It's about the rules of the game. Will Salford mind if Saints field 24 players next year against their 13??

If you moan we'll just say you don't want us to succeed.

It's about every team playing by the same rules. If every team can have 6 non-fed players then you may have faced more competition for those you signed.

If they have them fair and square then i'm happy with that, but it does sound like no-body is 100% on which of the 6 are exempt from the 5 player limit.

Surely the no-fed rule was brought in due to clubs finding a way round the quote via dual-passports etc?

Ok then why can't we just have the non fed rule why quote the over sea's quota rules aswel?

I've no idea mate I was just pointing out why I think the non-fed rule was brought in.

They kept the quota rules as at the time there was a huge number of clubs with a large number of overseas players.If they had restricted to 5 players, or tried to reduce it over time some clubs simply could not have coped. So they took all overseas players currently playing and said you are exempt.

The idea was to make it a manageable transition to each club only having 5. It's actually a rule that has been successful.

It's allowed more of a transition from Championship clubs to SL and from SL to the NRL.

At Saints we are down to 6 overseas players as Manu is pre-2008.

The question is simply, which of the Salford 6 fits into this rule. I still reckon it's smith and that the rules allow for a player to leave and rejoin the competition.

Although someone more in tune with the in's and out's will know better than me.

Even if the rule allows for a player to leave and rejoin the competition, Smith signed for Wigan after the rules came into force. He wasn't exempt at Wigan, he wasn't exempt at Wakefield. He therefore shouldn't be exempt at Salford.

The rule does apply to players leaving and coming back to this country. At Fc Aaron Heremaia is exempt having played in the lower leagues over here before returning to NZ.

Next season is the 3rd of a 3 year contract for McPherson so for the next twelve months he is still in his first contact.

The RFL register each player so theyd of noticed if there was a problem, I still think Smith would be Exempt as he played over half the 2008 season, Salford would of checked in the First place before signing Smith.

Could someone please explain the reason McPhearson is exempt? Just trying to figure something out.

I' m sure Salford have checked with the RFL that they can register the six players in question.
It would be better for everyone on this thread, and RL fans in general, if the RFL specified which players are classed as 'Non-Fed' and who has been classified as exempt.
Without wishing to pre-empt Notts Tiger's next thread, we have signed 11 players who are not club trained ( Walton is) and we are only allowed 17 out of the top 25 earners.
Don't know if Jordan Davies might get some sort of 'club trained' equivalence as a Union convert. But it would help everyone if the RFL made it clear which players are exempt from the published rules.

But the RFL don't know who Salford are going to sign and the players won't have been registered yet!
Nothing would surprise me - Remember Hull KR having to de-register Dobson when he was injured so Willie Mason could play?

I hadn't even thought about that! So how many players contracted for next year are not club trained? If it's more than 17 the club has a problem.

I'd guess McPherson, Gleeson, Griffin, Dixon, Ashurst, Emitt. That's six in itself.
Add Davies to that, possibly on some sort of exemption.
Don't know about Wiliams, Wilde, McGoldrick.

There is still talk of further signings, which would compllicate things even further. Although there are some Salford 'club trained' players knocking around at other clubs.

Salford Red Devils are a new club though arnt they? I mean a completely different company? So wouldn't the slate be whiped clean? I mean how does it work for London fulbronquins?