When?


Hargreaves was left out because he was injured. Neither the PL nor CL 'quotas' are such as they sound simply because football, like RL, cannot usurp the free movement of workers in the EU (and as such the cotonou countries). The ECB have literally admitted as much. That their quota isnt a quota at all, it is a gentlemens agreement with no punishment available if transgressed.
Yet our federation is the ‘european’ federation and we are back to Mr Kolpak.

The answer is to actually follow the ECB model of payments to clubs who produce players. This just becomes much more difficult when you have P+R.

If you don’t agree, then fine, but this is the 5th time the laws have been changed and no club has ever been punished for transgressing them, including your Dobson/Mason situation which ‘special dispensation’ was needed to be given. Whether you agree with the legalities or not, the RFL clearly don’t have stomach to fight for them.

No, that’s gaining a qualification to practise medicine.

British people who arent qualified Doctors also arent allowed to be Doctors.

Every year it goes unchallenged. The fact it works in some of the biggest and richest sporting leagues and competitions on the planet. Why do the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich etc abide by these rules if they thought they could get around them? The rules have led to clubs signing players at younger ages to fit them in, but they haven't challenged the rules.


No, Hargreaves was left out because he was classed as overseas (ie not homegrown or nationally grown) and so wouldn't fit into the squad with others also in the classification. His injury meant that it was he and not another player that had to be left out. Either way, Man Utd were forced to leave a player out of their squad due to the rules. Are you suggesting Man Utd didn't have the resources to fight this?


The Kolpak laws are irrelevant to the Fed Trained rules.



Which laws have been changed 5 times? Is it actually possible to transgress the rules since the RFL don't ratify player contracts unless they abide by the rules? Same as the salary cap. The only way to transgress the rules is to commit fraud.
Whether the RFL have the stomach to fight them or not is irrelevant as to whether they are legal and enforceable. They quite clearly are, as evidenced by the 2 richest football competitions in the world. And evidenced by the reduction of overseas players in Super League.

When was it not, give me an example of when the non-federation ruling has been challenged by a player or a club and so been changed

I can't give you an example of when it was not changed as you can't prove a negative.



The federation is the european federation, but you are missing one word out which is trained. If it was an English player trained in Oz they would not be eligible to play if the club was over the set amount.




This is the first time the non-fed rules have been changed. The dobson/mason situation was within the rules as they stood at the time. You could register and deregister players. Hull KR took advantage of a loop hole that had been left. After that loop hole was pointed out by that situation it was closed for the following year.

The change in the number of non-federation trained players was done ages ago regardless of the league structure and whilst I don't agree with it that's the way it is, I imagine the biggest driving factor was that some clubs have just not pushed their own development and the financial consequences of teams like Wakefield needing to make savings by selling players and the only man in town able to buy being the good Dr who had already reached the clubs limit.

I think any legal challenge would be easily won by the RFL, but if you want to sway them the financial implications are a far easier tool to use.

ie

"Let us sell Tim Smith to Salford"
"No they are up to quota"
"Ok we will be likely to go bust then"
"erm ok you can sell him"

Or

"We want to buy Tim Smith from Wakefield"
"No you are up to quota"
"Ok then Wakey will go bust and I'll reconsider my investment in Salford"
"Erm ok then we'll make a dispensation and then change the rules "

1. That would assume that these clubs either had or could transgress these rules. If for instance you could create a squad of 25 players 0 of which were home trained, but you could register an infinite amount of players under 21 in said squad. Those rules would mean, like Chelsea, you could have only 5 home trained players and meet that requirement couldn't you. Because the infinite amount of under 21 players you could register would suffice the 8.

2. It was city rather than Utd, and im suggesting they didn't need to.

3. They aren't because you can't have free movement of workers then apply an extra criteria to workers of different nationalities.

4. I am saying they havent been transgressed 5 times, Because they have been changed 5 times because the clubs wanting more twice, because of Stanley Gene, because of one of the Henderson brothers, and because of Dobson/Mason. Every time the RFL have been called upon to actually apply the rules they have simply changed them.

5. Prior to Marc Bosman you could say the same, prior to Maros Kolpak you could say the same.

So these rules are illegal and easily challenged in law, but rather than do that professional football clubs worth billions would rather limit their squad to u21's and risk not winning? Come on Smokey, don't be daft.


Man Utd had to as well. So both Manchester clubs would rather weaken their squad than fight this easily challenged, illegal rule?


