im pretty sure this whole paragraph is complete gibberish,


maybe you would like to tell us what this 'demographic' is? is it age? sex? race? favourite sexual position? whether they like their kebabs with chilli sauce? Garlic Sauce? both? this [inational[/i deomgraphic they have?

maybe you could also tell us how one geographical area can have a demographic measured by another?



damn right it doesnt, nothing really matters in what you have put here because it is self-defeating nonsense of the highest order, it makes no sense at all



i think another old saying might be just as useful here,

what the f+ck are you on about?

because why would we have a rule saying you are ineligible to play in SL if you arent allowed in the country?

how would they play? it seems UKBA have done the job for us

which was?

why would they bother? the RFL was already well aware at the time that UKBA was investigating this

in fact the news was released to the public and on the bbc and celtics website by the 16th of July, two weeks before celtic played Catalans on the 1st of August

but then if it isnt a random made up conspiracy that explains how leigh are, what is it starry?

How can I have jumped on a mistake that hasn't been made?

The fact that six players has been deported, to me, does not imply a slight mistake, so either no mistake has been made or a pretty bloody big one, but under no sensible judgement has a "slight mistake" been made.

Well there you go , must have missed that one

Not really a big news item was it , players unable to travel in case they are not let back in country

Happens all the time

because you are quite clearly pre-judging the outcome here, it comes across as very obvious that you feel celtic have been either A) dishonest or B) incompetant when neither has yet been proven

it could be a case that this issue is particularly complex, after all, it could have taken the ukba up to 18 months to even start the investigation, it could be that this is something of a watershed and this incident is setting the precedent, in which case celtic couldnt possibly have known this would be the outcome (note the word is would, not could or may)

If say a Harlequins fan took delight at Celtic's current predicament would they become a flatcapper?

No, you are simply making assumptions that have no basis in anything other than your imagination.

I happen to think that if a mistake has been made that results in the deportation of 6 players, it is ludicrous to describe that mistake as "slight".

Shame the Government isn't as quick at deporting Asylum Seekers!!

I suspect a bunch of average Aussie journeymen could probably claim assylum in the UK given the refuge SL provides.

They wouldn't have one because it would be obvious that you cannot play players that are in the country illegally. For the same reason we don't have a rule saying you can't play convicted criminals that have escaped from prison. It's pretty much a given.

They were at an unfair advantage because they have played players that other clubs were unable to use because they were in the country illegally. It's quite simple really.

Coming from the undisputed master of giberish, Ill take that as a compliment.

I think you've had a bit of a[i 'woooooosh'[/i moment there, owd son.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/8218083.stm13 other clubs could be facing the same problem according to the RFL.[/url

Could get very messy.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=14460920#14460920No they couldn't. And no it couldn't[/url

Incidentally, from something I found on a train yesterday




[url=http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/466847/Crusaders-Aussie-Six-pead-their-innocence.htmlfull article[/url




[size=25(I'm now off to wash my keyboard)[/size

[size=25getting carried away looking at news of the screws eh?[/size

Just admit that you actually bought it.



I have every sympathy with those players. They were either badly advised or were given no advice at all.

It looks like they're going to be made out to be the villains in all this.

Telling quote from RFL.

"Spence continued: "This issue is regarding players being on working or holiday-maker visas from the 2006 and 2007 seasons. Now we've looked into it and there are 13 others clubs that employ players on the same visas.

"So we need to find out why these six players are being singled out or have they done something wrong with their visa applications and that's why they've been deported.

"I think the UK Borders Agency need to be clearer on their current rules. They have changed their rules here three times in the last nine years."


SOOoOOoooo ..... maybe some of what's been coming our way will be shared out amongst the "heartland" and "traditional" clubs too then.

I WONDER who the 13 other clubs may be. Given that SL players (including ours) are on player visas, you'd have to assume that it's the old NL1 or 2 clubs. Dear dear, nearly half of all "traditional" clubs "guilty" of the same as us!

Hmmmmmmm!

Anyone worried?

there are 14 teams in super league, one of which is celtic....

i knew we did'nt have a game outside of super dooper league

Bighead, I refer you to my post again where I have stated that the working holiday visas in 2006-7 were used by 13 clubs OUTSIDE of Superleague.

Superleague players have sporting visas.

So it would be those clubs OUTSIDE of Superleague over those years who would use them. For instance maybe, Wigan, Halifax, Leigh, Salford, Feathersone.

I sincerely hope not though, because then all those fans who've been berating us for being cheats would be cheats themselves!

And that would be just TERRIBLE. They would have to be punished and thrown out of their leagues and all the other things they wished on us.

Wigan - outside SL??? when

OOoooooo thanks standee



Sorry of course I meant to say Widnes!

Big apologies to Wiganers there. You don't even sound scouse.

Don't know where my head was at.

It seems very much like, in your haste to have a pop at Leeds and Wigan you have made up a new definition of a word and are now backtracking

I did find it quite funny you thought it would work though

Selective reading on your part

Craig Spence also stated

Between 2003-2005 players had been allowed to play sport fpr semi pro clubs with ' working holiday ' visa's

The system changed in 2005

The UKBA gave a concession in 2005 to allow players who were on thses visa'a to complete their contracts [ Similar to W1g4ns argument when the SC was introduced

One club [ thought to be Gateshead challenged the decision arguing that they should be allowed genuinely amatuer players on the ' working holiday ' visa [ The genuinley amatuer is the relevant part here

From that point the RFL adopted a policy whereby it agreed to register some players while not encouraging it [ RFL and some being the relevant part of this quote

So basically in 2003 a loophole was used by several clubs

In 2005 this loophole was discovered and stopped but a few players were allowed to finish their agreed time at the relevant clubs

Gateshead still wanted to play amateur players in a pro comp and so were allowed

Along come Celtic Crusaders in 2005 and they need to be competitive to get into NL 1 in time to submit a SL application

Somebody suggests that the easiest way to do this would be to get a load of Aussies over

But you'll not get a player visa because you would break the NL2 salary cap of 150 K

So somebody

suggests using the ' Working holiday ' visa because these australian players will come over and play for free and as this has to be agreed by the RFL then the UKBA will not be any the wiser

2008 and the UKBA put a total stop to this practise [ probably because of it being abused which results in 6 Celtic players having to get ' proper ' playing visa's

6 months later somebody at the UKBA notices that these 6 players have already been playing over here for 2 years and it is highly unlikely they were doing it for nothing , especially as one of them could have easily got a place in a SL club earning 100K a year plus

So which organisation used it's discretion to decide who could and who couldn't use this loophole between 2006-2008 ?

[size=150RFL [/size