WiganWarriorsFans.com

This seems to be causing a lot of confusion lately not least to Peter Aspinall who was twittering on about Kolpak players in Wigan Today (and no doubt the Obbo ans Wep) re Carmont and Amos Roberts.

So here is an attempt to clear things up.

First of all there is no such thing as an overseas quota.


Surprised? Well the RFL make no mention of if in section B of the Operational Rules that deal with the make up of a clubs squad.

What they do mention is two classes of player. Club trained and Federation trained.

The intention is by 2011 a club is only allowed 5 players who are not either federation or club trained.

That is not the same as saying you are only allowed 5 overseas players. There is nothing to stop what we might consider an overseas player being deemed either Club (or more likely) Federation trained. It is all down to what qualifies a player as fitting into one of those two classes.

So what qualifies a player as club trained? From the rules:

‘Club Trained Player’: a player who has been on the Club’s register for any 3 full Seasons before the end of the Season in which he ceases to be eligible by age for Academy rugby league.

And Federation trained?

‘Federation Trained Player’: a player who, for any 3 full Seasons before the end of the Season in which he ceases to be eligible by age for Academy rugby league has been on one of the Club’s register or the register of another Club
being a member of the same rugby league federation.

Those two are the "simple" definitions. As the regulations are being phased in for 2011 there are various caveats to cater for this between now and 2011.

However after introducing the rules the RFL received a series of challenges from players and clubs. For example concerning a number of players who felt they were hard done by with the new rules as they didn't qualify even for Federation status despite playing here from a young age.

As a result some players were granted federation status. As a result of one such compromise TL was granted it because he played for London as a young player and then for us.

In the end to cut a long and complicated story short, the RFL issued a press release on Sunday 19th Oct 2008 saying any player who was signed up with a SL club before 1st Feb 2008 would quality as Federation trained for the rest of their career.

So as a result of this more players will qualify as federation trained in most clubs squads (certainly Wigan's) so that leaves more scope for employing a player who does not qualify as club or federation trained.

In practical terms non-qualifying players will 99.9% of the time be overseas players - but it is not an overseas quota as that would be illegal or subject to exceptions such as EC registered or Kolpak registered players.

As the rules are worded if you are British or Samoan, if you don't quality as club or federation trained by the criteria laid down then you would be one of the 5 non-qualified players a club was employing. So it is not racist or nationality based.

So when you see Peter Aspinall of the WEP/Obbo or Wigan Today going on about Kolpak players you will know he is out of date. Such things as EC passports for Aussies and Samoan passports for NZ'ers won't get you club or federation trained status.

Dave

does peter aspinall ever know what hes talking about ,gets most of is info off here lol and we know apart from dave o and a few more on here no 1 else knows what we are talking about never mind what peter aspinall thinks we are talking about

Just been reading on the RFL website about the federation trained players extension rule and noticed this section:

To take advantage of the extension of the exemption a player must apply to the RFL to be ‘federation trained’ at the end of their current contract. They also must have registered with the RFL prior to 1 February 2008, the date when the club trained rules were introduced.

Can anyone clear this up for me, does this mean only players who were out of contract at the end of this season and registered before 1st February 2008 can apply to be federation trained??

MrDave wrote:Just been reading on the RFL website about the federation trained players extension rule and noticed this section:

To take advantage of the extension of the exemption a player must apply to the RFL to be ‘federation trained’ at the end of their current contract. They also must have registered with the RFL prior to 1 February 2008, the date when the club trained rules were introduced.

Can anyone clear this up for me, does this mean only players who were out of contract at the end of this season and registered before 1st February 2008 can apply to be federation trained??

The same thought has crossed my mind. Strictly speaking the words mean they only get their federation trained status at the end of their contract, not before.

If that is correct that would change things quite a bit at Wigan.

First of all TL already has federation trained status as part of a previous compromise and Hansen is classed as club trained.

Richards singed a new deal last season before that announcement so he may not be federation trained at the moment.

If he isn't neither are Carmont, Feka or Bailey.

So for 2009 those four who originally signed before 1st Feb 2008 would be classed the same way as Riddell, Smith and Phelps who were signed after that date. That means we already have seven non-club and non-federation trained players on the books.

Which would mean we are back to the situation of only being able to sign one more non-club or non-federation trained player for 2009.

So if we sign Roberts my guess is that wold our squad for 2009 complete as I don't see us signing any UK based players (or if we do they won't be the ones I would sign!).

Dave

DaveO wrote:

MrDave wrote:Just been reading on the RFL website about the federation trained players extension rule and noticed this section:

To take advantage of the extension of the exemption a player must apply to the RFL to be ‘federation trained’ at the end of their current contract. They also must have registered with the RFL prior to 1 February 2008, the date when the club trained rules were introduced.

Can anyone clear this up for me, does this mean only players who were out of contract at the end of this season and registered before 1st February 2008 can apply to be federation trained??