Yes they are. You either don't understand the non-fed trained rule or you can't admit you were wrong on this point. Nationality, like the Kolpak ruling, is irrelevant. Nationality is not mentioned whatsoever in the non-fed trained rules.


Every time? Are you saying there are only 5 incidences of clubs wanting to sign an additional non-fed trained player in 6 seasons? In what way were the rules changed in these 5 cases? And what effect has it had?
You're grasping now Smokey. For some reason you've decided the rule doesn't work, despite all evidence to the contrary, and now won't let it go despite your argument shifting drastically from it being illegal and unenforceable, to the RFL simply choose not to enforce it, to a changing of the rules.


Both of which are to do with nationality, so as to conform with the free movement and right to work principles for EU nationals as set out by the EU.
The non-fed trained rule (and the football homegrown rules) do not mention nationality. As proved by Owen Hargreaves, a British national but classed as overseas in Man Utd's squad, and proved by plenty of RL players including Mitch Achurch and Gareth Widdop.

Not on where they were born. You can on where they were trained (a lawyer needs to pass the bar in every country/ state they wish to practice in, regardless of where they initially passed it). Ergo, no they're not.

It's almost as if you were in the room......in both scenarios

1.No, you misunderstand, they wouldn't need to rely on youngsters. Say you needed 8 homegrown players. You have a squad of 25 but also unlimited u21s. So you could have a squad of 25 players, 0 of which are homegrown, and an unlimited amount of u21 players all of which are homegrown.

2.in 2010? Hargreaves didn't play for man Utd again because of injury.

3. But nationality is not irrelevant to where you are trained. You cannot have a free movement agreement with another country and then insist that anybody who wishes to work here had come at this age and spent this much time here before that age. That isn't free movement in any way shape or form. You can't stick a restriction that makes it infinitely more difficult for these people and pretend it is free movement. The people who write these treaties aren't idiots. The persons right to seek work would supersede the RFL's laws.

4. 5 times n 6 years is a fair old amount. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm not going to assume there have been examples of the RFL actually enforcing the quota that we just don't know about.

5.yet we have a governing. Body that hasn't actually ever enforced the rules, changed them whenever asked, and a much bigger governing body publicly stating that quotas just aren't enforceable

Interesting article.... "Poland to limit foreign players to three per side" www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -side.html

Interesting article.... "Poland to limit foreign players to three per side" www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -side.html

No it's actually you who misunderstands.
The rule is a maximum of 17 players out of a 25 man squad who are not homegrown. The u21's are irrelevant, you can play as many of them as you want regardless of their status. But the 25 man squad (ie those over the age of 21) can only contain a max of 17 non homegrown players. If a club were to have 0 homegrown players in its squad then it would only name a 17 man squad. The explanation on the Premier League website is quite clear.

[i"To ensure that Premier League Clubs continue to produce top home-grown talent, the 20 Clubs introduced a Home Grown Player rule from the start of the 2010/11 campaign. Clubs cannot name more than 17 non home grown players aged over 21. For example some clubs will have a squad list of 23 because they may have 17 over 21 non home grown players. "
[/i


And because he counted as overseas.
Just take a look at the squads announced for this football season.
Why have teams like Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Man City and Spurs all announced a squad of fewer than 25 players? Because they don't have the homegrown players so have to leave a gap.
Now of course, they could run with a weaker squad, or they could challenge this illegal rule couldn't they? If it's so easily knocked down why hasn't it been by one of these mega rich football clubs?


Yes it is Smokey. You can keep arguing that black is white for ever if you like. It won't alter the fact that nationality is irrelevant to these rules. As proved by Gareth Widdop, Jack Reed and Mitch Achurch, amongst others.


Which 5 times are these? And how were the rules changed?
So you mean you're going to ignore evidence of the rule working and only accept evidence of it (in your opinion) not working?


Simply repeating what you put before without any evidence isn't actually an argument or a response you know.

You can't do it can you? You've backed yourself into a corner now because you'd decided the non-fed trained rules didn't work without looking into it properly, and now you can't admit you were wrong so you're just going to continue to ignore all the evidence from other sports and our own.

In football they've never been a problem because the problem of foreign players is from within the EU.
In RL they are definitely a problem, hence the non-fed trained rule.

Should we worry anyway about the game being overrun with kolpak players - the two PNG players signed by HKR couldn't
get work permits/visas. I thought Smokey at said eu citizens inc kolpaks have a right to come here to get work?!?

My point exactly earlier in the thread , until I got bored with smokeys constant bollox, the harder you make it for clubs to sign your average Aussie, or you make the available market of quality players smaller , then the less will end up coming, simple as really