Lovegrove is exempt and has been for a few years now (not sure of the explanation, I'm sure someone will know) and O'Hara was signed from Crusaders and doesn't count on any quota, as all Crusaders players have special dispensation from the RFL when signing for other clubs.

but they were both born overseas, isn't that the topic of the tital post, regardless if they have dispensation!

looked like rovers were doing well last season with their youngsters, how many will get a game next season with a full strength squad to pick from?

Other than cheap point scoring, why do you give a shizzle?

You don't, thought so.

For simplicity, yes - they're the 11 that would count as non-fed if it wasn't for exemptions and dispensations.
Not sure what will happen with George Griffin (or the lad Pearce at Hull), but for now I think they're young enough for it not to be an issue. And you'd have to say that they could legitimately feel aggreived if they didn't get dispensations, given the less than water-tight nature of the rule to date.

It's complicated by points scoring - on both sides of the chocolate river. Made easier by the complexity and ambiguity of it all. I notice we've started conflating 'local' and 'homegrown'.

I guess from Rovers point of view you have to consider it on three levels:

The Patriotic-moralistic - Whether you think a more stringently enforced quota will be good news for the England XVII or just for the next generation of Graham Holroyds and Mick Nanyns, Rovers have not been at the forefront of it.

The sporting-economic - It isn't pervisity that has led us here, it has been the incentives and imperitives we've found before us.

The political - perceptions matter, whether they are fair and reasonable or not. Other clubs ride out unpopularity - from Wigan's wrestling to Warrington's wage-bill wizardry. Probably better to be like this than a popular patsy like Cas. Probably.

Of Rovers 11 'foreign' players 6 are eligible to play for England.

So the full time squad of 32 contains 27 players eligible for England and also includes 17 players born in Hull. (And I'm assuming in those figures that the club will sign O'Donnell & Mika who would be part of a small group at Rovers not eligible for England).

So maybe someone can explain what the problem is for the national side or for Super League with the make up of Rovers squad.

I wonder if the 17 local born players can be matched by any other club in Super League? Do Leeds have 17 Leeds born players or Wigan 17 Wigan born players? Not sure TBH but 17 is a pretty impressive number surely.

Wigan could probably have had a full squad of Pie's if the previous administration hadn't binned most of them off.

Leeds' wouldn't count as they've probably stolen most of them from south of the Aire and should therefore be playing for Hunslet.

'Like'

i dont really care what does it matter if half the team are overseas players we have got youngsters coming through and playing i just want to see a winning team why fans of other clubs are bothered baffles me its not as if we are cheating somehow

To play devil's advocate - until Salter, Heil, Johnson, Peterson, Green and Ollet play SL, it is pushing it to count them. And both Hodgsons, Hall and Horne are the products of other clubs' systems.
On the other hand, is it any wonder that we 'interpret' the spirit of the rule? I've seen people say that Watts isn't really one of ours because he's from Castleford. So we claim 'Hull-born' and are held to the 'club-trained' criterion.

We are now in a position to build from the bottom-up, as mentioned by the chairman at the fans' forum, and the inclusion of so many young players in the full-time squad is definately one sign of that.

Off on a tangent - I see Jordan Tansey and Karl Pryce haven't got clubs for next year.

There's a reason for that, the first one's and idiot and the second one's a massive pile of excrement.

Has Senior sorted himself out yet?