And you wonder why people are so confused Dave.
The same thought has crossed my mind. Strictly speaking the words mean they only get their federation trained status at the end of their contract, not before.

If that is correct that would change things quite a bit at Wigan.

First of all TL already has federation trained status as part of a previous compromise and Hansen is classed as club trained.

Richards singed a new deal last season before that announcement so he may not be federation trained at the moment.

If he isn't neither are Carmont, Feka or Bailey.

So for 2009 those four who originally signed before 1st Feb 2008 would be classed the same way as Riddell, Smith and Phelps who were signed after that date. That means we already have seven non-club and non-federation trained players on the books.

Which would mean we are back to the situation of only being able to sign one more non-club or non-federation trained player for 2009.

So if we sign Roberts my guess is that wold our squad for 2009 complete as I don't see us signing any UK based players (or if we do they won't be the ones I would sign!).

Dave

And you wonder why people are so confused Dave?

gpartin wrote:

DaveO wrote:

MrDave wrote:Just been reading on the RFL website about the federation trained players extension rule and noticed this section:
Can anyone clear this up for me, does this mean only players who were out of contract at the end of this season and registered before 1st February 2008 can apply to be federation trained??

And you wonder why people are so confused Dave.
The same thought has crossed my mind. Strictly speaking the words mean they only get their federation trained status at the end of their contract, not before.

If that is correct that would change things quite a bit at Wigan.

First of all TL already has federation trained status as part of a previous compromise and Hansen is classed as club trained.

Richards singed a new deal last season before that announcement so he may not be federation trained at the moment.

If he isn't neither are Carmont, Feka or Bailey.

So for 2009 those four who originally signed before 1st Feb 2008 would be classed the same way as Riddell, Smith and Phelps who were signed after that date. That means we already have seven non-club and non-federation trained players on the books.

Which would mean we are back to the situation of only being able to sign one more non-club or non-federation trained player for 2009.

So if we sign Roberts my guess is that wold our squad for 2009 complete as I don't see us signing any UK based players (or if we do they won't be the ones I would sign!).

Dave

And you wonder why people are so confused Dave?

I think I might try and ask the RFL about it! Some time ago I got quite a detailed reply from someone about the salary cap.

Dave

DaveO wrote:

gpartin wrote:

DaveO wrote: And you wonder why people are so confused Dave.
The same thought has crossed my mind. Strictly speaking the words mean they only get their federation trained status at the end of their contract, not before.

If that is correct that would change things quite a bit at Wigan.

First of all TL already has federation trained status as part of a previous compromise and Hansen is classed as club trained.

Richards singed a new deal last season before that announcement so he may not be federation trained at the moment.

If he isn't neither are Carmont, Feka or Bailey.

So for 2009 those four who originally signed before 1st Feb 2008 would be classed the same way as Riddell, Smith and Phelps who were signed after that date. That means we already have seven non-club and non-federation trained players on the books.

Which would mean we are back to the situation of only being able to sign one more non-club or non-federation trained player for 2009.

So if we sign Roberts my guess is that wold our squad for 2009 complete as I don't see us signing any UK based players (or if we do they won't be the ones I would sign!).

Dave

And you wonder why people are so confused Dave?

I think I might try and ask the RFL about it! Some time ago I got quite a detailed reply from someone about the salary cap.

Dave

Good idea mate I hope you can find out because I haven't got a clue. I thought I understood but not sure now.

I wonder if the contract "extension" (if that was what it was) for george carmont muddied the waters about when he actually signed his deal (and thus takes effect) and is one of the reasons for the delay over the amos roberts announcement, irrespective of the so-called samoan passport application.

wall_of_voodoo wrote:I wonder if the contract "extension" (if that was what it was) for george carmont muddied the waters about when he actually signed his deal (and thus takes effect) and is one of the reasons for the delay over the amos roberts announcement, irrespective of the so-called samoan passport application.

That is another grey area I guess. Does a contract extension as opposed to a completely new contract mean their status as a non-federation player remains is something else that needs clearing up.

I have emailed Craig Spence at the RFL and so if I get a reply I'll follow it up with this question.

If I don't I will try the chap who gave did reply on the salary cap question.

Dave

DaveO wrote:

wall_of_voodoo wrote:I wonder if the contract "extension" (if that was what it was) for george carmont muddied the waters about when he actually signed his deal (and thus takes effect) and is one of the reasons for the delay over the amos roberts announcement, irrespective of the so-called samoan passport application.

That is another grey area I guess. Does a contract extension as opposed to a completely new contract mean their status as a non-federation player remains is something else that needs clearing up.

I have emailed Craig Spence at the RFL and so if I get a reply I'll follow it up with this question.

If I don't I will try the chap who gave did reply on the salary cap question.

Dave

Have you ever tried being a detective dave?