Quote Wes Hooligan="Wes Hooligan"That still doesn't mean they were illegal players. They were registered and Celtic had every right to field them. Visas are a means of getting into the country, and are nothing to do with any sporting organisation. Starbug, I was not referring to you in my post.'" This report seems to suggest otherwise: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... ians-visas Celtic themselves are under investigation and the UKBA has already concluded that "deception was used in bringing the players into the country" - Do you still maintain they we not illegal players? You seem to want to take the line just because they were issued vias, no-one should take any blame - what about the question of how those visa were awarded in the 1st place? If I was to apply for a credit card or loan in someone elses name but later get caught, people won't turn round and say "well it was the banks fault" or "once the money has been issued, you can spend it how you want without any comeback." The Guardian report is quite damning to the point of bascially saying the club are to blame and blatently lied in order for the visas to be granted - No lies = No visa - but because they did lie and the visa were granted, you seem to think this made it legally ok for them to play?

Quote Wes Hooligan="Wes Hooligan"That still doesn't mean they were illegal players. They were registered and Celtic had every right to field them. Visas are a means of getting into the country, and are nothing to do with any sporting organisation. Starbug, I was not referring to you in my post.'" This report seems to suggest otherwise: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... ians-visas Celtic themselves are under investigation and the UKBA has already concluded that "deception was used in bringing the players into the country" - Do you still maintain they we not illegal players? You seem to want to take the line just because they were issued vias, no-one should take any blame - what about the question of how those visa were awarded in the 1st place? If I was to apply for a credit card or loan in someone elses name but later get caught, people won't turn round and say "well it was the banks fault" or "once the money has been issued, you can spend it how you want without any comeback." The Guardian report is quite damning to the point of bascially saying the club are to blame and blatently lied in order for the visas to be granted - No lies = No visa - but because they did lie and the visa were granted, you seem to think this made it legally ok for them to play?

Quote vikings 4 ever="vikings 4 ever"This report seems to suggest otherwise: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... ians-visas Celtic themselves are under investigation and the UKBA has already concluded that "deception was used in bringing the players into the country" - Do you still maintain they we not illegal players? You seem to want to take the line just because they were issued vias, no-one should take any blame - what about the question of how those visa were awarded in the 1st place? If I was to apply for a credit card or loan in someone elses name but later get caught, people won't turn round and say "well it was the banks fault" or "once the money has been issued, you can spend it how you want without any comeback." The Guardian report is quite damning to the point of bascially saying the club are to blame and blatently lied in order for the visas to be granted - No lies = No visa - but because they did lie and the visa were granted, you seem to think this made it legally ok for them to play?'" I am not trying to say that nobody is to blame. However, there is a difference between being illegally in the country and being an illegal player. Under RFL rules there was nothing untoward, and I was responding to someone who suggested that the Crusaders had been fielding ineligible players since their inception. I'm also not sure how a body could so badly deceive immigration officials for four years, particularly as the article suggests that the players were initially here on working holiday visas which have presumably since expired, so you'll forgive me for assuming a bit of sensationalism on the part of The Guardian. If the club are found guilty of anything untowards then I will admit I was wrong, but I do not think this will be the case.

Quote vikings 4 ever="vikings 4 ever"This report seems to suggest otherwise: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/au ... ians-visas Celtic themselves are under investigation and the UKBA has already concluded that "deception was used in bringing the players into the country" - Do you still maintain they we not illegal players? You seem to want to take the line just because they were issued vias, no-one should take any blame - what about the question of how those visa were awarded in the 1st place? If I was to apply for a credit card or loan in someone elses name but later get caught, people won't turn round and say "well it was the banks fault" or "once the money has been issued, you can spend it how you want without any comeback." The Guardian report is quite damning to the point of bascially saying the club are to blame and blatently lied in order for the visas to be granted - No lies = No visa - but because they did lie and the visa were granted, you seem to think this made it legally ok for them to play?'" I am not trying to say that nobody is to blame. However, there is a difference between being illegally in the country and being an illegal player. Under RFL rules there was nothing untoward, and I was responding to someone who suggested that the Crusaders had been fielding ineligible players since their inception. I'm also not sure how a body could so badly deceive immigration officials for four years, particularly as the article suggests that the players were initially here on working holiday visas which have presumably since expired, so you'll forgive me for assuming a bit of sensationalism on the part of The Guardian. If the club are found guilty of anything untowards then I will admit I was wrong, but I do not think this will be the case.

