I know how those in authority in football make these sort of decisions at first hand. I had to provide evidence at a Herts FA hearing last season, and I was told by some old wally on the panel what a word in my statement meant. I explained it had two meanings, and clarified the meaning I meant when I wrote it! He wouldn't stop, I wanted to go up and hit him. I mean, I wrote the bloody thing which put me at an advantage in interpreting the meaning! Which wouldn't have been a good idea. These things in football are complete shams - you need 100% proof and you never get even a fraction of any benefit of the doubt.
I know how those in authority in football make these sort of decisions at first hand. I had to provide evidence at a Herts FA hearing last season, and I was told by some old wally on the panel what a word in my statement meant. I explained it had two meanings, and clarified the meaning I meant when I wrote it! He wouldn't stop, I wanted to go up and hit him. I mean, I wrote the bloody thing which put me at an advantage in interpreting the meaning! Which wouldn't have been a good idea. These things in football are complete shams - you need 100% proof and you never get even a fraction of any benefit of the doubt.
Got a funny feeling it won’t happen if it’s already gone to an appeal. One, our record on appeals, two, I’m sure the FA are mindful of not setting too many precedents, regardless of the facts. I just see them like DVLA. Machines that don’t really take into account any sort of circumstances once a decision has been made
could be wrong, but think this will be a frustrating verdict for us
The FA are quite happy to set precedents, but only if it is for one of the big clubs/players...
A case in point: Quite a few years ago, when John Terry was captain of England, Chelsea were playing Manchester City. A City player, (I can't remember his name) span off him on the half way line, and was away. Terry, cynically, rugby tackled him to stop him. The referee, quite correctly IMO, showed him a red card. Chelsea appealed, and the red card was overturned to a yellow. I said to my mate at the time: "Another nail in the coffin for players with pace in the game. Clod hopping centre backs now know they can rugby tackle players that skin them, and they'll only get a yellow." A few months later Dennis Rommerdahl did exactly that at The Valley, and was duly rugby tackled. Yellow card.
Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?
The risk is a lot smaller though isn't it, if he isn't properly fit we can send him back in a January.
You’d still want to know if there were any issues though wouldn’t you? You’d give a player a medical if they had a 6 month or 1 year contract, which is the same length as a loan.
Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?
The risk is a lot smaller though isn't it, if he isn't properly fit we can send him back in a January.
You’d still want to know if there were any issues though wouldn’t you? You’d give a player a medical if they had a 6 month or 1 year contract, which is the same length as a loan.
You can't send them back for a refund if it is perm. He is crocked.
Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?
The risk is a lot smaller though isn't it, if he isn't properly fit we can send him back in a January.
You’d still want to know if there were any issues though wouldn’t you? You’d give a player a medical if they had a 6 month or 1 year contract, which is the same length as a loan.
But it is much easier with a loan for both clubs to agree a deal. Pay for playing would be easier for an injured player for example.
We also don’t know how much of his wages we are paying and that could vary between all or nothing.
Got a funny feeling it won’t happen if it’s already gone to an appeal. One, our record on appeals, two, I’m sure the FA are mindful of not setting too many precedents, regardless of the facts. I just see them like DVLA. Machines that don’t really take into account any sort of circumstances once a decision has been made
could be wrong, but think this will be a frustrating verdict for us
The FA are quite happy to set precedents, but only if it is for one of the big clubs/players...
A case in point: Quite a few years ago, when John Terry was captain of England, Chelsea were playing Manchester City. A City player, (I can't remember his name) span off him on the half way line, and was away. Terry, cynically, rugby tackled him to stop him. The referee, quite correctly IMO, showed him a red card. Chelsea appealed, and the red card was overturned to a yellow. I said to my mate at the time: "Another nail in the coffin for players with pace in the game. Clod hopping centre backs now know they can rugby tackle players that skin them, and they'll only get a yellow." A few months later Dennis Rommerdahl did exactly that at The Valley, and was duly rugby tackled. Yellow card.
The City player was Jo. The red card was overturned because Ricardo Carvalho was covering. So the right decision was a yellow. If, in the Rommedahl incident there was a covering defender, that too should have been a yellow card (unless there is serious foul play or violent conduct).
It's very easy to feel that Charlton - as one of the "smaller" clubs (I hate that phrase!) - are treated unfairly. But I don't think that every decision that goes against Charlton is a demonstration of that.
The Osei Sankofa case is often cited as an example. But, in the cold light of day it's clear that Charlton got that one badly wrong.
Got a funny feeling it won’t happen if it’s already gone to an appeal. One, our record on appeals, two, I’m sure the FA are mindful of not setting too many precedents, regardless of the facts. I just see them like DVLA. Machines that don’t really take into account any sort of circumstances once a decision has been made
could be wrong, but think this will be a frustrating verdict for us
The FA are quite happy to set precedents, but only if it is for one of the big clubs/players...
