There are 2 rules. The Overseas Quota and the Non-Fed Trained List. They run alongside each other. Some players are on both, some on just 1 and some on neither.

The Overseas Quota restricts a club to having a max of 5 players who are non-EU nationals and is the "old" rule that's been around for a while. Clubs often found ways around this by having overseas players find some EU heritage and therefore gain an EU passport. eg Pat Richards getting an Irish passport

The Non-Fed Trained List is the "new" rule that was brought in as an attempt to close the loopholes in the Overseas Quota. It restricts a club to a max of 5 players who are Non-Federation Trained (basically not produced by a club in Europe). There are a couple of exemptions to this rule as mentioned by others previously. Players who were playing over here before 2008 are exempt (there appears to be some discussion about when that actually means re Tim Smith). Players who were signed by Crusaders just before they went under are exempt eg Sammut at Bradford.

As I said the rules run alongside each other. For instance Leeds quotas are:
Overseas Quota:
Joel Moon
Kylie Leuluai
Brett Delaney

Mitch Achurch doesn't count as he has a British passport.

Non-Fed Trained List:
Joel Moon
Brett Delaney
Mitch Achurch

Kylie Leuluai doesn't count as he was at Leeds prior to 2008.

That was the point of the none fed rule because players were finding a European granny getting an EU passport and sticking 2 fingers up to the RFL.

Pre FEB 08 not pre JUNE 08 as has already been pointed out.

1 contract length.
Withers and O'Hara have been hit by that this close season as they are back on the non-fed list and so are gone.

Are we sure it's pre feb 2008???? and not just the 2008 season?

This rule seems to allow a club to get around the rule with permission.

ie

Wakey are not going to be able to pay the players, we can pay them but we'd need an exemption to take smith off their hands in lieu of payment.


B1the Board shall be given
the discretion to grant to a Club or Clubs an exemption or variance of the maximum and
minimum in particular categories of the „Club Trained Player‟ Rule where in the Board‟s
absolute discretion the circumstances justify such an exemption or variance. The burden
of establishing such circumstances is strictly on the individual Club.

Totally sure.

Very interesting post. Looks pretty clear that some players can be counted as 'club trained' , even if they didn't spend time at the club as youngsters.

Just below that it says:
B1.15 The Board shall have the discretion to declare that a Player qualifies as a ‘Club Trained Player’ or a ‘Federation Trained Player’ notwithstanding that the player does not satisfy strictly the definition where in the Board’s absolute discretion the Board is satisfied that the player satisfies the spirit of the definition or considers that in view of the circumstances relevant to that case it is appropriate to declare that a Player qualifies as a ‘Club Trained Player’ or a ‘Federation Trained Player.

Would a player representing the Federation at the highest level satisfy the spirit of the definition?
Would the circumstances relevant to Wakefield's current position make it appropriate to declare one of their assets 'Fed -trained' in order to allow the club to obtain a much needed cash injection?

Notts, you may have to put your faith in the UKBA.

A couple of years ago we signed Jarrad Hickey only to find out we couldn't register him as we didn't have a non-fed trained slot for him. So I wouldn't be so sure that Salford have officially registered these players for next year yet.

Nothing against Salford but if (and it's not clear this is the case) they have been given an exemption then that is wrong, unless this exemption is basically extended to any player at any club in financial difficulty and applies to any club who wishes to sign them.

That's what I thinks going to be the reason, there's no difference between Shannon McPhearson getting exemption because Crusaiders were struggling financially and had to ofload him to Salford and Tim Smith getting exemption because Now wakey are heading down admin lane and had to offload him to pay wages.

If that's the case then whats to stop say Wigan paying Hull over the odds for Holdsworth so Hull say to the RFL, 'We need the money or we'll go under'?

There must be another explanation. Maybe the RFL have allowed this in turn for the Dr not paying over the SC in a back hander sort of way? All just speculation but it would be nice to know as a lot of clubs are maybe thinking that they could get an extra player or two if there is chance of dispensation.

That's nothing like the same? Wakefield and Crusaiders were and are actually financially struggling, you'd need proof that your club was actuallu struggling to be able to sell a player right at the back end of the season, the RFL would probably of asked Wakefield for their accounts before players were sold just like Salford last year, what I'm saying is for dispensation to be given the RFL would need to review the matter in hand first, and to me it looks like that's what they've done at Wakefield.

Did Tim Smith play at the weekend? You can buy and sell players whenever you want. You just can't play them past a certain time in the season. Anyone can show the RFL that they are losing money hand over fist. Hell half of SL can prove that.

I think the Crusaders think was a little more drastic, the owner had basically pulled the plug and the club was no more!
There were then players who had signed contracts and so committed their financial future to Crusaders, allowing them to move without being limited by quota rules seemed a fair and pragmatic way forward.

Any one can prove a loss, but not everyone can prove they do not have the cash flow to pay the players.

It's a risky strategy to take. If Hull FC held payments from players in order to get a transfer fee to circumnavigate the quota for Wigan, there is a huge risk that other players would ask to leave as well.

It's about the players facing a lack of payment or the unemployment queue that would allow an exception.

Do you really think Hull FC would withhold payments from the whole squad and create a cashflow situation that would prove to the RFL that they could not pay, just in order to sell a player to Wigan. It's very far fetched and would decimate the squad. Players would be checking their get out clauses and speaking to their agents to find them new clubs as Hull FC can not be relied on to pay them.