If they've been here on student or working holiday visas, both of these allow work to undertaken up to a certain point. And believe me, there are a lot of international students abusing the system and working full time.

It may be a case that the interpretation has been incorrect. The work component of these visas is (someone please correct me if possible) is up two 20 hours a week or meant to be on a casual basis (tatty picking or something) and not meant to be the main reason for being here.

I'm sure somebody who has signed up for a proper college course and is attending and taking it seriously would be able play part-time professional rugby league if it meant a couple of training sessions and a game every week which didn't interfere with their studies. Probably the same for a working holiday visa. However, they were probably training full time and just signed up for a course to get the documentation for registration but never bothered with the course. That is deception.

It sounds like somebody somewhere stuffed up with the advice. The players must have agents who know the score. It may be that in the lower leagues there has been a lot of abuse of the system but now there has been a step change in visa enforcement and Immigration service has decided to make an example of Celtic.

Oh I must have dozed off when Celtic won the Challenge Cup and topped the league - silly me.

Idiot.

You have to look at the RFL as well as Celtic. Don't they have to ratify all players?

This is a bad look, but I for one hope Celtic survive and prosper.

A possibility for the remainder of the season may be get young players on loan. At this stage of the season I suspect a number of clubs have a few players who are unlikely to be picked this year who'd welcome the chance for some first team experience. Has to be better than throwing a bunch of kids into the fray.

How can having players in the country illegally not make those players ineligible? They have put the club at an unfair advantage.

To put it into context, Hull were fined £100k for fielding an ineligible player in the cup for 2 games. I fail to see how this is not more serious than that when they had been playing for years in some circumstances.

I'd be very surprised if the RFL don't have a registration sub section on eligibility through appropriate work visa.

Either way the CC are looking very shoddy and what with their change of grounds, lack of decent recruitment and clear lack of money, their first season is hardly setting a good standard for the future.

Will we have another 10+ years of "building" like London?

Strange one this isn't it. The UK border agency allowed them into the country in the first place so they were not considered here illegally in the first instance or they would have been sent straight back. It's not as though they have been secretive about what they are doing here as they are in the papers and on TV every week of the season. Some of them were playing here last year too so again it;s not as though there is any change there. In order to take a job here you have to provide certain documentation which also goes to the HMRC as they will have been paying tax and NI in this country and even they didn't notice a problem for months. Something very strange happened here I think.

5 SL clubs in West Yorkshire alone, which that motorway runs through, says different. Then there's the clubs in lower league RL from that area. All have the same [inational[/i demographic. Leeds and Wigan cannot really lord it over everyone else on that score. I suppose Leeds, with being a bigger city, could argue that they'd have a better [iClass[/i demographic, but not a [inational[/i demographic. Wigan can't even argue that one.

Wigan has the same National demographic as their Leigh friends, as well as the other clubs which surround them in this area. Whether they're a bigger club, or not, isn't the question. Having a massively inflated view of your own importance doesn't count either.

The old saying:
[i'Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'[/i comes to mind.

Yes but they won't, so there will still be 2 teams on Humberside !!

Its a disgrace and someone s head at RED HALL should roll, but it wont and CEltic will get a points deduction which means nothing ,a slapped wrist, and carry on, in a town where 96% of its inhabitats havent even heard of them.
They will finish bottom again next year and struggle to find a decent following wherever they move to.
London kept moving and changing names and it still have a smalll fan base because of their location.
SL has 14 teams in and 4 have stadiums that are nt fit. Will THE RFL boot any out in 2011, I think not.
They may put Widnes in if a team were to fold or theres enough funds form SKY to have 15 teams.
WE can only hold that we have a great year next season as we have to get to a GF or win the NRC to apply in the Autumn for a Franchise. If two teams were to go, I d say we,d have an outside chance.

I understand that it was pretty common for clubs outside SL to employ overseas players on working holiday visas as it neatly avoided many of the complications associated with getting a full visa. That all changed this season with the new rules and is the reason why a number of players in the Championship have been unable to get into the country even if they were part way through a contract and had been playing here previously.

The Crusaders website states that the problems found by UKBA were with visas from previous seasons, so it may be that this practise was technically illegal all the time and simply not picked up on by the authorities. If that is the case, then the Crusaders and their players have not been doing anything that many other clubs have not also done. It's just that in their case the UKBA were tipped off and they were caught out.

It's entirely possible that some other clubs may have players in a similar position.