womble53

The criteria will be whatever the UKBA accepts after being given all the information on each particular case, because like most other things the within a given set of rules they are open to interpretation as to what is acceptable. If given all the information regarding any riders achievements or otherwise, that rider is accepted by the UKBA, he will have met their criteria as they see it, and not as you see it............so we will wait and see if Alex is given a T5

What, all 2 matches..... 3 from 4, in main body of the team, away to the Panthers, with Tungate doing the same at reserve, and 8 from 5 at reserve in an early season 'Shield' match against Swindon........like I said, matter of interpretation

Talking of interpretation, it could be said that Alex qualifies as having been proved at the highest level. Being chosen to represent your national side has to be at the pinnacle of sporting achievement, and Alex represented Australia in the U21 SWC last season, not only in the qualifying rounds, but reaching the final as well. Some might argue that at that level (U21) he has not reached the highest standard, but I would counter that by adding, if there was anyone better they would have been in the Australian side, and not Alex. So at U21 level at least, he has achieved the qualification requirements.

Simple answer to that seems to be yes, otherwise he would have been able to ride for the Rebels. Having said that the UKBA rules appear to contradict that, which still leaves me in some confusion over the whole episode and where this single team decision has come from? Think you may find that the rule changes surrounding double up riders who are assets of the other club is the main reason for 'dismantling' the team, with three of last years team being owned by, and doubling up with clubs other than Somerset. Whilst it might be possible too work with one or two riders affected in that way, three would be virtually impossible.

Oh don't say that Nick, Tsunami will never talk to you again, as he feels remarks like that are not applicable

Think you'll find that those fixtures only scratch the surface when you factor in possible World U21 individuals, and U21 SWC fixtures. You could be looking at almost double that figure

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, it would appear that's not possible, as the rules for applying suggest that having used a T5 visa once, you can never apply to use one again, unless of course I'm reading it wrong. UK BORDER AGENCY -Other requirements When you apply, you must confirm that you have: you have never been in the UK at any time in the former 'working holidaymaker' category or under the youth mobility scheme. If you have previously been in the UK under a different immigration category such as Tier 1 (Post study work), you can apply for a youth mobility scheme visa.With that in mind, the fact that they would never have to endorse the same rider twice for a T5 visa, it makes the BSPA's stand of not endorsing a T 5 application even more confusing. Maybe one day they will enlighten us all, and we'll all be able to judge the merits of their position. Don't hold your breath on that one, but having said that, it seems that it would only take the governing bodies endorsement of any T5 application to overcome most difficulties, and as far as I know, the vast majority, probably all, of those currently finding themselves looking down the T5 route, have contributed in the correct way to the taxation system in this country.

That was exactly my point, as it applies to all, why aren't the objections to endorsing any T5 application, not just Doyle's, being made clear for all to see. As you say, those phrases may not be applicable, but the longer there is silence from Rugby, the more people will explore that route. As they would with any organization where, for want of a better phrase and not wishing to upset anyone's sensibilities, the 'lunatics run the asylum', but you know what I mean.

I don't think I said that the BSPA were scapegoats, I was just asking the question why they wouldn't endorse a T5 visa application, whether it be Jason Doyle's, or any other rider caught up in a similar situation. As far as this discussion is concerned, in essence the only difference between a T2 & T5 visa application, apart from the restriction on the time allowed for stay of a T5, is the fact that the governing body has to endorse the sponsors certificate of sponsorship, so my question would be why not? Maybe I could have phrased it better, and yes I agree that riders should know the rules, but equally the governing body, in this case the BSPA, should also be aware of their responsibilities, which from what we are seeing and hearing, appears not to be the case. So I would just ask again, what are the reasons for not supporting an endorsement ? As for the scapegoat comments, I think I have answered that above. As I have already said, there is little difference in essence between the two types of visa, excepting that one is a little more temporary than the other. The major difference in this case is that the T5 requires the governing body to endorse the Sponsors certificate. Given that most of the members of the BSPA are happy to employ riders requiring a T2 to enter the country, what possible objections could they have for not endorsing a T5 application, no matter who it was for, because as individual promoters, I am sure that if it happed to a rider they wanted to employ, they too would be busting a gut to go down the T 5 route. Until the governing body actually comes out and explains the reasoning behind the refusal, we are all in the dark, and there are enough conspiracy theorist on here to make what they will of that little conundrum. Until all those requiring a visa to ride here take a leaf out of Mr Tungate's book, we will have similar situations occurring time and time again, so maybe it's time for the governing body of the sport to clarify their motives for refusal for all to see, and not just for those who have their ear. Until that happens the hoary old 'self Interest' chestnut will keep raising its ugly head, and we will be rehashing this conversation until the sport finally dies from a self induced dose of incestuous nepotism.

