Quota to 3 ?

[JasonE]

It was mentioned on the BBC that the RFL will be making an announcement soon on the import quota and the news is that the clubs will only be allowed 3 non-GB qualified players.

I think this (if true)is the biggest and best news for the game in many years.

 

[bartman]

The "GB-qualified" definition is probably a better way to have a quota and the benefits that will stem from it? The current definition of "overseas" that doesn't include european players or kolpak-eligible pacific islanders doesn't really achieve anything.

If it comes true my assumption is that clubs must have all agreed it, which is interesting in itself... and they'll have to have some sort of sunset period, so clubs can honour existing contracts etc.

 

[bender]

It was mentioned on the BBC that the RFL will be making an announcement soon on the import quota and the news is that the clubs will only be allowed 3 non-GB qualified players.

I think this (if true)is the biggest and best news for the game in many years.

This is not the great news most on this forum seem to think it is.

Firstly, where does it leave young French players who dont get a chance with UTC? They will virtually all be forced out of SL opportunities by 3 Aussies or Kiwis.

Second, it will lower the standard of the competition. The gap between last and first is currently at an all time low. By taking out most of the imports, the lower rung clubs will really struggle to keep up. This is a big risk, since crowds seem to be growing massively in the last year or two, now that the ESL is starting to get a league with more and more depth (like the NRL). Dropping these imports will only drop the intensity in the competition. I know people argue that young brits will just step into the spot (and many will) but if this was the case that there are plenty of young talent just as good, wouldnt the National League champion side be capable of surviving without importing new players? Sadly, Britain does not currently have the depth, and this will hurt their national side at the top level.

Thirdly, the risk of a court case.

The way that the rule should work is simply that the import quota should only apply to players who are European or Kolpak eligible AND who are available for a European Rugby League side (including 3-5 games a year and development work as required). This way, International sides can make use of players who are relying on the EC or Kolpak rules. And, most importantly, the current high standards of the clubs wont drop and there is no risk of the clubs losing the development that they have done at the moment.

 

[bartman]

So bender, are you saying that overseas signings as things stand could be made to have a month or six-week loan period with a european club as part of their annual contract with a superleague club? That actually sounds like a great idea... if they could get the clubs to agree.

The legal side of the quota has always been a minefield with EU labour laws, ancestry visas and kolpak. For any agreement of quota tightening to stand I'd imagine it would have to be a gentleman's agreement betwen clubs that it not be challenged legally? Achieving something like that which calls on something other than self-interest would be a great achivement for the RFL, whatever the final details of any changes.

Do you think young French players for example would still be able to gain experience outside France in say the National Leagues, and then if they're good enough obviously they'll be picked up by a super league side, maybe in preference to (and cheaper) than an NRL import? And there'll be the reduction of the Catalans quota exemption after 2009 (I think) with the obvious RFL push for a second french Superleague side for most likely 2012 to provide more opportunities at that level for French players. I'm not sure it would be that bad news for French development, especially if they get the season length issue sorted and have regular international competition at sensible times of the season?

The gap between big and small clubs is always a concern. But if this restricts the big club to three expensive NRL-imports instead of the current lack of restriction (provided they can use kolpak or passports) then won't it help lower clubs narrow the gap? If it's three each maximum, then that's 33 players spread among the English clubs in a fairer spread than now, not forgetting that some long term imports could claim residency (five years) by the times any rule change takes effect as well. I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure it would reduce the intensity of the competition that greatly, and possibly might have the effect of forcing the Johns and Lyon type of players to consider their stints at clubs outside of the top six?

 

[bender]

So bender, are you saying that overseas signings as things stand could be made to have a month or six-week loan period with a european club as part of their annual contract with a superleague club? That actually sounds like a great idea... if they could get the clubs to agree.

