Rovers have (Smokey is one of the clear and consistent exceptions, in fairness to the gormclops).
Like you, when I'm not on the Rovers board, I occasionally go over to the Hull FC board. Recent rumours (a reflection more of desire more than reality, but still a fair representation of attitudes) are that Motu Tony could return and if Berrigan gets off quota, you should bid for Rangi Chase. When it was rumoured that Hull were in for Galea it was considered by many (yourself included iirc - though I've no quotabase to back it up) as unwise, [iunless he was off quota[/i. You imply that Rovers' 'virtue' in bringing through young players is down mainly to the club-trained rules. There may well be some truth in that. I submit though that Hull's virtue in only having 6 (possibly 7? Agar says you are looking overseas) foreign players for 2011 is also down to the way the rules have turned out - if Hull could have more and they thought it improved the team, they would.
While I won't hold you to account for what other Hull posters write (or what Agar and Rule do), yesterday there was a post on our board from a Hull fan criticising [uboth[/u the signing of Mason and the rumoured promotion of Luke Hardcastle from the academy - we don't try to develop young players, we only include them in the squad because we have to, you see. No matter who we sign, whether they are experienced and Australian or young and local we are criticised - we can take it, we just can't take it seriously.

Have a look at the quota rules then have a look as the ages of our current players added to the chances of the certain players (excempt) getting contracts when they are either close to retirement ages or clearly knackered.
It kinda explains itself.

What still amazes me is that when the rule suits the country its a different matter.
Its not fine for Fisher to have a GB Passport, Vella a Maltese etc etc but its more than fine for the Volcano to pull on an England shirt as that suits the masses and not the few.
Every team who had the facilities tried to Sign Mason and can you blame them?

No do tell.
Just make sure that if its your usual BS that you have your solicitors on standby.

I see not one fc can reply to my comment then truth hurts don't it so please keep your idiotic comments to your selfs as your team is not that innocent is it

was this your question?

the rfl made an exception for 1 season that we would have honour the players contracts who played for the gateshead club, after that season we had to fall in line with every other club in SL. big defference when offering 2-3 year contracts to any quota/overseas/special dispensation some clubs are going down

I suppose there is. I'm not aware that what we're doing is causing lasting damage to another club.