Here's a thought ... the overseas situation is now as followsQuota
Flannery
Perry
Soliola
Hohaia

Non-Fed
Perry
Hohaia
Laffranchi
Puletua
Soliola

Even though we have one quota space left, we're maxed out on non-fed players, so we can't sign anyone from the NRL now.

The only overseas players we could sign from another club would be ones that have already been here since before 2008, and that seems highly unlikely.

Now, the logic behind letting Flannery go has always been that he isn't special enough to take up a quota spot. But the reality now is that we couldn't sign another overseas player even if Flannery left (as a pre-2008 signing he only counts on the quota list).

So, with this in mind, I'd say it's worth rethinking our position over Flannery. Should we make him an offer for another year or two, taking advantage of his versatility and reliability, or should we let him go anyway and clear a path for one of our younger back rowers?

I'm not even sure that you can sign/resign a player who was here before 2008 and he still be exempt. Was that stipulation not just for the length of the already signed contract?

The overseas limits really are a minefield of red tape, smoke and mirrors.

I thought it only applied to contracts signed pre 2008, and therefore any new contracts would come under the new rules.

They are indeed. I was led to believe in a thread on the VT that the exemption lasts until retirement.

You've still got to pay him, though. Unless you can re-sign him cheap, I say let him go. With laffranchi coming in our 1st choice back row trio will be him, Sia and Wilkin and we know Royce likes to start a prop like Tony P or Clough at 13. With Magennis, Dixon and Ashurt all in reserve, I'd say it would be folly to match what Flanders could be getting elsewhere.

Royce has gone on record saying he'll be using Laffranchi as a prop, though. But on the limited resources I take your point. A lot will depend on how what we're paying Hohaia and Laffranchi relates to what we offered Eastmond and Graham.

True. If a quality back became available then I think the money would be better spent there. How many are available, though?

So are you suggesting we cannot possibly sign Waterhouse now? Rumours and news articles a plenty in Aus about him joining Saints still.

Not as far as I can see. The only way it would be possible would be if TP signed his first contract with us before the non-fed regulations came into force, but as he only joined us in 2009 I can't see that being the case. I must admit I don't know the exact cut off point, but I think it's the beginning of the '08 season (presumably TP signed for us midway through that season).

To be quiet honest I am happy with the pack we have now and there is no need to go overseas in that department. The backs is another matter mind and if a quality left centre became available I can see this could restrict us from signing him. However so far I am really happy with the signings for 2012 and its only slightly eased the pain of losing Kyle Eastmond and more importantly James Graham. I dont believe we should offer Chris Flannery a new contract because I believe there are better English Back Row Forwards that can become available. Flannery has done a job for us and thats about it really.

I thought Laffranchi was coming over on an Italian passport, if he is he won`t count on any quotas.

If he's an Italian citizen then it would be illegal to count him on any quotas I would think.

I think this amply demonstrates that....nobody actually knows. It's the most ludicrous set of 'rules' in any sport, surely.

Laffranchi doesn't count on the old style, nationality based quota. He does count on the new non-fed system, which is based not on your nationality but on where you learned your trade, and was brought in precisely to get round the problem of overseas players getting in on an EU or Kolpak passport.


It's as I've outlined above, trust me. It's hopelessly complicated at the moment, but only because the RFL have had to grant exemptions to a host of players at the outset in order to cover their backs legally. Once those exemptions run out it should work fine and be a straightforward case of 5 overseas trained players, and that's it.

So can we still sign waterhouse or hayne ?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

The answer is no

The orginal poster omitted Puletua from the quota list

If the current players are re-contracted the 5 in each group would be

Quota Non-Fed
Puletua Puletua
Soliola Soliola
Perry Perry
Hoihia Hoihia
Flannery Laffranchi


Meli is Kolpak and Federation Trained (dispensated)

If Flannery wasn't re-contracted a Quota could be brought in but he would need to be a Federation Trained player (likely with a dispensation like for instance Glenn Morrison). Any Kolpak player would also need to be Federation Trained (example Solomona)