I was thinking of forcing them to actually play for their national teams, and help with clinics, arranging training and publicity sessions etc, but a forced midseason loan idea might work also. The idea is that choosing these players for a club would be knowing that they will be missing for several games (while doing good for the game). This might encourage the clubs to sign younger (where quality is similar) English players, which is what the import rule is trying to achieve.

The legal side of the quota has always been a minefield with EU labour laws, ancestry visas and kolpak. For any agreement of quota tightening to stand I'd imagine it would have to be a gentleman's agreement betwen clubs that it not be challenged legally? Achieving something like that which calls on something other than self-interest would be a great achivement for the RFL, whatever the final details of any changes.

But it isnt just agreement of the clubs, don't forget. You ned the Agreement of All players. Look what Terry Hill did in Australia to the draft and there are other examples in the sporting world. Also, while i am not familiar with british law, it may be that where bodies are deliberating enforcing anticompetitive practices on people, they can be cause by governing bodies. In Australia, the ACCC could take it on their own bat to enforce these rulings, if they wanted to.

Do you think young French players for example would still be able to gain experience outside France in say the National Leagues, and then if they're good enough obviously they'll be picked up by a super league side, maybe in preference to (and cheaper) than an NRL import? And there'll be the reduction of the Catalans quota exemption after 2009 (I think) with the obvious RFL push for a second french Superleague side for most likely 2012 to provide more opportunities at that level for French players. I'm not sure it would be that bad news for French development, especially if they get the season length issue sorted and have regular international competition at sensible times of the season?

A second French side is important and would be great. But, the development the French get at ESL sides would be insurmountable. It is important that the no. of French players in ESL raises, as with the Kiwis in the NRL. This is what will help the National teams of both countries (due to the English eventually finding a yearly rival).

There is no real point in the French going to NL, as this is roughly the same standard as the no1 French division. Ideally, the best young (not established) french juniors should largely be signed by ESL deals and those that are not good enough would return as better players to the French Clubs. If UTC are forced to release Fakir for salary cap reasons, it would be a shame if he wasnt signed by anohter ESL club because they had to choose between him and an Aussie.

The gap between big and small clubs is always a concern. But if this restricts the big club to three expensive NRL-imports instead of the current lack of restriction (provided they can use kolpak or passports) then won't it help lower clubs narrow the gap? If it's three each maximum, then that's 33 players spread among the English clubs in a fairer spread than now, not forgetting that some long term imports could claim residency (five years) by the times any rule change takes effect as well. I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure it would reduce the intensity of the competition that greatly, and possibly might have the effect of forcing the Johns and Lyon type of players to consider their stints at clubs outside of the top six?

I am not sure. You would know more about the level of British talent than me, but i would have thought that the big clubs would always take the best talent and that with three imports they would simply buy the next best British (who currently are roughly as good as the imports and playing for the lesser clubs). Many large English clubs are often criticised for letting go of good young players for average imports, but the upside is that those players can get a job at lesser clubs. And shine in the first team. If these players are kept by the big clubs in their first team, it would mean that the lesser clubs would have to find more players from a smaller british talent pool, and you would think that they would struggle to keep pace with the larger clubs.

I thought that the idea was that Kolpaks and EC passport holders were going to be excluded from the import? If not, then i probably agree that the reduction in imports would not hurt too much, as there are plenty of these types of players who could raise standards enough.

 

[bartman]

I was thinking of forcing them to actually play for their national teams, and help with clinics, arranging training and publicity sessions etc, but a forced midseason loan idea might work also. The idea is that choosing these players for a club would be knowing that they will be missing for several games (while doing good for the game). This might encourage the clubs to sign younger (where quality is similar) English players, which is what the import rule is trying to achieve.

Fair enough, that's good too. I agree it would help clubs see the value in signing homegrown talent. But I'm not sure there's too many non Australian or NZ imports in Super League that don't already play for their national teams, and not many europeans other than the French that have a club set-up (length of season, fitness, training) that would allow direct progression into Super League?

