++ Tomer Hemed (p47 gone to New Zealand) ++
Comments
-
Thought I read somewhere from a reliable poster fee was around £600k.0
-
ProbablyValley27000 said:Have the FA gone home now?.
Like our ticket office
Half day Monday and a full day off later in the week0 -
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.0
-
Lucky this will be matter of fact, not opinion.MuttleyCAFC said: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.2 -
The FA are quite happy to set precedents, but only if it is for one of the big clubs/players...cabbles said: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
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.2 -
Does anyone think they were both ment to be perms, but the other guy would have failed a medical, so it's a loan to sign in January?0
-
Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?5
-
No.Cafc43v3r said:Does anyone think they were both ment to be perms, but the other guy would have failed a medical, so it's a loan to sign in January?0 - Sponsored links:
-
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.Cafc43v3r said:
The risk is a lot smaller though isn't it, if he isn't properly fit we can send him back in a January.Scoham said:Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?
2 -
You can't send them back for a refund if it is perm. He is crocked.Scoham said:
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.Cafc43v3r said:
The risk is a lot smaller though isn't it, if he isn't properly fit we can send him back in a January.Scoham said:Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?0 -
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.Scoham said:
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.Cafc43v3r said:
The risk is a lot smaller though isn't it, if he isn't properly fit we can send him back in a January.Scoham said:Wouldn’t you give a player a medical whether it’s a loan or permanent deal?
We also don’t know how much of his wages we are paying and that could vary between all or nothing.0 -
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).East_Stand_Loopy said:
The FA are quite happy to set precedents, but only if it is for one of the big clubs/players...cabbles said: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
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.
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.1 -
It suggests to me that players normally take a medical prior to signing.Re@drobo said:8 -
Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.6
-
It is a condition of a clubs insurance - all players signing for the club must undergo a medical prior to completion of the move.Rudders22 said:Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.4 -
Even Lewis Page, Jack Wilshire and Andy Carroll !Covered_End_Lad said:
It is a condition of a clubs insurance - all players signing for the club must undergo a medical prior to completion of the move.Rudders22 said:Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.
Doctor Who or Witch Doctor did the examination ?1 - Sponsored links:
-
Was there a horse involved?Rudders22 said:Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.3 -
How many other clubs have had bans extended due to appealing since then?Chizz said:
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).East_Stand_Loopy said:
The FA are quite happy to set precedents, but only if it is for one of the big clubs/players...cabbles said: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
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.
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 had bans extended due to appealing before then?
1 -
There was when Mr Ed Upson was transferred.ShootersHillGuru said:
Was there a horse involved?Rudders22 said:Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.2 -
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.4 -
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.Rudders22 said:Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.
That said, doing one is quite rightly due process and should absolutely be a condition upon which a transfer rests.0 -
Is sturridge still free0
-
This is why I think the decision to appeal the red card was utterly ridiculous.randy andy said: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.0 -
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.PaddyP17 said:
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.Rudders22 said:Wether it is perm or a loan. There is always a nedical.
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.0 -
Failed the medicalLTKapal said:Is sturridge still free3 -
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.
25
