Instead of 2 or 3 word answers all the time any chance you could explain your understanding of it please

I'm not sure what they did, but presumably it must have involved renegotiaion of contracts mid run.

Why? An existing contract by employment law becomes null and void if a newer contract is agreed. If the player and club agree the contract there is no severance pay needed.

I'm still not getting your point here. He was asked if we had a quota spot available to sign Sam Moa for next season. He got a reply of "no quota not full for 2010 yet". Whats the problem?

Which was allowed. They just werent allowed to say to player x that they would give them 50k per season in year 1, 100k in year 2 and 200k in year 3. The RFL rules that it had to be 117k per year i believe. (i may be wrong though)

It would be illegal for the RFL to stop contracts being renegotiated.

I'm thinking it's the inaccurate use of the word quota for all overseas players. Maybe a little pedantic, but using quota all the time does increase the confusion. It's kind of like calling all British people English, whether they be Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish.

The problem ive got is that he gave us a fact in isolation with no detail. This is dangerous in that detail is then speculated and made up.

The correct approach here would be to give no fact or to give fact and detail.

Sorry

He was close, this year it is a maximum on 8 non federation, of which a maximum of 5 of these can be 'quota'.

Next year it will be a maximum of 6 non federation, of which a maximum of 5 can be'quota'.

Kolpaks, Islanders, RU players count as Non federation as do dual /european passports I believe.

Ah ok, i use the word quota for a total number. Guess i should have used quota for the oz/nz players we are allowed and then total overseas for the total numbers?

So what should he have said? "sorry I cant answer that question?"

Dont think anyone really knows. (including James Rule evidently)