Unless of course one of the above leaves before the season starts.

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.

Who's had a go at HKR?
Who's got touchy about Leeds doing it?
No excuses whatsoever if this is what's best for us (Rhinos) to remain a competitive force and to challenge for honours without breaking any operational rules at this moment in time as far as i'm concerned it's fine.
What our club has done development wise is far from ignoring the intent of any agreement and like i whilst this rule DOES NOT EXSIST we are doing naff all wrong.

You can't run a Business on "spirit"! That's just a ridiculous thing to say.

"We're not going to charge taxes any more, but we hope that people take this gesture in the spirit it was intended and still voluntarily donate 20% of their income because we all know it's the right thing to do."

If it's not a law, you can't enforce it on moral or spiritual grounds. Leeds are sticking to the rules of the game, if the RFL made them tighter, I'd sure Leeds would stick to the new tight rules too. The fact is they haven't, so we're not.

They're trying to run a business, not save the planet one good deed at a time.

Rhinoms, I think you might find this interestinghttp://www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id

Check out the bit towards the bottom of the page, which clearly states "engage Super League XIII is likely to have the most club trained players taking part in the competition for nearly five years thanks to a new rule introduced for 2008."

This is from Super League's own website, I don't think they would be in the habit of claiming rules were in place if in fact they were not...

That's very clear mate i agree but what they have'nt published is the "exemption" rule which is also clearly in force other-wise how have we registered so many over-seas players?
We can have all the good will in the world mate and like i said i'd love us to have a squad of only Home-grown players but we don't and whilst we are able to register these overseas players and they can play without any sanctions or punishments then we have broken no rule as far as i'm concerned.
Just to add we also saw how good the RFL were at publishing/implementing rules when Lindsay ran rings round them at the Wigan Fielden/cap punishment hearing.

Dull I know but...

rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/Operational%20Rules%20Part%202.pdfrl

Pages 2 and 3 explain at length the definition of home grown, and club trained.

I'm not saying for a second that we're not exploiting the clauses by classing Webb etc as Club Trained. But the RFL write the rule book, they put the clauses in black & white. We're playing to the rules we've been given. If they change the rules, and remove the clauses, we'd play to those new rules too. You can't blame the club for playing to the rules it's given.

It's the same as only half of Sinfield's wage counting towards the salary cap. They put that rule in to reward longevity of service, and we're playing to the rule.

Imposing it initially upon those clubs with more EXISTING non qualified players on the rosta was correctly called unfair. However, when one of these players moves on they should not be allowed to be replaced by non qualified.

In Leeds case recently for example, when Eastwood quit he should have to be replaced by a UK trained player, or not replaced at all.

In a few years through natural wastage all clubs would then be under the quota.

Seems quite simple to me

Why? The rules say we're allowed 5, [iwhat the RFL consider to be[/i overseas players. If selling Eastwood takes us down to 4, then we're allowed to sign another?!

I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

X is how many overseas players you're allowed.
Y is what the RFL consider an overseas player.

Thus, you're allowed X people that meet Y criteria.

Was Webb born in New Zealand? Yes.
Does he meet Y criteria? No.
So he doesn't count, still leaving us X players to find meeting Y criteria.

Does Cross meet Y criteria? Yes!
We're now allowed X-1 people matching Y criteria.

Morals, ethics, spirit, the future, youth development or anything else simply do not come into it. We're sticking to the rules, end of.