But it isnt just agreement of the clubs, don't forget. You ned the Agreement of All players. Look what Terry Hill did in Australia to the draft and there are other examples in the sporting world. Also, while i am not familiar with british law, it may be that where bodies are deliberating enforcing anticompetitive practices on people, they can be cause by governing bodies. In Australia, the ACCC could take it on their own bat to enforce these rulings, if they wanted to.

Yeah, I'm not sure on whether the legalities would be the same as those that allowed Terry Hill to take individual action. I guess it was individual legal action (a volleyball player I believe?) that led to the Kolpak rule in the first place. It's a tricky area, and I'd be interested in how the league and clubs take any change. They have obviously come to agreement about teh current quota, and that has never been challenged by an individual who was cut from or unable to join a club of their choice as a result, so I guess anything's possible.

A second French side is important and would be great. But, the development the French get at ESL sides would be insurmountable. It is important that the no. of French players in ESL raises, as with the Kiwis in the NRL. This is what will help the National teams of both countries (due to the English eventually finding a yearly rival).

This season we've got Julien Rinaldi moving on from Catalans to Harlequins. In theory he should be the first of several as each year goes by, opening opportunities in the Catalans side? The richer clubs would talent spot, and the players themselves would seek the opportunities. Jerome Guisset returned the other way from Wigan to take the Catalans captaincy, but Olivier Elima is still at Wakefield. Maxime Gresque's been trying his luck here and there with no firm takers. The problem is that this years Catalans backline is virtually all import, and the French forwards' fitness has initially struggled with the length of the season. But that should change as each year goes by, and they'd become attractive options around Super League.

There is no real point in the French going to NL, as this is roughly the same standard as the no1 French division. Ideally, the best young (not established) french juniors should largely be signed by ESL deals and those that are not good enough would return as better players to the French Clubs. If UTC are forced to release Fakir for salary cap reasons, it would be a shame if he wasnt signed by anohter ESL club because they had to choose between him and an Aussie.

It's probably the same standard, but it's the opportunity that would make sense? Some of Justin Morgan's Tolouse players came with him to Hull KR in NL1, and from there can maybe get more exposure to potential Super League deals than if they stayed in the Elite. You're right though, it's important that there's some ways as each year goes by where more French players can aspire to be capable of Super League level - with other clubs and with Catalans itself.

I am not sure. You would know more about the level of British talent than me, but i would have thought that the big clubs would always take the best talent and that with three imports they would simply buy the next best British (who currently are roughly as good as the imports and playing for the lesser clubs). Many large English clubs are often criticised for letting go of good young players for average imports, but the upside is that those players can get a job at lesser clubs. And shine in the first team. If these players are kept by the big clubs in their first team, it would mean that the lesser clubs would have to find more players from a smaller british talent pool, and you would think that they would struggle to keep pace with the larger clubs.

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that... The richest clubs would take their 3 imports and have the cash to take the best British of the talent, much as they do now. Am not sure how to stop that happening in any system? The long-term key is to help the remaining clubs become richer clubs, and hence have the access to the same salary cap level. Only with an equal in practice salary cap will we lessen that gap, but the performance of teams like Salford in 2006, Wakefield in 2004, Harlequins in 2005, and maybe Huddersfield in the not too distant future are messing with the equation.

I thought that the idea was that Kolpaks and EC passport holders were going to be excluded from the import? If not, then i probably agree that the reduction in imports would not hurt too much, as there are plenty of these types of players who could raise standards enough.

Yeah, I gather the talk is they'd no longer get around the quota, but there'd be no law or agreement they could bring down against 5-year qualified resident players, who could have dual citizenship and be legitimately GB qualified. Some of those guys wouldn't bother at present as they fall under Kolpak, but clubs would force the issue if they had an extra import in mind.

