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?

Salford Red Devils certainly aren't a new club otherwise there would have to be an application for admittance to the RFL!!

The Company issue is perhaps more interesting - Dr K now owns the Salford Franchise through a different company to that of which John Wilkinson was chairman. My guess is that all contracts were assigned from the old to the new and thereby remained in force?

He signed for Crusaders just before they folded. If the Crusaders players could find another club to sign for they didn't count on the quota, not sure how long this lasts though.

Could some in detail explain the non fed quota rules because I am now lost? I've tried to look for them everywhere even the RFL site and it does say anything?

Right ok Tim Smith was sold to Salford to stop Wakefield going into Administrtion maybe the RFL have given smith the same exemption?

And nottstiger you say the RFL don't know who Salford have signed? They have a video link on their website that's all about Salford Red Devils rebranding and signings I'm sure if there was something wrong theyd have noticed when the video was uploaded to their site.

They are in the Operational Rules.

However, they are very confusing in that it says clubs are allowed a maximum of 5 players who do not fall into the category of club trained or federation trained.

Then in another section it refers to a club being allowed a max of 5 overseas players with exemption to being an overseas player being an EU national, player who has lived over 4 years in a RLEF member state or those who can live here under the Contonou agreement.

Either way I'd assume that Puletua and Sa'u are exempt having Samoan passport under the latter agreement and this is why. Perhaps some clarity from the RFL could be sought?