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 interestinghttps://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...

rlhttps://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.

I'm in full agreement RR but Webb was born in Cairns Aus.

Because Webb was here before the rules were in. The exceptions were only allowed because clubs would have had to SACK contracted players in order to come in under quota.

Said clubs should not be allowed to use this exception to sign more oversees players. It's simple if you really want to think about it

While I agree with most of the above only point I have is that I am pretty sure Webb was born in australlia??? Thought I heard that somewhere but I have been wrong before and no dbout will be again!

Erm, they're not.

Once an exempt player leaves, you can't sign another "overseas" player to replace him without him counting towards your quota, unless that player was already exempt due to being in the UK before the rules were introduced.

You seem to be arguing for the introduction of a system that's already in place.

or to phrase it another way,

you shouldnt be able to add to your total of overseas players because some have been declared exempt to allow the rules to navigate the complex minefield that is contract and employment law.

i.e you can keep them or you can replace them, you cant add to them.

It's the term "Overseas Player" that's killing this. People are taking it far too literally.

Look at it this way... You're either a Blue player, or an Amber player. You're allowed 5 Amber players but the rest need to be Blue.

Now to qualify as Blue player you need to be either born in England, or be playing for an English club for at least 3 years, if you're neither of those, you're Amber. Those are the RULES set out, by the RFL, which Leeds are following.

Sinfield - Born here, Blue.
Webb - Played here over 3 years, Blue.
Buderus - Not born here, not played here 3 years. Amber.

We're not finding any secret loop-holes, or lying about where players were born, we're not trying do anything underhand, we've been given the rule book, read the rule book, and signed players according to those rule.

How on earth people can still be complaining about this is beyond me.

i understand the rules. I also understand that they were a watered down version of what the RFL actually wanted to bring in, and did originally bring in before threats of legal challenges.