I think I'm right in saying that 7 is the limit for quota/non-federation players.

Chase, Dobson, Hauraki, Sa'u, Tasi and Locke will all surely make up six of the seven next year.

Tim Smith is most likely on his way out so that leaves one to stay out of Puletua and Rapira.

Puletua's had a pretty good season and Rapira has started to put together some decent performances after a shaky start with injuries.

Who do we think will stay?

Surely chase doesn't count though with playing for England?

I'm not sure if he does.

Think we went into the season with Chase, Smith, Mullaney, Puletua, Rapira, Sa'u and Tasi as the seven. Meli and McPherson were exempt.

Smith made way for Locke.

Unless we've requested an exemption for Chase from next year.

Chase definitely counts.

Where you come from is irrelevant (or rather which international team you choose

), what matters is where a player "graduates" at 21. Chase was definitely not brought through by a superleague club and is thus non-fed trained.

You could try applying for an exemption, but it's hard to see on what grounds, especially after chase "retiring" from international duty. That's before considering someone at Salford burning his bridges long ago ...

If chase counts then maybe you could be correct Ill leave this decision up to Harris!

I think TP or Rapira will go to Swinton.

There is only a Non Fed quota now , an overseas quota does not exist

“A Non Federation trained player, in principle is a player who was not playing for a club within the Rugby League European Federation between age 16 and 21.”
At age 19-21 Michael Dobson was playing for Catalan Dragons & Wigan Warriors . so in defination he could be classed as RLEF federation trained...

Hed of been required to have played for a club for 3 years to be fed trained, and Im not sure he did by 21? He returned to Canberra during that time as well iirc?

EDIT: correction, he can move between 2 clubs, so it doesnt need to be at 1 club, however, the time between registration between the 2 federation clubs must be no more than an offseason for him to qualify as federation trained. Since dobson played for Raiders between Wigan and Hull kr, he doesnt qualify as he didnt play 3 full seasons consecutively.

Interestingly, this means if a player gets injured at the age of 19, gets released by his club, spends a year in rehab, before signing on for another club, hed technically not qualify as federation trained, and thus be non-fed, regardless. Id imagine thered be a appeals process for that situation though...

I'm sure the club will have this sorted. Does Puletua count for example, I am not sure on when he joined Super League and when the "non fed" rule came into play.

Came to SL in 2009. Old age exemption is for players who joined the league pre2008. So yes, yes he does count. Meli on the other hand does not because he joined Saints in 2006.

Hauraki had the same exemption as mcpherson because he was at the celts when they folded , were his 3rd club since then but does he count , pulling at a very short straw i know

I think that was just for the duration of the first contract they signed. Pretty sure McPherson was due to lose his exemption next season because he'd signed an extension.

I believe it's for however long they were at the first club after crusaders (which is getting few and far between now), but as you say, there's no way Hauraki is exempted on those grounds...

Rapira has left the club for compassionate reasons. Will he return?

According to Vickers he is planning to return. Can anyone shed light on the 'compassionate' side of things?

[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/9441411/super-league-steve-rapira-given-compassionate-leave-by-salford-red-devils[/url

According to M.E.N his grandad ill so hes returned home

And here lies the problem of today being a professional sportman. If it's compassionate, let the man and his family have some privacy. Problem with society today ks that everyones wants know everything from what they had for breakfast to what colour underwear they've got on. Show the man some respect and give him time with regards his compassionate leave, maybe you would feel better if it was plastered all over the forums though hey?

Well said. We should afford the players the same degree of privacy we would expect for ourselves and our own loved ones.

That's somewhat of a draconian response to a legitimate question.

I thought the same.

Not often I disagree with two of the better posters on here, but is 'compassionate reasons' not enough?

I agree, normally agree with both posters but on this I can't.

There are certain player issues I feel the fans have a right too know but this isn't one of them.

This is one of my fears for the fans board, I'd hate too think that the Doc divulged any for ears only information because with the worlds love of anti social media it would I'm sure end up everywhere.

It wasn't the fact that he has been granted compassionate leave, I was referring to when all we had was ''He's been released.' I'm like others in that once we found out it was for compassionate reasons that's all that needs saying. I think maybe I've got my knickers in a twist, or misread.

Reading back again, it does seem I've misread. It pays to not speed through threads I suppose.

To be fair, you're wasting your time doing anything else with 99% of the nonsense posted on here.