Yep I think there has to be some immediate, short term penalty to clubs for fielding overseas players since they obviously don't care about the long term damage to the sport. Maybe make overseas players count 20% more on the salary cap? So an overseas player paid £100k would actually take up £120k of space? Only an idea.

Interesting that the RFL's position is diametrically opposed to yours. Short term relaxation of the rules as part of a long term strategy to improve the game.

What, like this articulation of the long-term strategy agreed by all chairmen in 2007?
Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief operating officer, said: "This new rule fulfils a long-standing objective to encourage clubs to develop young talented players. By giving them greater opportunity at the top level, it is likely to improve standards not only on a national level but also internationally. [uOver time, the number of home-born players in a squad will increase whilst the number of players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained will be reduced[/u."

How sincerely do you think clubs are embracing this commitment, nearly 4 years on and with "relaxation" of the rules now so extreme that you can have 17 non British players in a squad?

Yep, I think people could accept the players from 2008 being exempt, since we would eventually see a steady decrease down to the "proper" quota levels. However if you can now import "non-overseas" players then it makes a bit of a mockery of the quota rules. In the end the clubs have to decide if they want a strong sport in 20 years time or not.

Its similar to something i proposed previously. With a reformatting of SC we could allow teams to employ a boat load of overseas players to cover up for their failure in youth development and talent scouting in this country as Hull KR would be, but we make sure those players are a bit rubbish and you financially lose out. Making it pretty unappealing.

Cut the sky payment in half to £600k, pay back £25k for every British trained player who plays 20 games for you in the next season, and a further £20k for every player who you give a debut to and makes 10 appearances in that season. If you play 20 british trained players with 20 games, you earn £500k, have 3 who make their debuts and play 10 games and you earn another £60k

You then get paid another £20k for every player who plays for England in that season who you gave an SL debut to regardless of who they are now playing for.

Then it would be in a chairmans best interest to scout, train and play british players, and we would hopefully see fewer selfish, short-termist actions like we are from Hull KR.

Who if they wanted to field 10 overseas players to cover up for their crap scouting and that they ignored youth development for a long time, they can, a rejigged SC would mean they were crap players brought over, and then it would be immediately costing them at least £125k (likely more) to do so.

Sounds like a good idea. Have you suggested it to the RFL?

I still think Wigan have too many, and hope that will change soon. And even with this Wigan still provide 5 players to England, how many do Hull KR provide??? However how a Rovers fan can even begin to compare overseas players is quite funny.

7 tut tut,another VR thread crawling with FC fans whinging because we are improving our squad.Never mind

It's not bad in principle and the weighting looks better than earlier iterations. Would it though count as discrimminatory - effectively subsidising the employment of a Brit compared to, for example an 'Irishman' or 'Maltese' from NSW? Genuine question.

Also you're starting from scratch when the (admittedly fudged, flawed and delayed) system was about to become effective. They came a long way and it wasn't an easy road - then they just tossed it in.

What also needs clarifying is whether Mason has a 'special status' as the HDM says or, to quote Wood 'It's similar to any player with an islands' heritage from the Southern Hemisphere'. Either is odd.

Its not a subsidy of british employees. Its a payment for production and release of English qualified players for internationals and international get-togethers and such



Being serious though, if it did form part of the agreement for releasing British/English qualified players, then it wouldnt be discriminatory, the problem would be would we then see lots of players registering as British/English and available for the national side. Though I wouldnt expect this to be too difficult to get round, a rule saying you need to be registered as a British player for two years before you became eligible and just get the kids to do it when they start.


They didnt get anywhere, we saw clubs start to plan, but as soon as one didnt want to play ball it has all fallen down.
it is all of them. The Contonou Agreement means we cant count any of them as overseas players. Any player could apply for 'special status' and get it. Its just sad a club has chosen to be part of it.

And people say that education is bad in Hull?

As an FC fan, assuming FC weren't aware that Moa and Lauaki were fed-trained, this latest change makes a mockery of bothering to invest in homegrown players to an extent that they're not just there to make up the numbers, and paying fees for the likes of Westerman and Tansey in the naive belief that securing young British talent would afford a longer term advantage. May as well have spent that cash on a trip to Tonga and Samoa. (This leaves to one side the altruistic benefit of supporting the international game, obviously).

If those were the rules I'm sure you'd find that Hull KR conform to them, just like they do now.

Spot on.

Hey, I don't make the rules up. I think you'll find that's the RFL, if you don't like their strategy why not take the issue up with them?

Just probably have less money coming in and a worse team, maybe it might finally get them motivated to get their youth development and scouting in order and stop failling so badly at it.

Urban myth created by, and perpetuated by your good self.

[urlhttp://www.skysports.com/rugbyleague/match_facts/0,19935,11070_2900137,00.html[/url

Which 3 of Willie Manu, Motu Tony, Matt Sing & Matthew Head are you claiming as British (or even Tongan

)?

As now, how Hull KR choose to run their club is up to them, as long as they conform to the requirements of the RFL. Unfortunately Kipperboy you don't make the rules up either.

Oops wrong game. I'm on it. (14's not too shabby)

If HKA have registered their players and the RFL have accepted these registrations then there's not a lot anyone can do except point at the RFL and laugh.....they were the ones that came out with the press release that the SL Chairman had agreed to reduce the reliance on overseas players...it's a problem of their own making.
It will be interesting to see how East Hull Australians go this year...if they are in the top 4 then they may well get the average gates they need to break even....but if they are in mid table and below the better Hull club then this overseas experiment may well blow up in their faces......they really do need to win something this year...otherwise all they will have achieved (on the pitch) will be the same as they have over the last 4 years....nothing

Im not sure anyone has said any different have they?

People have simply criticised them for their short-termist and selfish outlook, and their failure in youth development and lack of commitment to English talent.

Why do tongans count as federation trained???

There are too many variables for any team to forecast that they will win a trophy. I do think (with or without Mason) Rovers, on paper, are stronger than they were last year so I think a strong challenge for a top 4 place and final or semi final appearance would represent a good season. Anything more would be a bonus, less would probably be disappointing.

Another double over the former champions Leeds would be nice

Quote ="SirStan"Urban myth created by, and perpetuated by your good self. [urlhttp://www.skysports.com/rugbyleague/match_facts/0,19935,11070_2900137,00.html[/url Which 3 of Willie Manu, Motu Tony, Matt Sing & Matthew Head are you claiming as British (or even Tongan )?'" Knew I hadn't imagined it - was the final regular round game, v Bradford, not the Wigan play-off. 16 British players. Only 10 homegrown, though, how disappointing. www.slstats.org/2007/9/14/Hull+F ... Bulls.html

Quote ="SirStan"Urban myth created by, and perpetuated by your good self. [urlhttp://www.skysports.com/rugbyleague/match_facts/0,19935,11070_2900137,00.html[/url Which 3 of Willie Manu, Motu Tony, Matt Sing & Matthew Head are you claiming as British (or even Tongan )?'" Knew I hadn't imagined it - was the final regular round game, v Bradford, not the Wigan play-off. 16 British players. Only 10 homegrown, though, how disappointing. www.slstats.org/2007/9/14/Hull+F ... Bulls.html

Its nice that beating us is a priority for these smaller clubs, it shows they know their place in the scheme of things.