the rfl have to make the rules far more clear for me every team can only have 6 non british born players and then over 6-8 years bring that down gradually to 3 so simple and better for the game

I agree with that post.

SUPER LEAGUE GOES NATIVE
By Ian Laybourn, PA Sport Rugby League Correspondent
22 June 2007

"Super League clubs have agreed to wean themselves off their dependence on overseas signings.

Several sides regularly field up to 12 overseas players, taking advantage of the Kolpak ruling, grandparentage and European passports but now the Rugby Football League are to act to close the loopholes.

From next year, at least five members of a first-team squad of 25 must contain players who have either graduated from a club's academy system or are aged under 21.

This will increase by one player each year until 2011, when a squad must have at least eight homegrown players. During the same period, the number of overseas players must be reduced from 10 to five.

Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief operating officer, said: "This new rule fulfils a long-standing objective to encourage clubs to develop young talented players.

"By giving them greater opportunity at the top level, it is likely to improve standards not only on a national level but also internationally.

"Over time, the number of home-born players in a squad will increase whilst the number of players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained will be reduced."

The 12 club chief executives passed the proposal at their two-day summit in Perpignan, where they also agreed to implement an overhaul of the salary cap, which will in future prevent clubs overspending."

As already said, I think initially we acted in good faith that all other clubs would actually reduce their number of overseas players. Naive in the extreme, as it turned out, and a shame we're stooping to that level now.

wigan have more than 5 overseas players in the squad

The rules are actually pretty clear. The complications have come from potential legal action by overseas players who were already employed here when the Non-Fed rule came in and from accommodating EU employment law. Over time the first issue will disappear as these players retire and the second is manageable.

I know it looks like a fiasco at present, and the RFL certainly haven't helped by setting precedents for 'one off' exemptions, but it should work out given time.

Just a thought,

How about looking at this from another angle and reward clubs for promoting home grown players rather then the messy rules around overseas signings. You could develop the idea of discounting players contribution to the salary cap allowing clubs to develop a home grown team of talent over time without the worry of keeping them under the cap and loosing then to rival clubs.

Not sure if the idea is 100% there but but be worth rewarding the clubs that invest in the youth of the game?

The same thing happened in the UK with the ice hockey, after going from only 3 imports to being allowed to 3 imports and a reclassified player (basically a Canadian with UK passport) because the BIHA were challenged on the ruling by Tim Fecking Cranston so teams then filled up squads with 3 imports and 3 or 4 reclassified players. Only problem being the junior development and advance of the juniors got stunted and so we are now left with the teams having 9-10 imports per team as no longer enough quality home grown players to fill the rosters. then a rule came out saying teams had to field at least 2 or 3 UK players on the ice but not sure if this is still the case as lost all interest in the sport here due to the politics.

This is the worry for me with RL.

Is this something that could be workable in our sport? Allow teams to sign as many imports as they like, but have a rule saying they can only field 3/4/5 per game?

Unfortunately as long as this breaches employment law someone or some club will find a way around the rules until eventually they just refuse to abide by it, And the problem is the rfl cannot legally bind clubs to a gentlemans agreement. the worse thing is I can see the same eventually happening with the salary cap..

I think a rule like that would be a lot easier too enforce than the current quota system.

and thats where the problem lies, its cheaper and the quota makes it easier, maybe if clubs couldnt bring in any old Aussie they would have to put more efforts into the youngsters, more time and effort, more quaility,
we all seem to think that without all these Exports our game would struggle, maybe it would, BUT maybe with better youngsters coming through who've had more time spent on them, wed only struggle for a few years.
this is only an observation, it may be total rubbish, but IMO it would be nice to get back to 3 exports.

Id expect the whole of the Crusades foreign contingent to get dispensation

Isn't this the way it works in football to some extent? I think in Italian you can only field 3 non-european players but retain more. It might even be the same in the Premier League.

The relative wealth of the NRL and SL is going to make quotas redundant, I'd assume, when they get their new tv deal.

Those who were most keen for more British players to be given a chance should get their wish. Those who think that this will narrow the gap to the Kangaroos are in for a disappointment, IMO. What will be more likely to help is if more of our best follow Ellis, Burgess and Graham to the NRL.

Agree with that. The end result in any case is a poorer SL competition in the medium term at least, and a resulting drop in sponsorship and TV money. It then becomes a downward spiral. The RFL should be putting steps in place to ensure that SL clubs can still attract the best worldwide talent to enrich the competition by widening the salary cap and reintroducing limits based upon turnover, whilst giving financial incentive to clubs to promote youngsters from within. It should also invest far more of its profits into young player development through the clubs.