What happened to point 2 Good points, and can see entirely where you're coming from, but I would imagine it would be possible to overcome those type of objections if the BSPA had to will to do so, which again begs the question why not? On Point 3 for instance, it could be argued that the addition hours are outside the normal working hours of the original sponsorship, as they are not being under taken for that sponsor, and are therefore outside those required of the applicant by that sponsor.......it's all a matter of interpretation I suppose If riding in your countries National team is not at the highest level I don't know what is, and as for coming and going to ride in Europe is concerned, that's also covered in the regulations and it appears that there should be no problems in that area too. UK BORDER AGENCY - If you need to be able to come and go from the UK with your job If you need to leave and come back to the UK quite often as part of the job you are doing, you can get a multiple entry certificate of sponsorship from your employer. This will allow you to come and go a number of times during the length of the certificate He has a British Passport as far as I know, but I stand to be corrected on that

The UK Border Agency conditions for a T5 visa do not require the BSPA to be the primary sponsor, just that they endorse the primary sponsor, confirming that the applicant meets the Governing bodies requirements to give that endorsement. As Doyle has clearly had the BSPA's blessing under previous T2 rules, I would asked what's changed, and why won't they give their support under T5 rules ? UK BORDER AGENCY - Before assigning your certificate of sponsorship in the sporting sub-category, your sponsor must have an endorsement for you from the governing body for your sport, which confirms you meet the governing body's requirements to give their endorsement. The governing body must be recognised by us. Again not quite true, a T5 visa allows the applicant to work 20 hours a week in an extra job in the same sector as that job that their certificate of sponsorship is for (something that would cover Doyle's activities with Leicester. I would guess that the only role the BSPA would be asked to do is monitor that, so once again I would ask why they wouldn't do that UK BORDER AGENCY - You can do extra work (supplementary work) to the job that you have a certificate of sponsorship for if: it is in the same sector at the same level as the job that your certificate of sponsorship is for or in a job on the shortage occupation list; the work is no more than 20 hours a week; and the work is outside the working hours that the certificate of sponsorship is for. I would suggest that it's not the riders that need to know the rules, but the powers that be. It took me 5 minutes to find out what is required of the governing body, and according to the border agency rules its clearly not the role of primary sponsor, nor does it involve them incurring massive cost. At most they would only be required to monitor the number of hours a rider worked in the extra work, and ensure it didn't go beyond 20 hours a week......the cost of this is a few minutes work per rider each week, for someone with a spread sheet. Or maybe cost is just an excuse, and not the real issue with the BSPA, maybe they have other reasons for not supporting T5 visa for Jason Doyle and the other Australians who find themselves in a similar position, but until they tell us we'll never know. Answers on a postcard please.

This is not the 'Stade de Rough' we're talking about here :-p

The difference with Jason is that he is not an asset of either club, and as such the club who signed him first, has first call on his services Duly edited Sugarray.....That's what I get for repeatedly pressing the post button on my phone when the free wifi in our hotel is on a 'go-slow' :-) Starman, it doesn't matter how old I get, I'll never repeat my self as much as you do...as much as you do....as much as you do......oh bugger, don't know what came over me then

Looking at those results, it looks like everyone beat Bjerre that night

Have you been on the Mythos again DB.............Scunthorpe bound at least 5 days ago

Now what would you know about that, you've not even come close yet..............keep on fishing

Seem to recall that they set the limit at 42.5 for three years

He doesn't have to mention a name, as he is either a supporter of, friendly with or connected to Stefan Nielsen (delete whichever is appropriate), and I am sure he will comfirm which is true if you take the trouble to ask.......and if you don't want to ask, but require any more clarification, try this........... This is a post he made in the middle of a thread regarding the Somerset -v- Edinburgh thread in August, at a point where the thread had been taken over entirely by discussion about Stefan being replaced, and it is a post that you actually replied to, as it happens........... This is the post that you're actually having problems accepting as being about Stefan.......... The two seem pretty similar to me, and I would imagine to those who have even the most rudimentary grasp of logic and reasoning..............So SS1 doesn't have to mention any names, as he has made his position clear from back in August...........If you can't see the connection between the two, then you totally deserve all the stick you are getting

What the hell has a Strawberry got to do with it ?

Don't think Holsted are going to be doing that !! If by 'in the know', you mean am I friendly with the Rebels Press Officer, then yes, guilty as charged, but other than that, like Najjer and presumably yourself, I'm no more 'in the know' than anyone else.............so that just leaves Starman ....in his dreams !!

Give over Dave, he's been too busy relating tales of Mythos blurred nights in Greece, and sharing a Tyskie or a Lech or three, in between a plentiful supply of 'Bow', at the 'Ashfield Office', to be coming to spend time cheering on the opposition at the OTA

Have you been in the 'Office' already Paul.......it's Simon Lambert at 6 now, not Tom. Won't be able to make it this weekend unfortunately........Prior engagements I'm afraid..........shame as I like my visits to Ashfield

Sometimes the fish are smarter than the angler, no matter what the bait E.R.

Just goes to show all the hard work put in by the promotion behind the scenes to grow the club, and work towards bringing fans the best club possible. Another indicator of this is the fact that the middle meeting is on a Tuesday, when in the past the club has been restricted to Wednesdays as the 'off' night. Obviously working with the council over the last couple of years has brought benefits to the club that people are only just starting to notice............long may it continue

Irony never was your strong point was it !! Unfortunately a very prophetic post Cliff