Totally agree. Champions League style. It's the one everybody wants to win.



Because the conversation is discussing the growth & popularity of International RL, and Football is the most fully grown & popular international sport. If we're discussing the pros and cons of having a well established & popular international sport, it seems only logical to compare it to a sport that is already fully grown and established. It's not like I compared it to fish finger sandwiches is it?!

Rugby League is the way it is because it's the size it is. Football is the way it is because it's the size it is. All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.



I am, I will, and I do! Thanks for your message of encouragement.

I support the RFL's genuine attempts to reduce the quantity of overseas trained players and increase the quantity/quality (hopefully) of home produced players to improve the pool available to the national team coach.

It's a pity IMO that the moves are constantly undermined by the majority of club CEO's (including our own unfortunately) whose actions often speak louder than words.

It's the RFL's job to attempt to reduce the quantity of overseas trained players and increase the quantity of home produced players.

Just like it's those CEO's job to get bums on seats, and keep the crowds as high as possible by winning games.

Neither is going to do the others job for them.

Not back to this again
Our CEO has ensured our club more than contributes to having home-grown talent within it's squad and whatever way you dress it up he's undermined nothing whatsoever where over-seas recruitment is concerned.
Just check how many players are around the SL and below that came through our acadamy i think that more than counts towards "doing our bit".
This undermining you keep mentioning that clearly grates doesn't exsist when no rules are broken it's straight forward and if it can't be legally applied it doesn't exsist.

I think Bats has realised, that apart from David he's ploughing a lonely furrow. Most fans pay their money to watch their team being successful, and can generally take or leave internationals.

I'm firmly in the Club camp, as it matters not a jot to me what the colour, nationality or political views are of the guys out there on the pitch. It's simply about how the play when they've pulled on the jersey.

Congrats by the way to Exeter rhino, who has posted an excellent and thought provoking post, which offers up the prospect of an exciting competiton for the future.

I'd be all for that. Would increase anticipation and the number of teams 'competing' I emphasise competing because lets face facts,in reality at the elite international level there are only 3 teams 'competing' England,New Zealand and Australia and we're not exactly doing a great job of that apart from the odd win here and there.

Whilst some will argue with some merit that international RL is played by many more countries ie Wales,France,Scotland,Ireland,PNG,Samoa,Fiji,Russia etc they are not and nor are they likely to be 'competing' for a long long long time,if ever. I mean we are still light years behind the Aussies when it comes to beating them more than the once in a flood so all those other countries with the exception of New Zealand are not even in the same universe.

Whilst the southern hemisphere teams in an expanded champions league style World Club challenge may still dominate (depending on venue) you'd have much more interest and competition and our club sides with their overseas players may end up winning more than just once in a flood. Either way it would be better and surely create more interest than what the current international programme brings at the elite level?

I mean our first game this 4 nations was essentially seen/viewed by most as a winner takes all game to decide who plays Australia in the Final and thats just the first game of our tournement FFS

Of course it exists it's just that the RFL are toothless to implement it in the face of potential (expensive) legal challenges by individual players.

My issue is not with the players, their agents or the RFL it's with the club CEO's who voted to adopt the principals behind the re-designation of players (in an attempt to remove the myriad of exemptions already present in the then system) and then happily started exploiting a loophole created by the likes of Simon Finnigan and Stanley Gene.

The CEO's had a meeting and agreed to the new quota rules, Hetherington in particular talked of the 80/20 (20/5) split to be reached by 2011 as being the correct balance for club rugby in this country. I imagine he's as disappointed as I am that he's so far been unable to meet his own expectations in this regard.

How can it be exploiting a "loophole" if it isn't a rule that's backed legally?
If they (RFL) thought they could win they'd try and implement it the fact is they can't so it does'nt "legally" exsist.
I would love us to have a FULL squad of british players for every club in SL but it is far from happening and whatever the "intentions" it hasn't come to fruition.
Now i've no doubts GH has backed this but his job is still to provide a squad that's competetive and to make the best of what's available within the "rules" that apply and that imo is what he is doing and i don't have a problem with it especially when we have the youth development record we have.
We will continue to disagree on this no matter what "intention ,spirit" or otherwise you state this rule has because ATEOD IF we were breaking the rules the players in question could'nt be registered to play for Leeds or in the SL.

Without wishing to interject too much, I think the issue is that whilst the rule exists, due to other legal precedents such as Bosman, it is entirely unenforceable in a court of law.

The only point I'm disappointed with in this whole affair is that the club CEO's voted to bring in a rule which they knew was legally unenforceable (so it would need their discretion to make it work) and then promptly rode roughshod over their own agreement.

It shows them up for what they are, gloryhunters (or ex double glazing salesmen).

I don't think the RFL could afford to take on the additional expense of a court case to enforce the principal nor do I think they should have to even consider it. Even if a case is winnable you could never guarantee the outcome anyway. Often disputes are settled outside of the courts these days not on the basis of right and wrong but purely on the basis of the costs involved should you lose.

As others have said (and as I have already) once the CEO's lined up behind the planned reductions over a four year period it was entirely reasonable and feasible for no heartland club to have more than the intended 5 for 2011.

Leeds have 6 (at present), Hull KR (for example) will have 8 (although Galea, Newton and Vella I'm guessing will be exempt)

I'm with tvoc and Batley on this.

The legality issue has always been a smokescreen. Clubs don't 'have' to sign anybody - English or Australian. The clubs are the ones making a mockery of the supposedly clearly agreed intent to cut imports and replace them over time with English players. People are happy to have a go at the likes of Hull KR for having a ridiculous number of imports, but get very touchy when its pointed out that Leeds are doing exactly the same thing albeit slightly less flagrantly.

Whilst fans of all clubs continue to make excuses for their own club ignoring the spirit and intent of the development of the game in the name of short-term success then we are equally culpable.