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.

and every one on here is going on about us and exceptions they had a bloody good one there then

give over, it was for ONE SEASON ONLY, not like your team who choose to fill their roster with overseas regardless

no sorry yea i forgot that you were saved by a merger by super league, aloud to play ineligible players in the challenge cup, play suspended players in a 9's tournament to clear there suspensions have i forgotten anything and you don't really get away with much do you how silly of me to question your club

can i just say if there going to get away with it can you blame them any team who can will so were not the only ones iam sure fc saints whoever would do it if they could

This whole thing about how its bad to have foreigners in your side really annoys me.

Who cares about International RL ? Its a complete farce anyway considering you can play for more then one country and you only need a grandmother who was born in that country from two centuries ago to qualify to play for that country. They will only ever be three good international RL sides and then again it can be argued they is a massive difference in quality between them. Hence why international RL will never come close to Club RL, I'd go well out of my way to watch FC play but never would to watch England.

If signing an Aussie improves your team, then do it. If you happen to sign a couple of players who have had very good careers and even if they are getting on can aid in the development of local players then so be it. Its about time people stopped concerntrating on international RL and started to concerntrate on improving what we already have.

So who cares if they are foreign, if they improve our competition then let them over.

Not sure what the fuss is about Morgan is only signing just 2 overseas players this year. www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

Not sure what the fuss is about Morgan is only signing just 2 overseas players this year. www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

It's indicative of the current mindset of this sport that you're pretty-much the only person in this thread to actually question the point of the overseas rules in the first place. It's all 'stadium this' and 'homegrown that'. Apparently thats what makes you the best team these days.

As you say, how one organisation can dictate that it's clubs select players on country of birth whilst it's own national side (and pretty much the only place this form of xenophobia is acceptable) is selecting Samoans and Tongans, is beyond me.

Winning teams who play good quality RL is what will get people playing and watching this sport. Yeah, youngsters want to know theres a route to the top, but if they're good enough they will get a chance somewhere to prove it. Until they are, clubs should sign the best players they can afford and try and win games - that is the point of sporting competition.

Because when the day comes that England beat Aus in the 4 nations no one outside the RL heartlands will care where teh players came from.

Just the same as they dont when they watch the RU world cup, or the 6 nations...or when they watch the State of Origina and the number of islanders and kiwis playing in those teams.

so lets get rid of the salary cap and actually sign the best players because that isnt close to what we are doing now