I don't think it's a strict numbers issue, as the league would want to have a way to allow players like Lyon and Andrew Johns to play and contribute to the level of the competition. But they would want to find some way to legitimately turn the tide of clubs favouring middling level Australians and Kiwis over younger and similarly talented local product. Whatever they do it's all got to be tied together with the 2009 franchise criteria, the salary cap, the development of club finacial caapacities, and the length of season/expansion of the rep calendar... will be interesting anyways!

 

[The Observer]

Bender is right, this is NOT a great solution. This adjustment of the quota won't be the great solution people think it is. Too many people blame imports without realising what good it does for the game, and with no reference point for how many imports is healthy (e.g. by making a comparison with NRL).

These Kolpak and EU players should be a blessing, not a curse - IF the RFL knew how to make the most out of them.

In addition to the points he's made, the RFL are missing the point that SL should be a professional competition that gives opportunities to players across the Nothern Hemisphere, AND to players that play for national teams outside the big 3 (let alone Big 4 with France). Just as the NRL competition should be a pro competition that gives opportunities to players across the SH (and our importation of 50+ NZRL products into the Australian NRL system is testament to that).

Guys that do or could potentially represent nations like the PIs, South Africa, Greece, Russia, Italy etc, and could play off quota for a SL club under the EU passport or the Kolpak rule will miss out to 2nd rate Aussies and Kiwis.

What should have happened is that official quota should have been dropped from 3 to 2 overseas players, AND Quins/Catalans should have had their official quotas signifnicantly reduced.

What we have is another knee jerk reaction that misses the point.

 

[bowes]

What should have happened is that official quota should have been dropped from 3 to 2 overseas players, AND Quins/Catalans should have had their official quotas signifnicantly reduced.

Why? Their quota's 3 the same as everyone else as of the start of last season

 

[The Observer]

Why? Their quota's 3 the same as everyone else as of the start of last season

Really? I knew they had reduced their overseas contingent and official quota, but I didn't know it was that far. AFAICT they have 11 overseas players:

Australians
1. Mark McLinden
2. Tyrone Smith (Tongan & English ancestry)
3. Scott Hill
4. Chad Randall
5. Daniel Heckenberg (Scottish ancestry)
6. Lee Hopkins
7. Matt Gafa (Maltese ancestry)

NZers
8. Karl TeMata NZ (Cook Islands ancestry)
9. Zebastian Luisi NZ (Tongan ancestry?)
10. Henry Paul NZ (residency rule, but has English mother)

French
11. Julien Rinaldi

Unless McLinden found a Scottish grandparent, I'd count four on the quota. Anyway, my point is this: say the quota players are Hill, Randall and Hopkins. If you drop the official quota from 3 to 2, its likely that either Hopkins or Randall would have to leave the club. Its not going to spell the end for SL losing Hopkins or Randall, and the effect across the board of SL could mean 12 more places for British players.

 

[bartman]

In addition to the points he's made, the RFL are missing the point that SL should be a professional competition that gives opportunities to players across the Nothern Hemisphere, AND to players that play for national teams outside the big 3 (let alone Big 4 with France). Just as the NRL competition should be a pro competition that gives opportunities to players across the SH (and our importation of 50+ NZRL products into the Australian NRL system is testament to that).

That'd be great if it happened, if clubs saw the benefits of that. As it is though even NL1 and NL2 teams often get duped into the bring over a developing Aussie/NZer and putting them on a pedestal, and they end up serving one year and moving on. Rather than clubs giving options to northern hemisphere players from different countries.

Guys that do or could potentially represent nations like the PIs, South Africa, Greece, Russia, Italy etc, and could play off quota for a SL club under the EU passport or the Kolpak rule will miss out to 2nd rate Aussies and Kiwis.

What should have happened is that official quota should have been dropped from 3 to 2 overseas players, AND Quins/Catalans should have had their official quotas signifnicantly reduced.

I'd say those people are missing out as things are, so they need a change that provides incentives for clubs to do exactly that, as it doesn't happen naturally.

