So I see. I'd be disappointed if it was Crocker and FC said nothing. As Standee says, very odd.

I may be wrong but i believe this guy is our sports minister.

[urlhttp://www.andyburnham.org/contact.asp[/url

Query form to fill in, phone number also on here. Contact away!!

Go to [urlhttp://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/default.aspx[/url.

The one you've quoted may get ignored Dave - it's for his constituents only.

Realistically, what were their options? Bird clearly wants away rather than risk the outcome of the court case, so if Bradford tried to block the signing what would they achieve?

I would hope that they'd have been upset enough to get in touch with the immigration minister to say "if we can't have him why should they?" as it's all to do with entry to the UK. Why should Catalans be "allowed" (if it happens) to bring in to the UK players who've been told they can't come to the UK?

Bradford will know the reasons for the original refusal so will have a better idea of how potentially unfair this is.

why do you think its such a massive loophole?

is it any different from the hundreds of footballers who wouldnt get a work permit/visa here that play in european competition every year?

its it any different from clubs like Man Utd signing players who arent eligable to play here then loaning them out to belgian clubs for 2 years so they can get a belgian passport and then play here?

surely its just something we must accept, considering we play in a european competition?

Ignore RL fans when his constituency is in the heart of Rugby League heart land, how dare he!!

Ask the question of why they can't and Catalans can. Bird playing for Cats could cost Bradford a place or two on the ladder.

The answer would be because that's the way it is. They'd achieve nothing in any kind of timescale short enough to do themselves any good.

The RFL can't legally block Catalans from signing Bird. The only thing they could do would be to remove any remaining quota extension, and that would almost certainly need a full meeting of all SL chairmen to ratify. Doing anything in time to correct matters this season is probably not practical.

That doesn't mean that the clubs shouldn't be on to the RFL to get something sorted for NEXT season, though. They should also, IMO, be making representations to the Immigration Minister and their local MPs. But in the short term, and for Bradford alone, there's not much that can be done.

A more drastic measure could see the RFL re-locate to France and try to get all SL clubs governed by French Visa guidelines!

Because Bird has been prevented from entering the UK and would be potentially allowed to get round this prevention through this route. Makes a mockery of the first refusal.



Depends on the reasons why they can't get the work permit/visa. If for grounds of character, conduct or associations, or a criminal conviction, I would fully expect them to be refused entry even if coming to play a one off game.



Well only different in that once they have a Belgian passport the immigration rules no longer apply. Did Bradford sign Bird then loan him to Catalans to get him French citizenship?



Nope. If we forget that this about rugby, and, for example, a German company employs an American who has a conviction for a serious offence, are you really suggesting that we should just allow that person into the UK on business without the government making some assessment as to whether his presence here is suitable, safe and conducive to the public good? I hope not.

Not an accusation at you personally, but do you think if Bird was Indian, Iraqi or Kurdish that people would be falling over themselves to get him in here even if he was a brilliant player?

He probably wouldn't have been refused in the first place if he was!

it doesnt make a mockery of anything, Bird tried to get visa to enter this country so he could live and work here, he couldnt get one,

he is now applying for a visa to live and work in france, he may get one, thats up to the french

as part of his job he may need to enter the country for a small amount of time to play a game of rugby in a europewide competition

that is clearly, and very obviously a very different thing

i honestly cant understand how you can see it as a 'loophole' it clearly isnt, unless of course you are expecting les catalans to be subject to the decisions of the british border authourity, which is patently ridiculous




so would you accept it as fair and just and reasonable should, when Hull go over to Les Catalans, the french authorities refuse entry to Willie Manu as a convicted violent criminal, and Gareth Raynor on the basis of being a convicted criminal, Thackray for being a bankrupt, similarly should Crocker get here, he would also be banned from entering france

and would you also recommend that Les Catalans take similar action as you propose for hull and bradford to ensure this is the case?



no, but it is a way around the visa/work permit problem,

and an example of the differing visa rules in all competitions that are international, Anderlecht can sign many players who arent eligable to play over here, we dont ban them from coming over for the champions league why would this be any different,



i would fully expect them to make an assessment, as i would fully expect them to in the case of Bird. But i would also look at whether this was a continuing issue and whether or not he was here on legitimate business and whether they actually pose a threat to public safety or order, or whether they were likely to commit a crime or not,

i cant seriously believe anybody in their right mind would think that greg bird on a 3 day trip to play for les catalans is a risk of anything, and i would fully expect common sense to prevail and him to be allowed into the country,

similarly if the chairman of Proctor and Gamble came over from america for a business meeting, i wouldnt expect him to be banned from the country had he got drunk and had a fight once



or Sudanese like Luol Deng? or from Sierra Leone like Al Bangura?

