5 replies to this topic

[FrankDrebin]

Given the fact that England have so few players of sufficient quality to pick from, isn't it high time we cut the overseas quota available to clubs? Obviously, this would lead to more players being promoted from Academy set-ups, and some might point to the fact that many junior products are released to Championship/Championship clubs when it is deemed (at a relatively young age) that they will not make the grade at a higher level. But would it make a difference to our international prospects? As an offshoot from that, do some Academy players get released too soon from a full-time environment, where they might eventually prosper and achieve international standard? Maybe two questions in one, but definitely linked.
Could we actually cut the overseas quota? Does it infringe any laws or employment rights?
Opinions and answers please!

Edited by FrankDrebin, 28 October 2010 - 01:29 AM.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Could we actually cut the overseas quota? Does it infringe any laws or employment rights?

For anyone with a European passport, short answer is no.

The RFL has tried with the non-federation trained player thing, the clubs agreed to it and almost instantly it was legally challenged by a player (or 2) so has limited powers and the boundaries pushed by the clubs.

The RFL want a limit but unless the clubs 100% go along with it, I doubt it will be any use.

[Saint Toppy]

Now is the time for the RFL to do something about it. Make it a requirement of the next round of the SL licence application that no club can have no more than 3 non-federation trained players on its books (though i'm sure someone may challenge this in the courts)

Another alternative is for the RFL to give up with trying to impose a quota but to penalise clubs who have more than a certain number. They could for instance say " you can have as many overseas players as you like but for every game you play 3 or less you will receive a bonus point". So clubs can set their own limit an 3 knowing they will receive 27 league points in a season.

Personally i'd like to see it limited to 3, 2 aussies or kiwi's plus 1 from any other nation

[hindle xiii]

Feckers! http://www.totalrl.c...howtopic=209920

from superleague.co.uk

2008;
Home-Grown Players, 5
UK-trained players, 10
Overseas trained players, 10

2009;
Home-Grown Players, 6
UK-trained players, 11
Overseas trained players, 8

2010;
Home-Grown Players, 7
UK-trained players, 12
Overseas trained players, 6

2011;
Home-Grown Players, 8
UK-trained players, 12
Overseas trained players, 5

So we're coming to the end of this 4 year plan, and with the benefit of hindsight and with England at the forefront of our minds, how do we improve it?

Do we accelerate the reduction of overseas trained players? Or do we find that we're nearly at the level of overseas trained players that compliments our competition?

After all it isn't the quantity, it's the quality that matters.

I don't want the RFL to leave this issue too late. I'd rather we have the future plans declared sooner rather than later.

[Derwent]

For anyone with a European passport, short answer is no.

The RFL has tried with the non-federation trained player thing, the clubs agreed to it and almost instantly it was legally challenged by a player (or 2) so has limited powers and the boundaries pushed by the clubs.

The RFL want a limit but unless the clubs 100% go along with it, I doubt it will be any use.

The RFL could do something about it if they wished, without infringing employment law.

Firstly, all applications for visas and work permits have to be endorsed by the governing body before the Home Office will consider them. So the RFL could, if they wished, refuse to endorse as many applications as they currently do.

Secondly, while clubs are free to employ as many overseas players as they wish, the RFL could include something in the rules of the competition restricting the number who may play at any one time. There are no employment issues in that players are not suffering restraint of trade due to being employed. They may have a right to employment but they don't have a right to play.

[JohnM]

Unless and until there is a large increase in the numbers and quality of home grown talent coming up through the ranks, nothing will change. Protectionism and restrictive practices just do not work. It leads to complacency and stagnation...just as it killed companies like BMC, Austin Rover etc. etc in the 1960s and 1970s

There is just not the talent to fill the gaps that would be left if imports were restricted further. In my view, fans will not turn out to watch clubs that have sacrificed ambition in favour of making do.

Concious though I am of endless repetition, I'll ask again, here in the UK why would any kid in the age range say 7 to 11, the age when the bug bites, as it were, have the ambition to play pro RL rather than anything else. Sure, there are those who in the "heartlands" who have grown up wit the game, but even in the "heartlands!" there is now more competition from other sports with higher profiles.

Of course, there are those that do and those that come later and those that benefit from the drive, dedication, enthusiasm and skills of those that give up their time for the junior game. Its just that the pool is too small