++ Tomer Hemed (p47 gone to New Zealand) ++

Unless I am reading it incorrectly I believe the FA did ultimately accept the paperwork for the Da Silva paperwork 14 secs late but because it was an international registration it was subject to FIFA approval.

It was FIFA who rejected the registration as too late. The FA appears to have actually argued Leicester's case with FIFA.

That appears to set a precedent.

Before we start questioning the club on this issue I assume all of this will have been under the control of Chris Parkes one of the longest serving most reputable and respected football secretaries in the game.

It would be exceptional for any delay to arise from an administrative error on his part.

Any delay will likely have revolved around the negotiations involved.

Was it a direct transfer or an agreed termination of contract between the player and Brighton? There are two or three possible scenarios but without crawling all over the detail of those the signing carries the hallmarks of an 11th hour deal involving negotiations between clubs, the paying up of his Brighton contract and the funding of a new contact no doubt involving several referrals.

These contracts need reading clause by clause - all within a matter of an hour or two. They are rarely simply rubber stamp jobs.

Cawley advises a 12 month deal but there may be an option to extend.

The delay is clearly a cause for concern.

However if for any reason the club and player are left in "limbo" I can see Duchatelet, depending on his mood, being happy to try and give the "the authorities" in this case the FA a bloody nose. If facing, in one scenario, the need to pay a player he cannot use he will not be happy.

He has the depth of pocket and access to the legal resources to argue;

a) whether the FA rules are fair and reasonable

b) whether the process of appeal and panel interpretation is fair and reasonable

c) restraint of trade.

I was surprised Leicester did not argue the latter point.

The transfer window is a restraint of trade.

In principle it could be another Bosman and thus a hornets nest the FA would be unwise to stir.

The FA can argue all it likes about its rules but such rules are subject to employment law.

In the case of Bosman where the club was refusing to transfer his registration for its purposes it is now the FA potentially refusing the transfer of registration for its own purposes.

The date of closing the transfer window has no standing in law. It is an arbitrary date.

It is flexible as evidenced by;

- the fact this year it is weeks ahead of previous years and those in place across the rest of Europe.

- Certain members under the jurisdiction of the FA (in League 1 & 2) being able to continue to register players

The FA can indeed argue Hemed can still play football but just not under a change of registration they are prepared to approve.

Hemed is being contracted to play at a certain level against which he will receive specific performance related remuneration. There is no guarantee he will be able to earn the same remuneration elsewhere.

Failure to accept his registration is depriving him of that opportunity.

I could see Roland having his employment lawyers all over it.

The original intent to restrict the wealthy clubs from hoovering up talent at any point in the season is fine in principle in structuring a transfer window but it is not fit for purpose in creating artificial employment barriers and a false market.

The challenge for the FA in sanctioning the deal is will "they create legal and operational precedent".

Common sense suggests the FA find an "exception" in the process which will allow them to approve the registration but the FA are not blessed with common sense.