NO IT ISN'T. He needs leave to enter the UK. Full stop. The visa is a merely "pretravel clearance" of this leave to enter. If he has been refused a visa to enter the UK he can still be refused entry for EXACTLY the same reason under the general rules. I'm getting fed up of explaining this tbh.



If you can't see a person being refused entry to the UK then getting in through the back door as a loophole then I'm not sure what your definition of loophole is.



Yes if lawful and correct under French immigration procedures. In the light of the current situation, I'd expect every team going to France to check. It could be embarrassing to have a player put back on the next flight home.



If they felt aggrieved yes, but have any players they've tried to sign been refused entry to France then signed for a UK club?



On what basis, the 3 days? the fact it's a rugby match? Greg Bird has been charged with a number of serious offences. Do we want people like that coming to the UK freely?



The fact that he's chairman of a big business means that the the deal that may be the subject of the meeting outweighs a refusal in the view of the immigration service, but if he had been convicted of an offence, or charged, I would certainly expect it to be taken into consideration




Who they? What is their background?

thats lovely, and well done for knowing that and being kind enough to share that with everyone numerous times,

even in times such as this when it is a fairly useless piece of information.

ill try to simplify it a bit for you

coming to Britain to live and work is fairly obviously a different thing to coming to britain to play one game of RL, regardless of the rules and regulations the UKBA,

how on earth you needed someone to explain that to you i have no idea



if you cant see that emigrating somewhere and visiting somewhere are two different things then im not sure how you manage to dress yourself,




and it would not only be useless, but make a mockery of the competition and most of the public who heard about it would probably think it was bureaucratic ery of a very special kind, which acheives precisely nothing of use



why does that matter?

why is it important that because he cant live and work in this country, he isnt allowed to live and work in another country yet still visit this one for short periods?


for three days to participate in sport, why on earth not? or are you now saying that not only should the UKBA judge on proven actions, they should judge on accusations, and generally whether the border guard thinks the person is a nice guy or not?





ex'foooking'actly, the same would go for bird



Luol Deng is a basketball player who now plays in the NBA, he sought asylum in the UK after leaving sudan for egypt and is now a naturalised citizen

Al Bangura sought asylum from sierra leone, was refused and threatend with deportation but due to public outcry he was given leave to stay, he played for watford, and entered this country illegally

No in terms of permission to [ienter[/i they aren't. Only in the length of time you are allowed to stay once here.


See above.

Oh - and leave the playground insults elsewhere.

Ta much.

so they are obviously quite different then arent they,

guided by the same UK entry requirements.

Not for purposes of entering the UK they aren't.

i havent said anything different, i have simply said that going somewhere to live and work and going somewhere to visit are two differing things,

and they arent guided by the same requirements as to live and work here he had to apply for a visa in advance, whereas to visit here he doesnt,

but that isnt the point, the point is refusing to allow someone to live and work here isnt the same as refusing to allow them to visit, if it were then we would already know Bird couldnt enter the country because his visa application was refused,

so it then follows that refusing someone permission to enter the country so they could live and work here then allowing them to visit here for a short stay makes a mockery of nothing, it is simply allowing a person to do one thing but not a different thing,

yes they are. The same entry requirements are assessed whether he pre-requests a visa for permanent residency or whether he turns up with a french visa asking to be let in. (effectively both involve getting permission before he can stand on British soil) The same criteria used should mean that he gets put back on the plane back to France.

except they are because he had to apply for a visa from australia when he wanted to come and live and work here,

he doesnt for visiting here

also his visa application was judged in canberra whereas his entrance will be judged most probably at Leeds/bradford airport

so whilst they may be similar, and they may be judged on a similar set of criteria,

they are obviously not the same, purely on the basis that well, things are different (which is kind of the definition of not the same)

But youre talking application method not entry criteria!

except the UKBA have told us this isnt the case, they may be guided by the same criteria, but that doesnt mean they need to come to the same decision considering they are two different circumstances

I'm not going to resort to insults, but it's pretty plain to me that you know little about immigration law and processes, or you're hiding it for the sake of an argument.

Have you read the immigration rules and understood the concept of leave to enter?

And as for the bit in bold, I've linked to the general rules relating to entry clearance and leave to enter on this very site about 5 times now. And that is [uprecisely[/u what they can do if you read it.