The 3 to 2 idea has been floated for a while, I wonder why that wasn't agreeable to clubs, or why they might be opting for the complete switch to "non-GB" instead? There's a multitude of options for change, I'd be happy with any of them that can achieve the outcome of developing the local (or NH) strength of the game, without worsening any gaps within levels or divisions. I'm just very interested in any agreements SL clubs may be making with the RFL, because I don't see (all of) them as being instantly willing partners in agreeing things that might reduce those gaps... I'd like to know what's driving them to agree, the behind closed door stuff we aren't told yet?

 

[Jeffles]

It pains me to say this but with the such liberlaised market regulations, the RFL cannot look to clubs as a reliable source of developing the talent to pull on a Lions jersey and match it constantly with the Kangaroos and the Kiwis. Clubs are a self interested lot and they will sign the best players possible.

I applaud the RFL for trying to get the clubs interested in developing local talent but the motivation of the club to sign the best player possible willl not change. Teams like Wakefield won't sign more locals nor will they stop arranging European passports for antipodeans until they are able to sign better players who were born and/or bred in the UK. This is where the Academy system is such an important part of the structure. This is where the future locals will come from. Likewise, players in SL should be exposed to more competitive RL. This is slowly happening as mid tier clubs Hull, Warrington, Salford, Huddersfield, etc) start to pick up their game.

The RFL maybe should consider a centralised academy of its own where say 20 players are given a scholarship and have a 3 month stint in a dedicated facility with specialist coaches and various camps/friendlies during the playing season.

 

[bartman]

Here's a link about some proposals doing the rounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/6330843.stm

Clubs look to cut back on imports

Rugby league bosses are working with the 12 Super League clubs to limit the number of overseas players.

It has been proposed that clubs must reduce the number of overseas players in their squads, including Kolpak and EU passport holders, in three years.

Each club would also promote 20% of its first-team squad from its own academy.

"There's been a long-standing objective to encourage the production of more British-qualified players," said the Rugby Football League's Nigel Wood.

"These proposals are similar to those being pursued by Uefa in football.

"All the Super League clubs were absolutely supportive of the principles, to the point where adoption of the rules may take place at the next meeting in March rather than wait for the annual regulatory meeting this June."

The league has reduced the overseas quota from five to three but the clubs get around the regulations by signing Kolpak players and Australians and New Zealanders with European passports.

In last season's relegation decider, Wakefield fielded just two players who were English born and bred in their 17-strong squad.

At the same meeting, which took place last Wednesday, revised salary cap proposals were tabled.

These would remove from the cap all players not in a club's first-team squad and mean that all clubs are required to stay within the salary cap spending limits at all stages throughout the year.

Wood explained: "We still have some work to do in this area.

"However, we hope to have a salary cap system in 2008 that is preventative rather than retrospective and which gives all clubs the ability to invest in the production of junior talent."

I must say I found the way the salary cap being calculated in retrospect a bit baffling, and presumably harder for clubs to manage?

 

[jed]

I must say I found the way the salary cap being calculated in retrospect a bit baffling, and presumably harder for clubs to manage?

I'm all in favour of the change - I know Bradford were penalised last season for an infringement in the 2005 season, but the current system says to me "hey, break the cap this year if you want, you'll get away with it this year, deal with the consequences later"

 

[coldhardbitch]

I think this whole thing with the Quota is a great idea. It will allow many more Brittish youngsters to get a go at SL, rather than missing out to imports from down under.

Tat is tha glaring thing wrong with SL. When I watch Brittish RL, I wanna see the best Brittish players battling it out, not a bunch of no-hoper aussies and islanders who bring nothing to the game.

There is no negative to it if it comes off. Win win for Britain and international RL.

For people who argue about European players, your having a laugh. The day Serbian, dutch and russian players get up to SL standard, we can look at that. Why should england sacrifice spots for their own kids for people from Europe. A continental country should get a professional league going and then they can fend for themselves too.
The fact is though, that loopholes like EU and Kolpak does not help Euro or Islander players, but is simply a way to get more Aussies and Kiwis into SL teams.

