Mulder's reply to pyeman is correct Hull KR never had more than 8 overseas players registered to play last season.
Fisher, Vella, Webster, Green, Galea, Newton, Clinton, Dobson or Mason.
Rhys Lovegrove is home grown

Have you forgot Peter Fox

Think the reason Hull KR are getting it in the neck here about an abundance of overseas players is purely and simply cos you signed an overseas player that we were hoping to get.

ATEOD as Cas fans we shouldn't give a tuppeny fig about how many overseas players other clubs have in their squads unless they're a boat load of NRL star players which clearly Hull KR aren't.

The fact they're not NRL stars makes it doubly worse, mate. They are taking up spots that English players could be doing.

Agreed and if it was happening at Cas I would be complaining but all we can do is get our house in order and leave other clubs to worry about their own.

Cas embraced the idea that 3 year franchises mean you don't need to look for short term solutions in the form of mediocre overseas players. It seems Hull KR aren't prepared to let go of that safety blanket just yet...

What's your opinion on Rangi,or any other overseas player playing for England?

2 conditions for me:
Are they good enough
Do the qualify

Rangi Chase is both better than anything else England can put out at halfback and also qualifies, so that is completely fine for me, if it was someone like Nick Youngquest for example I wouldn't be so happy.

I'm fine with it. He's proven that he's one of the best players in the competition and he's better than the halves currently available for England. In that instance, you're adding quality to the player pool. Plus, I agree with Steve Mc that he's not blocking the path of youngsters. He's adding to the pool, driving up standards and improving THEIR game at the same time.

Your missing some fundamental points though :

(1) He ain't English (this residency rule is the biggest load of crap used by countries who aren't strong enough in their own player development and by players who can't get into their own national teams).

(2) Chase would not have made this move had it not been for his assault charge. Playing for England no doubt removes any issues surrounding him needing a new work visa, which he may have struggled with getting.

(3) If Chase did not play for Cas, I would wager some views may be different.

(4) I am suprised anyone can agree with anything McNamara says, the guys an absolute clown when it comes to RL coaching. Look at the squad he has picked. No Myler or Brough for the H/B options. No Atkins either (if my memory serves me correctly), a strong centre who has scored 20+ tries and improved his passing skills no end since he has been at Wire.

Going back to point (2), the bad news for you Cas fans is if he no longer needs a work visa, it will make it easier for him to move to another SL club in the future. The good news is having tied him to a longer term deal you will receive a significant transfer fee if it were to happen in the next few years.

How on earth does Chase qualify? Not English and has to be here a minimum of 5 years to qualify for british citizenship. You tell me how Chase qualifies.

Concur with that. Rangi has suggested it would be nice to play for a top side with the chance of winning silverware at some time in the future and you can't begrudge him that.

However, were he serious about wanting to move imminently he would have made it a lot easier for himself by not signing his contract extension. Then one of the top clubs could secure him in 2 yrs time for free or get him earlier for a more modest transfer fee. By signing an extension he has bumped his transfer fee up and so immediately made himself much less attractive to other clubs.

As regards nationality, it is nowhere near as straightforward as people make out.

Eg. If you are born in 1 country but then your family emigrates to another when you're a young kid such that you are educated in that country, go through the sporting systems in that country and call that country home, is it fair to say your nationality is that of the country where you were born even though you really don't know anything about that country? And that you cannot play for the national side of the country where you have spent the vast majority of your life?

If you were strict and said 'yes' to the above, then an awful lot of international players that have played for NZ and Australia over the years wouldn't have been able to.

Before people say "that's nowt like the Rangi Chase situation" - I agree. I'm just using this extreme example to illustrate a point. If you say that the player in the above situation should be able to play for his adopted country then the question arises as to where you draw the line. Some people say you've got to have been born in the country for whom you will play nationally, some say you must have citizenship, some are happy to let you do so if either of your parents or even your grandparents were born in that country.

To avoid any confusion, international sports have drawn up clearly defined qualifying criteria which essentially cover all of the above. On that criteria, Rangi Chase qualifies to play for England and as he expressed his wish to do so the only question now is whether the coach deems him good enough to pick him.

I appreciate this will divide opinion in the same way that who is the best left centre we have will divide opinion. But for anyone to say I'm not gonna support my national side because they've picked a player who I consider shouldn't qualify to play for them is just plain pathetic...

Read the big piece about him in the sunday people today.

Looks like he'll be here long after his playing days are over.

Because the eligibility rules are 3 years