Stolen from BBC site

[DaveO]

GeoffN posted:

Fraggle posted:
But that's the non-GB eligible players. I think the 3 official overseas players rule still applies.

I'm not so sure it does; there was no mention of it in the press release in June that announced the new rules. As I understood it at the time, these new rules were intended to supersede the old quota rules, thereby getting around the whole Kolpak scenario.
Perhaps DaveO can clarify?

The "3 official overseas player" rule no longer applies. In effect it's been increased to 5 with the long term aim of it really meaning 5 as opposed to the current situation of 3 and as many Kolpak/EU passport holding foreigners you can sign.

In the short term it won't reduce overseas players in the game for 2008 and is bad news for the NRL because SL clubs can now sign two more Aussies than previously.

Dave

[DaveO]

gpartin posted:
Can't see how that can be legal if they hold an EU passport :eusa16:

It relies on the difference between how employment works in sport compared to the normal world of work.

If you applied for a job anywhere in the EU you could not be denied that job just for being British.

However players do not apply for jobs. They are in effect "head hunted" by the clubs. The clubs do not advertise for a new centre or whatever but go after specific targets.

These new rules are an agreement between the clubs not to target any more overseas players once their quota is full. So in theory it is impossible to say an EU citizen has been denied the job in favour of an overseas player because they don't advertise it and don't hold interviews with several candidates on a short list.

They could even say any EU citizen is not as qualified as the overseas player and the EU can hardly argue with that.

However a couple of weeks back I read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 028310.stm

The pertinent bit being:

"The EU has recently unveiled plans to impose more regulations on football and says the sport should only have limited immunity from rules governing employment."

So it remains to be seen if the EU wanting to impose normal employment law on soccer clubs will affect the RFL proposals on overseas players.

You never know if the EU have their way maybe Wigan would have to advertise for a new prop, centre and full back and interview anyone who applied and favour applications from within the club!

Dave

[gpartin]

Interesting reading thanks. Should be interesting to see the ruling within football. Salary cap would be affected no doubt.

[Fraggle]

DaveO posted:

GeoffN posted:

Fraggle posted:
But that's the non-GB eligible players. I think the 3 official overseas players rule still applies.

I'm not so sure it does; there was no mention of it in the press release in June that announced the new rules. As I understood it at the time, these new rules were intended to supersede the old quota rules, thereby getting around the whole Kolpak scenario.
Perhaps DaveO can clarify?

The "3 official overseas player" rule no longer applies. In effect it's been increased to 5 with the long term aim of it really meaning 5 as opposed to the current situation of 3 and as many Kolpak/EU passport holding foreigners you can sign.

In the short term it won't reduce overseas players in the game for 2008 and is bad news for the NRL because SL clubs can now sign two more Aussies than previously.

Dave

Thanks Dave, I can see what they are trying to achieve with this given that everyone is abusing the system at the moment, so this might make things a little bit more transparent.

[shawcross da warrior]

if matia and prichard want to be here get them here now they are top quality players that can make or break a game .....

pritchard is tough and a hard runner like fletch and matai has got pace and power so get them both on board lennegen.......

[Panchitta Marra]

lancaster077 posted:
Talk about the NewZealand and Aussie second team theres way too many imports in that line up.

For me no thanks prichard and matai are the only two that would interest me and thats your lot.

I cant see either in a cherry and white next year as they would command a big wage.

Plus we need a hooker,center and 2 props.

Why need a hooker, is McIllorum moving somewhere.

[Panchitta Marra]

Mike posted:
It doesn't have to be legal unless someone challenges it. If all the club's agree to abide by those rules no-one will challenge anything in the courts and the rules will stand. If a player were to challenge the rules himself I imagine he would have to have a club lined up that said they would sign him if the rules were not there, so in effect it would need the support of a club anyway.

Sorry for being off topic with this request Mike, but where did you get the picture of Homer Simpson in a Wigan shirt, and importantly can it be downloaded to print off on A4.

[Mike]

Panchitta Marra posted:

Mike posted:
It doesn't have to be legal unless someone challenges it. If all the club's agree to abide by those rules no-one will challenge anything in the courts and the rules will stand. If a player were to challenge the rules himself I imagine he would have to have a club lined up that said they would sign him if the rules were not there, so in effect it would need the support of a club anyway.

Sorry for being off topic with this request Mike, but where did you get the picture of Homer Simpson in a Wigan shirt, and importantly can it be downloaded to print off on A4.

I made it myself - downloaded Homer and coloured in the kit. Its only 152x222 pixels full size so I doubt it will blow up to a4 I'm afraid.

[Panchitta Marra]

thomo posted:
agree with lancaster 077 - we need tow props and coley in the second row.
You can develop kids in the centres and on the wing, maybe even in the second row (hansen & tomkins) but in the front row we need tough experience men

Sam Burgess has fitted the bill, in the front row.