To be honest I'm not sure.
However, surely this "exemption" cannot be applied to a player who has left SL and then re-signed for another club years later (it goes against the principle of the rule which is to encourage home-grown players)?

Ok what about a player from England who goes to Australia for a good few years e.g (sam burgess) then comes back isn't that the same?

According to the RFL:
"Where a player joined a club prior to the Club Trained Rule coming into effect on 1 February 2008 and has played a total of at least one season for that club then that player will be exempt from the non-federation trained requirement."
Smith signed for Wigan in June 2008 so that counts him out of the exemption (nor had he played a season for the club already).

No, because he is clearly a federation-trained player having played for a European Federation club (Bradford) between the ages of 16-21 (which Tim Smith didn't)!
Widdop would be a non-fed player though as he moved to Australia before he was 16!

You have a bee in your bonnet about this NT. So if RFL decree then Smith goes back to Trinity & the Wildcats repay and the club goes to the wall. Is that what you want? Or a similar situation at Cas & when Rangi returns Cas - who are skint anyway - will have to renege on the lucrative contracts to the new lads who will become free agents again Is that what you want?

At the end of the day - being realistic - the monies invested with Cas & Wakey is desperately needed. If one of the deals fails then one of the clubs fail Surely you do not want to see this.

Feb 08 for players who were at a club or had signed pre-08

If Salford have breached the federation ruling then it has nothing to do with lucrative contracts been signed. It's about making sure no rules are broken.

Anyway If the survival of a club rests on the transfer of one player then more fool that club.

Sounds like Tim Smith is exempt, by those rules. Good on Salford for doing their homework.

In a way you are right.
To be honest I've had a 'been in my bonnet' about a fair few things within the game recently. I don't like the fact the RFL have a vested interest in Bradford, because it's unfair.
I don't like that some of Sam Tomkins' wage doesn't count on the salary cap when every other club has to stick to it, because it's unfair.
For me, any sport has to be played on the metaphorical "level playing field". Allowing some clubs to break the rules undermines the whole game, and allowing Salford to sign more non-federation players than other clubs would be unfair to every other club.
As for your other point - I don't think any players will return to their previous clubs. Salford would need to decide which player to de-register, as Hull KR did when they had more than the permitted number of non-fed players.
Finally, I think you are correct about the money with regards to Wakefield, who have openly said they need the cash to survive. However, Cas could have afforded to keep Chase, and are using the money to re-invest in the playing squad and sped the maximum salary cap.

No he isn't, it came into force in February 2008 and he signed for Wigan in June 2008. June comes after February.

Once again the legal eagle nottinghamtiger is out and about with his interpretation of rules and regulations. I hope your legal training in this area is much more accurate than all that Borders Agency advice you have been quoting for several months regarding Chase having no chance of getting a work permit.
If you are going to question the clubs you name that have, in your opinion broke this rule or that regulation, then please tell us your thoughts on the RFL giving four clubs a warning over there failure to delivery new facilities but at this moment in time I can only think of one club that seems to have not moved their promises forward.

Is chase exempt from the rule as he now qualifies / plays for england?

I have no legal training in this area. However, I am capable of reading the RFL rules and counting to 6. I know that 6 is one more than the 5 non-fed players allowed. It's not difficult.

On th Visa issue, I never, ever said that Chase had "no chance" of getting a Visa. I said it was "unlikely" based on the UKBA regulations (which I even linked for your information). Out of interest, I am yet to see confirmation he has been granted a Visa.

Finally, I am no fan of the RFL. Four clubs were given warnings that should their stadiums not improve they faced the possibility of relegation. I can only assume they RFL looked at possible replacements and decided that these clubs had more issues that the ones they would replace, whether this be an even more decrepid ground, no supporters or a financial difficulty that would prevent them competing in SL. However, I don't think any of the clubs who have not made significant improvements could have complained had they been relegated, and they are lucky we are now moving back to on-field performance to decide who goes down.

No you are quite right you never said Chase wouldn't get a permit but you did say it had never happened before and seeing you are so so good at understanding documents and are able to count to six then when it was pointed out it had in fact happened before your understanding of documents is now not quite the solid ground you try to make it.
Here's a bit of free unqualified advise just let it go and move on it will feel better soon

Whereas Dr Koukash and Salford Red Devils lawyers do.