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.

Wakefield never held payments from the squad. They just said that they couldn't pay the players unless they sold Tim Smith. Nowhere does it state that the players were paid late does it?

I think you will find that this sentence is key to the whole argument.

Exactly. Is there evidence which states they had to provide proof of this? If not then your whole argument is based on assumptions rather than the evidence which is there.

The Crusaders exemptions were because their players wouldn't have a club to play for next season. That was known. There were no two-ways about it. Their club was without a SL license.

That is not the case for Wakefield. They do have a club with a SL license. They're just skint. Bradford players moving on didn't get any exemptions IIRC. I don't think it has anything to do with it.

Has Chase been rules out yet as the one not on the list? Again, being an England international you'd think he'd be exempt!

Not quite. The exemption was forced because players had moved countries to make a career under the premise of the old rules. So they kept the quota rule also to keep overseas numbers down. It's effectively, as you say, the transition of the two systems coming together.

Eventually all the exemptions will run out (it's been nearly 6 years since it came in so many will be coming to the back end of their careers) and the quota system will no longer be needed. But whilst there are exemptions, there needs to be a quota.


Tim Smith joined the competition mid-way though 2008. The rules for non-fed players were in place when he signed. He cannot be exempt for the same reason that a player like Willie Manu is.

The rules however DO allow for a player to leave and come back (Aaron Heremaia being an example). But Tim Smith is not in this category as he was never exempt to begin with. (Not that I agree with the exemption sticking once you leave the country, as it defeats the original point!)

I still reckon it's Chase. Perhaps he is classed as fed trained as soon as he pulls on the international shirt?

One of the most brilliant things I've ever read, although I doubt it's what the author intended.

So the signing of Lama Tasi takes Salford to a total of 7 seemingly non-exempt non-Fed players. Do they know something we don't?
Tasi
Chase
Smith
Sa'u
Mullaney
Rapira
Puletua.
With McGoldrick, Meli and McPherson exempt.

Apparently (can't remember where I read it) one of the proposals of the RFL's policy review is to increase the number of non-feds from 5 to 7

Salford need to hope the proposal is accepted then, or they could have a big problem.
It will also look like the RFL simply change the rules rather than enforce them properly if a club breaches them.

Gotta feel for Nottingham Tiger. Spent Weeks on the Salford forum telling us Chase wouldn't get a visa and has now desperately moved onto this.