A case in point: Quite a few years ago, when John Terry was captain of England, Chelsea were playing Manchester City. A City player, (I can't remember his name) span off him on the half way line, and was away. Terry, cynically, rugby tackled him to stop him. The referee, quite correctly IMO, showed him a red card. Chelsea appealed, and the red card was overturned to a yellow. I said to my mate at the time: "Another nail in the coffin for players with pace in the game. Clod hopping centre backs now know they can rugby tackle players that skin them, and they'll only get a yellow." A few months later Dennis Rommerdahl did exactly that at The Valley, and was duly rugby tackled. Yellow card.
The City player was Jo. The red card was overturned because Ricardo Carvalho was covering. So the right decision was a yellow. If, in the Rommedahl incident there was a covering defender, that too should have been a yellow card (unless there is serious foul play or violent conduct).
It's very easy to feel that Charlton - as one of the "smaller" clubs (I hate that phrase!) - are treated unfairly. But I don't think that every decision that goes against Charlton is a demonstration of that.
The Osei Sankofa case is often cited as an example. But, in the cold light of day it's clear that Charlton got that one badly wrong.
How many other clubs have had bans extended due to appealing since then?
How many other clubs had bans extended due to appealing before then?
The Osei Sankofa case was a little unusual. We were incidental to the whole process to a certain extent, it was really a power battle between the FA and the Premier League. The Premier League put their full support behind us, and I think the FA were then more inclined to do what they did in an attempt to win the battle, hence the extra game ban.
As for the incident itself, you could rule either way. Van Persie was offside, so there was no goal scoring opportunity for Osei to deny him. However, Osei didn't know that, he pulled Van Persie back to deliberately deny him a goal scoring opportunity, it just happens that the flag then went up meaning his foul was unnecessary.
The Premier League picked the wrong case to make their stand on, as it was a case that could easily be ruled either way (and we know the FA don't like overturning a decision if there'e even the thinest of possible justification for the original decision), and we paid the price for that.
Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.
This is relatively recent. I seem to recall Dave "The Secret Footballer" Kitson mentioning in one of his columns that on deadline day, either he or a close friend had a transfer rushed through without a medical.
That said, doing one is quite rightly due process and should absolutely be a condition upon which a transfer rests.
The Osei Sankofa case was a little unusual. We were incidental to the whole process to a certain extent, it was really a power battle between the FA and the Premier League. The Premier League put their full support behind us, and I think the FA were then more inclined to do what they did in an attempt to win the battle, hence the extra game ban.
As for the incident itself, you could rule either way. Van Persie was offside, so there was no goal scoring opportunity for Osei to deny him. However, Osei didn't know that, he pulled Van Persie back to deliberately deny him a goal scoring opportunity, it just happens that the flag then went up meaning his foul was unnecessary.
The Premier League picked the wrong case to make their stand on, as it was a case that could easily be ruled either way (and we know the FA don't like overturning a decision if there'e even the thinest of possible justification for the original decision), and we paid the price for that.
This is why I think the decision to appeal the red card was utterly ridiculous.
Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.
This is relatively recent. I seem to recall Dave "The Secret Footballer" Kitson mentioning in one of his columns that on deadline day, either he or a close friend had a transfer rushed through without a medical.
That said, doing one is quite rightly due process and should absolutely be a condition upon which a transfer rests.
It's quite common for players to have a medical at their own club (sometimes by an independent doc), and the report be deemed good enough by the buying/loaning club.
So for example, if a player knows he is leaving a club (loan or perm) he has a medical close to deadline day and doesn't train any further.
Comments
No idea what the fee would be, I can't imagine it would be very much...
Like our ticket office
Half day Monday and a full day off later in the week
A case in point: Quite a few years ago, when John Terry was captain of England, Chelsea were playing Manchester City. A City player, (I can't remember his name) span off him on the half way line, and was away. Terry, cynically, rugby tackled him to stop him. The referee, quite correctly IMO, showed him a red card. Chelsea appealed, and the red card was overturned to a yellow. I said to my mate at the time: "Another nail in the coffin for players with pace in the game. Clod hopping centre backs now know they can rugby tackle players that skin them, and they'll only get a yellow." A few months later Dennis Rommerdahl did exactly that at The Valley, and was duly rugby tackled. Yellow card.
We also don’t know how much of his wages we are paying and that could vary between all or nothing.
It's very easy to feel that Charlton - as one of the "smaller" clubs (I hate that phrase!) - are treated unfairly. But I don't think that every decision that goes against Charlton is a demonstration of that.
The Osei Sankofa case is often cited as an example. But, in the cold light of day it's clear that Charlton got that one badly wrong.
Doctor Who or Witch Doctor did the examination ?
How many other clubs had bans extended due to appealing before then?
As for the incident itself, you could rule either way. Van Persie was offside, so there was no goal scoring opportunity for Osei to deny him. However, Osei didn't know that, he pulled Van Persie back to deliberately deny him a goal scoring opportunity, it just happens that the flag then went up meaning his foul was unnecessary.
The Premier League picked the wrong case to make their stand on, as it was a case that could easily be ruled either way (and we know the FA don't like overturning a decision if there'e even the thinest of possible justification for the original decision), and we paid the price for that.
That said, doing one is quite rightly due process and should absolutely be a condition upon which a transfer rests.
So for example, if a player knows he is leaving a club (loan or perm) he has a medical close to deadline day and doesn't train any further.