Lets look at the current situation. Amount of true Europeans playing in English SL clubs. 2. Rinaldi and Elima.
this is compared to the 60 or so antopideans playing here on the same laws for those 2. It's a no-brainer. I'd sacrifice an opportunity for 1 or2 Europeans to provide opportunities for 50 or so Brittish youngsters. That will make England stronger.

bring it on I say.

 

[ParraDude_Jay]

Apologies if you've covered this but there is a little too much reading in this topic for 10pm at night after a hard day's work. Just wondering if this would take effect as of next year or at a later date? Surely there would be time for clubs to prepare.

If it is eased in over the next 5 years then this can only be good for League in Britain.

 

[bartman]

PDJ, the BBC article and RFL statement say proposed reductrions over three years. So 2008, 2009, and 2010... and any new targets being met in 2011?

 

[The Observer]

What is the magic number of imports that SL should reduce to? In prep for 2007, NRL and SL clubs imported the following number of players:
SL - 93
NRL - 71

The numbers aren't THAT different.

 

[Jeffles]

71 imports in the NRL. How did you get to that figure?

 

[The Observer]

71 imports in the NRL. How did you get to that figure?

Well I didn't exactly say that

I did say that NRL clubs imported 71 players. I should clarify that statement by saying that NRL clubs recruited 71 overseas players into their system. Most are playing NRL, but some are playing NSWRL Premier League, Jersey Flegg or Qld Cup. I define an overseas player as someone who played their junior RL at a formative level outside Australia (or England for SL, France for Catalans and NZ for Warriors). Now someone like Sonny Bill Williams might have played Jersey Flegg for the Bulldogs, and thus played junior RL here, but he is a product of the Marist club in Auckland, NZ. Therefore Sonny Bill is an overseas player.

Now, here's how I count it:
BRISBANE (4) - Greg Eastwood, Clifford Manua, John Te Reo, Tame Tupou
BULLDOGS (7) - Chris Afamasaga (JF), Brendan Hikaka, Billy Ngawini, Lee Te Maari, Mason Pure, Matt Utai, Sonny-Bill Williams
CANBERRA (4) - Tony Parmatangi, Willie Raston, Glen Turner, Jason Williams
CRONULLA (4) - Fraser Anderson, Philip Leuluai, Henry Perenara, Misi Taulapapa
GOLD COAST (2) - Richie Mathers, James Stosic
MANLY (3) - Jack Afamasaga, Sione Finefeuiaki, Steve Matai
MELBOURNE (6) - Paletasala Ale, Adam Blair, Sika Manu, Matthew Rua, Jeremy Smith, Sam Tagataese
NEWCASTLE (4) - George Carmont, Hanan Laban, Tim Natusch, Jesse Royal
NORTH QLD (5) - Joe Clarke, David Faiumu, Sione Faumuina, Toshio Laiseni, Ben Vaeau
PARRAMATTA (4) - Fuifui Moimoi, Weller Hauraki, Krisnan Inu, Kurt Sorensen
PENRITH (0) - No Overseas products
ST GEORGE ILLA (1) - Rangi Chase
SOUTHS (6) - Roy Asotasi, David Faalogo, David Kidwell, Joe Galuvao, Jeremy Smith, Nigel Vagana
ROOSTERS (6) - Vince Mellars, Steve Meredith, Seteimata Sa, Iosia Soliola, Frank-Paul Nuuausala, Shaun Kenny-Dowall
WESTS TIGERS (4) - Benji Marshall, Samuela Moa, Peter Lewis, Paul Whatuira
WARRIORS (11) - Todd Byrne, Michael Crockett, Nathan Fien, George Gatis, Aidan Kirk, Micheal Luck, Tony Martin, Wade McKinnon, Steve Price, Grant Rovelli, Michael Witt