That's fine to take that stance, but the current guidelines changed from the original guidelines due to the threat legal action against the RFL.

This allowed the clubs, who don't forget were the ones who ratified the rules in the first place, to break the spirit of the original rules that they had been party to. Exactly the same happened with the overseas player rule.

Which is why the "spirit of the rules" doesn't exsist imo because it wasn't a legal guideline to set in the 1st place!

Actually that is not strictly correct.

He often offered several names of English origin that he would have preferred.

I never saw him advocating specifically an overseas player.

And I never saw anything from tvoc to question Ablett or Smiths right to be in the team, far from it.

I disagree, last year (2009 season)even with the players that were at the club before the rules were brought in and taking Eastwood into account Leeds wre below the threshold for non federation trained players. This year (2010 season) they have signed additional player that takes them over the threshold and used the fact that some players are exempt as a reason to exceed the threshold. That IMO is against the spirit of the rules.

If they are EXEMPT and that's clearly within the RULES how can we be breaking the spirit of a rule which clearly states those players are exempt!!???????

Yes it is.


Preferred to the incumbents. Not preferred to overseas players that he also wanted us to procure.

I never said he did.

I never said he did. Read again what I put.

Take your fog and knit it somewhere else.

I don't think his appalling lack of support for the young English lads vying for the jersey this year is consistent with his current thinking at all.

Exactly. He deemed them not good enough. He didn't care their back ground. He wanted players he considered of sufficient quality.

That is why his new viewpoint is not consistent.

BTW, before we continue this discussion, which we're having on the basis that Leeds have broken some rules or the "spirit of the rules" does anyone have a link to the rules or a definition of what "the spirit of the rules" means?

Specifically how did this lack of support manifest itself?

I stated that Worrall and Gibson were not good enough, it now appears neither will have much of a role to play at the club in 2010 and I saw weaknesses in Watkins game that needed work but also stated that I expect him to be ready to replace Senior mid to late 2010.



The squad was understrength in 2009, a position the CEO and Club President accepted (when they had no need to) during the 2009 season. Any potential signing (Pitts, Amor and Coady) would have had to be made within the constraints of the salary and quota restrictions and I never argued otherwise.




Posted a link to the RFL quota rules earlier in the thread, the spirit you will have to use your own moral compass to attain.

The spirit of the rules was a reduction in the number of overseas players. Leeds are increasing their number. That, IMO, is against the spirit of the rules.

When the re-classification was adopted by the RFL for the 2008 season10 - Leeds 5 (Webb, Donald, Toopi, Leuluai, Lauitiiti)

2009 - Overseas trained limit 8 - Leeds 5 (Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti) or 6 (Eastwood) and still places available for a squad strengthening signing if desired

2010 - Overseas trained limit 6 - Leeds 7 (Webb, Donald, Delaney, Leuluai, Buderus, Lauitiiti, Eastwood)

A retrograde step for the Champion club who previous to this had no record of breaching the cap or quotas?

Eastwood has british passport, so he is exempt.

He's exempt from being overseas trained?

Somehow I doubt that.

I do have some sympathy with TVOC's position on this and agree with him that it does not appear to be in the spirit of what was intended. However I can live with it, as we are not breaking the rules. But if we win the GF next year it may just take the tiniest edge of the pride I have felt the last three years.

I would have preferred to have signed an English centre or, better still, retained Smith, rather than sign an overseas player. However, this is not the first time we have used 'loop-holes' around the quota: the old quota system used be 3 and we had 7 in the 2004 squad. I don't think our success that year was tarnished and any success in 2010 won't be either. The problem is that the RFL's quota rules on overseas trained etc. don't seem watertight which is why they caved in so easily and allowed exceptions soon after they introduced them, presumably because they wouldn't stand up to legal challenge. Idealistically, I think tvoc is right and, as I said, I would have preferred to buy British, but practically, I don't think anyone can blame any club for building the strongest squad possible taking advantage of whatever 'loop-holes' are available. The RFL needs better rules, perhaps.