court/legal costs

Thought Hull paid those??

I was led to believe it was one of the issues behind his move, I guess we'll never know for sure.

It could have been written into his HKR contract, as per the operational rule C1:1:9

But like you say, we'll never know.

So basically nobody really understands the quota rules for next season.

The RL really need to make it clear for fans to understand.

edited

Quote: downtheante "I think it's all here somewhere. I was going to post an extract but it would be too long and convoluted. It's easier to read it yourself. I would be amazed if the general consensus after reading it is one of a full understanding. I hope it's up to date because it's from the RFL site Check the pdf document rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Operational%20Rules%20Part%203.pdfrl Section C1 You also need to read this PDF from Operational Rules Part 2: www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Oper ... rt%202.pdf The relevant section is towards the end of page 2 - B1:11A onwards. The bit you read earlier basically just defines players who fit into the old 'quota' - i.e. not EU or Kolpak.

Quote: downtheante "I think it's all here somewhere. I was going to post an extract but it would be too long and convoluted. It's easier to read it yourself. I would be amazed if the general consensus after reading it is one of a full understanding. I hope it's up to date because it's from the RFL site Check the pdf document rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Operational%20Rules%20Part%203.pdfrl Section C1 You also need to read this PDF from Operational Rules Part 2: www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Oper ... rt%202.pdf The relevant section is towards the end of page 2 - B1:11A onwards. The bit you read earlier basically just defines players who fit into the old 'quota' - i.e. not EU or Kolpak.

I do, but Rule's interpretation seems to be different to mine.

Unless there's something else going on...

I thought I did, until I read Rule's comments on here.

TBH I'm happier trusting my interpretation than Rule's. The club has a fair amount of previous when it comes to misinterpreting RFL regulations.

And that is exactly what worries me.

I hope they have it covered with a decent legal representative who can ensure that Hull's interpretation matches that of the RLs

Well my interpretation of that is that a player must have been at a SL club for 3 seasons before he reaches the age of 21 (I thinks thats the age a player is no longer qualified for the reserves?) in order to be classed as fed trained or club trained. Anything other than that could only be classed as special dispensation from the RFL? So even if Manu or Motu for that matter want to be classed as fed/club trained they would need to apply to the RFL without any gurantee they would agree. Anyone else read that differently?

So now that we've all read both of those extracts - bearing in mind it might be possible that there are recent appendices that we haven't seen; plus we don't know what player negotiations are going on - does anyone believe that Rule could have answered the email in a way that we could all agree was FACT?