Hanbury

Players in ... Players out. Got a rumour? Post it in here.
nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 19:52

Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.

Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?

Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
It's not confusing at all.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.

PSTiger
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 204
Joined: 24 May 2015, 12:00
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by PSTiger » 30 Oct 2017, 20:30

nottinghamtiger wrote:
Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.

Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?

Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
It's not confusing at all.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?

nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 20:32

PSTiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.

Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?

Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
It's not confusing at all.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 30 Oct 2017, 21:42

nottinghamtiger wrote:
PSTiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.

Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?

Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
It's not confusing at all.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).
It says player playing at the same club for 6yearsare exempt from quota but I don’t know if it means both quotas. Millington is in his 7 year with us so might be.

nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 21:44

TT Tiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
PSTiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.

Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?

Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
It's not confusing at all.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).
It says player playing at the same club for 6yearsare exempt from quota but I don’t know if it means both quotas. Millington is in his 7 year with us so might be.
Where does it say this?

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 30 Oct 2017, 22:08

xceptions
There are three exceptions for a player to avoid quota player status. Those are listed below:

1. When a player has played for a rugby team for six years, he is eligible to gain British citizenship and does not count under the quota.

2. If the player has a passport for any EU nation or a Kolpak nation.

3. If the player is from a Kolpak nation such as Samoa or Tonga.

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 30 Oct 2017, 22:08

Reading it again he would still count on non fed

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 31 Oct 2017, 10:05

TT Tiger wrote:Reading it again he would still count on non fed
Exactly. The non fed trained quota was brought in as a response to the kolpak ruling to stop every team signing 10 or 12 samoans, fijians, tongans and cook islanders. Most new zealand players and a good proportion of aussies could get passports for one of these countries.

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 31 Oct 2017, 10:12

You would have thought the home grown ruling would negate the non fed rule

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 31 Oct 2017, 11:20

They're the same thing.

RFL OPERATIONAL RULES 2017

Section B 1 15 - Home grown players

Each SL team is allowed to register up to 7 non federation trained players.

To be classed as federation trained a player must have been registered with a European Federation club for 3 full seasons prior to the season in which he is no longer eligible to play Academy (u21) football.

Or be eligible to play Academy (u21).

Or benefit from a discretionary exemption from the RFL board.

(I've edited this down as the guidelines are a bit long-winded)

Jake Webster is exempt from this because he was playing in SL before the rule was introduced.

Players such as Hanbury who were contracted to Crusaders before they folded were given exemptions for the length of the next contract they signed.

Section C 1 4 Overseas Players

Clubs are allowed 5 players on the overseas quota, these are players who do not satisfy any of the following criteria :-

European (EU) national

Associated Area national (Kolpak, Cotonou etc)

Residency ( 4 full years in EU and passport holder) who is registered with a European club and has played at least 5 league or cup games.

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 31 Oct 2017, 12:00

So non fed quota is full ( Hitchcox, Lo, Roberts, Millington, Moors, JSL and Clarke).

Interestingly on the overseas quota Lo doesn't count as PNG is a Kolpak country. Roberts, Junior and JSL have all played for Samoa, if they have passports it's another Kolpak. Millo could come off the quota through residency and Clarke was born in England. So theoretically the only player on the overseas quota would be Hitchcox.

Although it's irrelevant as they all figure on the non fed quota.

I assume that's why the non fed quota was introduced in the first place.

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 31 Oct 2017, 12:24

No the home grown ruling refers to players from your own academy or at the club for 3 years before 21

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 31 Oct 2017, 12:28

What I just said ...

To be classed as federation trained a player must have been registered with a European Federation club for 3 full seasons prior to the season in which he is no longer eligible to play Academy (u21) football.

Or be eligible to play Academy (u21).

That is the Home Grown Players rule.
Anyone not falling into these criteria is a non fed player of which each SL club is allowed 7. (Unless a special exemption applies)

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 31 Oct 2017, 12:38

They have to be from the clubs own academy to be home grown otherwise they are same fed. There is a minimum home grown but no minimum same fed.

Home grown players - any player still under 21 and/or has completed 3 years service with the same clubs academy set up.

Same federation - any player still under 21 and/or has completed 3 years service with other clubs academy set ups within UK (for UK SL clubs) or France (for Catalans etc.)

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 31 Oct 2017, 13:31

Mate we were talking about whether Hanbury counts on the quota or not.

FWIW the distinction between home grown and same fed players was in the 2013 rules (section B 1 12) but seems to have disappeared from the 2017 rules (can't find it anywhere and I have plenty of time on my hands !!!).

Either way it's not worth arguing about as we couldn't sign Hanbury without getting rid of one of our 7 non fed players listed earlier who are all under contract.

derbystiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2986
Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by derbystiger » 31 Oct 2017, 14:04

Spanishtiger wrote:Mate we were talking about whether Hanbury counts on the quota or not.

FWIW the distinction between home grown and same fed players was in the 2013 rules (section B 1 12) but seems to have disappeared from the 2017 rules (can't find it anywhere and I have plenty of time on my hands !!!).

Either way it's not worth arguing about as we couldn't sign Hanbury without getting rid of one of our 7 non fed players listed earlier who are all under contract.
As we are fairly well covered with outside backs a swap deal with Hitchcox would be the only way I can think of to pull it off

User avatar
jackknife
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5092
Joined: 07 Jul 2011, 17:28
Location: york
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by jackknife » 31 Oct 2017, 22:09

jackknife wrote:Swap him for hitchcox
Hey thats a good idea ;)
CLASSY CAS FOREVER

User avatar
old cas lass
Verified
Grand Final Winner
Grand Final Winner
Posts: 23092
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 14:29
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by old cas lass » 14 Nov 2017, 17:03

Rumour on Facebook by someone, he's signed a 1trip deal.
Anyone else heard this.

User avatar
bane73
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 1254
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 07:42
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by bane73 » 14 Nov 2017, 17:55

old cas lass wrote:Rumour on Facebook by someone, he's signed a 1trip deal.
Anyone else heard this.
Is that 1 year? Lol
what doesn't kill me simply makes me...stranger.

User avatar
old cas lass
Verified
Grand Final Winner
Grand Final Winner
Posts: 23092
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 14:29
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by old cas lass » 14 Nov 2017, 18:04

bane73 wrote:
old cas lass wrote:Rumour on Facebook by someone, he's signed a 1trip deal.
Anyone else heard this.
Is that 1 year? Lol

Yeah it is bane lol
Flipping phone.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests