You are spot on and my suspicion is that BJB can't be recalled immediately but that we may have to give notice to Quins, after all, as you say, it is a season long loan and if was Quins I would want to notice if you were taking away a player I was hoping to have all season. If I am taking a player on a short term loan things are a little different, but longer term I need some security or time to replace the player.

I think this is why BJB has not been recalled because by the time he gets here he may not be required for long, if not at all.

Well yes, but do you know what, it would not surprise me if they did not actually know that clause was in the operational rules! I love constitutions and rules, but I am sad, but they RFL Operational Rules are huge and it would be easy to miss!

I agree with G1's alternative definition of the clause as well BUT any challenge would assume that a club has asked the RFL board to consider changing a player status under the rules and they have done so successfully and therefore some level of precedent has been set. If they have not changed anybody's status as yet or it is has only ever been used around loan players on loan with other RL clubs, then any argument may fall flat.

Maybe Leeds' primary concern on Jones-Bishop is simply his long term development. This could be an important season for him to establish himself as a SL standard full-back (with Leeds hoping to reap the benefits of that next year and beyond).

I've no doubt from a development viewpoint he's better off having a full year as first choice FB at quins than having a handful of games as "1st choice outside back utility man" at Leeds.

I just don't think BJB offers any utility value. It's not a difficult concept to get your head around. Some players are excellent in one position whilst others offer great utility value.

If Webb were out for the season I suspect BJB would be recalled immediately.

I'm sure if you asked nicely we could lend you Karl Pryce for a bit

I have no difficulty with the concept only in whether it applies in this case.

___________________


existing quota limitations. So far that has not happened and, if he doesn't succeed by the end of the month, we will have to release him. Our overseas quota positions are already filled by Darryl Millard, Ben Jeffries, Glenn Morrison, Shane Tronc and Sam Obst, so we do not have any more places available. There are no problems between the club and James as we both knew what was required for him to remain with the club. We would like to keep James but, if he can't get his passport, then the matter is out of our hands."[/i

That is another article that infers that the overseas quota is limited to five in 2010, yet the SL website says six.

Quote: G1 "Well yes, but do you know what, it would not surprise me if they did not actually know that clause was in the operational rules! I love constitutions and rules, but I am sad, but they RFL Operational Rules are huge and it would be easy to miss!'"

The Wakefield squad in 2010 still contains (in addition the the five named above) Michael Korkidas, Jason Demetriou and Tevita Leo-Latu. You would then have to assume some or all of those have been exempted under the current rules, so I think it's highly unlikely that Wakefield were not aware of the existence of the clause.

KAPOW!!!

Ok, I think it has to be 6 non-federation trained players maximum in 2010 as the operational rules are clear about this, and they must be king, and if Wakey have got it wrong, they need better lawyers. They are silent about it reducing to 5 for 2011 (but were clear about 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the reductions by one non-fed player each year), so at the moment unless that has been passed by the clubs and board already, I think we must take it with a pinch of salt.

Also, until this year there was not much difference between a 'Club Trained Player' and a 'Federation Trained Player' however, from this year you must have been with the club for three full seasons before you are 21 to be classed as a 'Club Trained Player'. Of course as there is currently no restrictions on number of club or federation players, just non-federation players and a minimum number of academy trained players, so unless there is going to be future restrictions, then it makes no real difference at the moment which you are, as long as you are one or the other.

We need to be careful here with Stosic as this may be about the the right to work in the UK and not the so called 'quota'. The operational rules are again quite clear about only being able to be registered with the RFL with the required permission to stay/work in the UK. I think that, given the rules are not that easy to follow maybe John Kear is talking about immigration issues and not registration issues but, as we all know Journo's can sometimes be lazy, and they may not be fully understand the issue themselves?

([ia) ‘Club Trained Player’

[iSeason 2010

Sorry tvoc, I got that wrong, it does now give a minimum of 7 'Club Trained' or Academy juniors, with Academy juniors being classed as any player under 21 at the club listed in the first team squad (or playing in the academy anyway, obviously). Of course to then become a 'Club Trained Player' when they reach 21, they must have been playing at the club for three full seasons prior to their birthday. So if you sign a 20 year old they would not have been at the club long-enough, once they got to 21, to be classed as 'Club Trained'.

Everyone clear so far???

The operational rules may be silent but the reduction is publicised on the Super League web site.

rlSee the bottom of this page.rl

Given that the operational rules are clearly out-dated at section C I wouldn't rely too much on the absence of a mention of any reduction in those rules.

And Bradford too?



And from closer to home - the Bradford T&A


Returning star Steve Menzies has retained one of the spots, while the remaining places are taken by Brett Kearney from Cronulla and Orford, Glenn Hall and Heath L’Estrange, the club’s three off-season signings from Manly. [/i

I'll only be clear when the RFL produce a list of the declared SL Squads and show next to each name how they are designated under the current 'quota' rules.

That's not going to happen anytime soon though I suspect so the debate can go on.....and on...... and on.

What has information overload done to us?

No I think you are correct, if they agreed the change to 2011 after the OR's were last published in 2007 that could be one reason that it is silent. I agree it does look like the 2011 rules are going to increase club trained and academy players by one to eight and reduce non-federation players to 5.

However, as both the OR's and the SL website agree, it clear must be 6 non-federation players for 2010... so god knows tvoc why Wakey and Bratfud think it is 5 this year?