If I remember correctly, which I don't always do but I try to, the limit for the Championship was set lower because of the financial problems of many Championship clubs. Purchasing overseas players can be expensive and hasn't helped in the leagues where gates are lower, TV money lower and revenue streams more limited. The allowance for Superleague clubs has decreased in number each season with five the present maximum, although there are still a number of exempt players (like Meli at Saints) floating around. Once they retire or move on then five will be the maximum (unless the number reduces further). Superleague clubs are in a position financially to pay for a higher number of overseas players due to higher gates, TV money and more options on revenue streams. I'm sure the ideal, though, is for fewer overseas players than at present with more locally grown players getting first team spots instead. That is a positive offshoot of the cap, regardless of league.

It was one of the selling points as I recall.



As we can see it has produced a decent domestic competition but at what price?



-We are no nearer internationally



-The gap between Super league and the rest grows annually



-Expansion has been at the opportunity cost of not nurturing the heartlands, when it could and should have been both



- We have a league with a lot of "journeymen" Aussies / Kiwis which can only stunt the growth of player development (obvious exceptions, but who can say that list would not have been much longer had we fostered Fev, Cumbria etc etc ???)

Geoggy I honestly think that they was looking more at getting the game main stream when they made super league and nothing at all to do with the international game. It brough a wider audience, more money and over all it brought us a better club game. That can't be doubted.



With the franchise concept and salary cap it's got clubs back on track looking at bringing youth into the first team which it has. The last 3yrs which was the first franchise phase has seen more and more young players get a chance. That's why IMO if this concept works and we continue to produce the Tomkins, eastmonds, briscoes etc then I'm sure in 2/3 years we will see the benefit of it.

The Championship has a lower O/S because the Championship clubs themselves voted for it. Championship 1 clubs are allowed 2 O/S players, by the way. That, again, is because the Championship 1 clubs voted for it. That is the way that [ithey[/i wanted it.

Ah, I see. Well, I did say that I might not be remembering correctly! I just have a memory that the decision had something to do with financial viability.

Financial viability would be an unlikely reason for the O/S quota levels below Super League, given that Championship 1 clubs are allowed more O/S players than the Championship.

Indeed. But I didn't know anything at all about the Championship One quota levels, was only talking about the Championship quota levels, smart a*se.



The financial viability was probably to do with contracts for fulltime players, now that I have reflected upon it further.

I wasn’t trying to be a smart . I was just trying to tell you why the O/S quotas below SL are at the level they are. Whether, or not, you were simply talking about the Championship, makes no odds here. Both the leagues have O/S quotas based on what the clubs in those leagues want it to be, and not necessarily due to financial viability.







There aren’t that many full-time players, if any, in the lower leagues anymore. You just get the odd one or two players being paid for doing community work, rather than have a day job, so I can’t see why that would affect the O/S quotas for the Championship?



Not being a smart here either. The reason why the Salary Cap was lowered from £400k to £300k was probably a financial viability issue though. Perhaps that what you vaguely remember?

I'm not saying it affected the overseas quota, just that the matter of fulltime players might have been what I was thinking of with regard to the financial issue that I remember. In fact I'm becoming convinced that it was. Following on from a couple of Championship teams getting into financial bother in recent times I think the RFL wanted to promote the idea of clubs living within their means, creating stability and good businesses, rather than trying to punch above their financial weight. And yes, that might have been around the time that the salary cap was reduced. It might have been the reason why it was reduced. That I don't know. But I do think I've conflated a few subjects and managed to confuse myself, which is nothing new!

Why do Sheffield Eagles have about five overseas players?

Is there a punchline to this?

We will have to agree to disagree. We just hammerred Featherstone, 70 nil with less than half a team.



I cannot understand how that has "improved the game as a whole." It has developed 6 or 7 elite clubs further and it protects perennial under achievers.



Super League was a great concept. it has just implemented badly. Feels great as a Saints fan mind. But I am equally an RL fan in general.