It does say the details will be produced later.



In a way some of the discussion is over the detail that has not been produced yet.



My only hope is that they take more time and do a better job than they did with the draft proposal. Calling the top 8 the playoff 8, confused quite a few people into thinking we were sticking with a top 8 playoff, were as later in the document it states a top 4 playoff.



Whilst I'm not for or anit the RFL. Producing documents that are clear about what they mean should be their basic requirement.

If one is, the potential is for others to aswell. You think if Fev and Leigh keep missing out on a place in SL to teams who have squads packed with Kolpak players they are going to limit themselves to a quota of 1?



It is impossible for the RFL and clubs to police a quota system because it is illegal, thats why it keeps getting challenged and the RFL capitulate.

So it's effectively a top 4 playoff.



1v4 and 2v3.



Sounds good.

Employment Law is about employment. Clubs can EMPLOY who they want, but I suggest the RFL gets QC's opinion on a potential RFL rule that says 13 of the 17 players named for any particular match must have been born in the EU.



If the opinion is that it's at least 50/50 that there would be an argument that this is a reasonable and proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim (developing more European based players eligible to play for EU national representative RL teams) should there be a legal challenge, then I'd put in it place.



The FA, re socccer in this country, will apparently be going down this sort of route in the next few years, as a means of limiting the number of foreign players playing in the Premiership.

Whose questioned the quota? Also given it's done on qualifications now, which is used in a lot of industries (finance and medicine in particular) it's hard to declare it illegal.

that would be fine if not for the fact that things like the Kolpak ruling necessitate players from Kolpak nations being treated the same as those from the EU.

So we are talking Fiji,Samoa,Tonga, and yes I know that could include a sizeable number of NZ origin players, but it would certainly make it less attractive to chase them than the current situation

Pretty much all the Pac Isles nations, Fiji, Tonga, PNG, Samoa, or anyone who could get a passport for them. Plus the fact that large swathes of Australians and NZ'ers will qualify for a passport of one of these nations or one of the home nations.



We would be banning so very few it would be a mockery.

In that case set the allowable quota at zero, forcing all clubs to chase Kolpaks only, if as you say it wouldnt make much difference, why make it worse than it could be?

To give the weekly rounds more importance, and to reward who finishes top.



the top 8 should play home games againts every team that has finished below them in the league.



Whoever finishes 1st will play all home games, and 8th - none.

I know teams wouldnt agree but would give massive importance of finishing top

The non-fed trained rule seems to work doesn't it? Just reduce that to 3 over a few years, for both divisions.

Just make it 1 , as smokey has pointed out, clubs can easily cheat anyway, so make it as hard as possible for them, that is providing they will not voluntarilly agree to stick to a set number

But doesn't the Championship only have the Overseas Quota in effect and not the Fed Trained Rules?



The Overseas Quota is quite easy to get around with Kolpak players and many Australians having European ancestry.

The Fed Trained rules are much, much better.



Implement the Fed Trained Rules in the Championship too, set it at 3 for both leagues.

Only in the championship I believe his point was ... It seems to work very well in super league at the moment

Fine then 3 fed traied in SL, 1 fed trained in the Championship, but all matches between are played to Championship ( 1 ) rules



Problem solved, not hard is it?

And every man and his dog can use the kolpak ruling?



Everyone in every league can sign 5 non fed trained players - as with super league last year, everyone runs an academy and stops bothering to try and cheat the system, and everyone plays by the same rules.

This is what now your 6th? Attempt at finding a solution that can’t be easily picked a part?



I don’t know why you are persisting in telling us ‘not hard is it?’ because you are certainly making it look very very difficult.

What exactly is the problem with the current set up. Obviously it's going to take time for the two systems, quota and federation to merge.



But it's taken time in SL. Hell at Saints we still have Manu who is eligible only under the quota ruling as it protected players already in the system.



I've no issue with players already in the system having their livelihoods protected, it's new signings that need to fall into line with the non-fed trained rule and so long as we are all working our way towards this I do not forsee a problem.



My biggest issue was the lifting of the numbers that you can have non-fed trained from 5-7, but I am not sure whether that was ever ratified. I'm assuming it was because of Salfords signings.

It was done because the fed trained quota wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. Every single time it has been challenged the RFL have simply capitulated.



We have to accept that people who have a legal right to work here cant have that right restricted by the RFL. We need to look at carrots not sticks. Carrots unfortunately don’t work with P+R, not being relegated goes above everything.

Hardly.



It's got nothing to do with P+R. The non-fed ruling is what has forced clubs to look inwards and also downwards towards the championship. We had licencing and it did nothing to stop clubs buying in from abroad.



The ruling does not stop players with the legal right to work working, it stops clubs hiring. Personally I don't see an issue with it. It's just a rule of the game, same as only having 13 players on the pitch, or are we saying that a team should be able to field 20 players as not doing so would stop someones right to work.



There is a difference between the right to work and the expectations of being hired.

It’s the same thing. Not allowing a club to hire someone is exactly the same as not allowing someone to work for them. Those people have a legal right to work here, they have legal protections against discrimination and it isn’t a rule of the game. It is a restriction on certain peoples right to seek work in this country.

So, I wonder how the Football Association, for example, 'gets away with' only employing "Englishmen" to play for the England Football team.

Do you really? In that case you are a moron.

It has and does stand up to legal scrutiny. Because it's basically the same rule that is in force in the Champions League and the Premier League. In SL, if it didn't stand up to legal scrutiny then Hull KR wouldn't have had to de-register Dobson during the Willie Mason saga. In the Premier League I can remember Man Utd being forced to leave Owen Hargreaves out of their squad because he didn't fit the criteria. I'm sure if it didn't stand up to legal scrutiny that the 2nd richest sports club in the world, worth just over $3bn would have challenged it in court. Or Owen Hargreaves himself.



The Quota rule didn't work very well.

The non-fed trained rules do.

A doctor in England can only be hired by a hospital once he has passed the British set of exams for medicine, regardless of how experienced or trained he is else where. In fact hospitals can take a certain number on whilst they complete their exams but no more (and only for a certain amount of time)



Is this discrimination too?