: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:22 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

Why do the RFL keep changing the quota eligibilty of overseas players, it's making a mockery of the ruling and doing nothing to decrease the amount of overseas players playing in Super League.

In my books it should be 3 overseas players per team(Kolpack included), nothing more.

Because they have to come up with a mechanism that can't be challenged under the current raft of employment legislation. Any attempt to limit "non-British" players would fail because it is illegal under the laws imposed by our masters in Brussels. And has been. Regularly. How do you think the Kolpac ruling came about in the first place?

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:32 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Because they have to come up with a mechanism that can't be challenged under the current raft of employment legislation. Any attempt to limit "non-British" players would fail because it is illegal under the laws imposed by our masters in Brussels. And has been. Regularly. How do you think the Kolpac ruling came about in the first place?

The RFL tried to work round the rules with the current quota rules. But unfortunately in their haste they rushed them with out fully thinking them through and this has left the mess we are in know.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:36 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Because they have to come up with a mechanism that can't be challenged under the current raft of employment legislation. Any attempt to limit "non-British" players would fail because it is illegal under the laws imposed by our masters in Brussels. And has been. Regularly. How do you think the Kolpac ruling came about in the first place?

It doesn't have to be a official ruling though does it, the RFL and clubs should agree with each other(gentleman's agreement), not to employ more than 3 overseas players. After all, clubs don't have to employ somebody that they do not want to do they?

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:38 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

It doesn't have to be a official ruling though does it, the RFL and clubs should agree with each other(gentleman's agreement), not to employ more than 3 overseas players. After all, clubs don't have to employ somebody that they do not want to do they?

That presupposes that all the club chairmen and chief executives are "gentlemen". Can you see a struggling club or one with inadequate or shot youth development (or one who has seen its best youngsters poached by a competitor) signing up to that?

Also, if wind of it got out I suspect the "agreement" would be actionable in some way. If all else fails, some player or his agent would drag up the Human Rights act...

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:44 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

That presupposes that all the club chairmen and chief executives are "gentlemen". Can you see a struggling club or one with inadequate or shot youth development (or one who has seen its best youngsters poached by a competitor) signing up to that?

Also, if wind of it got out I suspect the "agreement" would be actionable in some way. If all else fails, some player or his agent would drag up the Human Rights act...

If they are serious as they reckon they are about developing British talent then I would like to think they could agree to it.

Why would it be actionable? People dont have to employ somebody that they do not want to, do they?

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:46 pm  

redeverready wrote:

The RFL tried to work round the rules with the current quota rules. But unfortunately in their haste they rushed them with out fully thinking them through and this has left the mess we are in know.

Exactly.

Rather than an overseas quota, one option might be to insist that all overseas players are paid salary only (bollox to image rights, employee benefits trusts, mega pension contributions and all the rest) AND all through UK PAYE? Or if not, then the grossed-up amount is used in salary cap calculations. And if news leads come over the wire that a club has not been behaving like a complete saint and instead was trying to grab too big a share of the pie, it should be chucked out.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:49 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

If they are serious as they reckon they are about developing British talent then I would like to think they could agree to it.

Not if you are struggling club chairman with your club on the rocks and recruiting overseas is the only short-term solution - for example.

Terry Monster wrote:

Why would it be actionable? People dont have to employ somebody that they do not want to, do they?

Discrimination, that's why. You have to be able to show a non-discriminatory reason why you employed A over B. You can't discriminate against e.g. EU nationals or people from countries with whom the EU has freedom to work agreements and things like that.

Then there are the "Ageism" rules, which the likes of Beaver could use...

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:58 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Discrimination, that's why. You have to be able to show a non-discriminatory reason why you employed A over B. You can't discriminate against e.g. EU nationals or people from countries with whom the EU has freedom to work agreements and things like that.

Then there are the "Ageism" rules, which the likes of Beaver could use...

Well I dont know all the rules and regulations.

It's not discrimination I dont think, it's simply wanting to improve the claibre of players produced in this country.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:25 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

And if news leads come over the wire that a club has not been behaving like a complete saint and instead was trying to grab too big a share of the pie, it should be chucked out.

: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:29 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

It's not discrimination I dont think

In the eyes of the law, it is.