Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Average

About Snik-Snok

  • Rank
    Youth Team
  1. Fleetwood Ticket Details

    There's a lot of people who go to every away game that aren't on the scheme, and bearing in mind that the minimum requirement when the scheme was set up was 8+ points from the previous season (i.e. the final year in the Championship with 23 away game plus cup games), and some people on the scheme could have opted out of several games a season since, it means there could be a fair number of people not on the scheme with significantly more points than some people that are. Bearing that in mind, if there's about 900 tickets for Fleetwood after the corporates etc have had their allocation, and theres about 700 people on the automated ticket scheme (complete guess but the original number was 800 I believe so 700 not unrealistic), then that wouldn't be fair if that's leaves 200 tickets when there's probably significantly more than 200 people with a higher priority than some of the people on the automated scheme. That's the point I was trying to make. When the allocation is this small then why should people on the scheme potentially have priority over people with more points that aren't? Also it would mean people like Adam's friends who can't go might not bother buying tickets, and therefore someone who earnt the right to get them eg people with 250+ points would have a chance, instead of them receiving them by default and then offloading them to someone that maybe hasn't.
  2. Fleetwood Ticket Details

    Personally, I think that when the allocation is so small (especially after the sponsors, box holders, directors, players and ticket office staff have had theirs), I don't think that the automated away ticket scheme should be applicable. Everyone (whether on the scheme or not) should need to buy their tickets, based only on priority points (like the European games). After all it only takes a few seconds online so hardly a major inconvenience. A lot of people with quite high prioirties would have missed out, whereas people on the scheme who can't go (or don't want to go) know that rather than go to the trouble of opting out, they can get their ticket which will be like gold dust and they can easily sell it on, meaning that someone with a higher priority misses out. Also, the selling bands should have been tighter. With such a small number of tickets I think it would have been fairer to go in increments of 5 not 10.
  3. FIFA reject Adrien Silva appeal

    They may have provided evidence that the submission was made before the deadline, based on the clock on the pc where the submission was made, and also on the timestamps of any 3rd party servers that the data passed through on it's way to FIFA's system. However, that's irrelevent, because a) the only clock that matters is the one on FIFA's system. Anyone can change the date/time on their PC. Basically, we've sent evidence that says "Look, our PC says it was 10 seconds before the deadline", and FIFA have said "Yeah, but our clock says it wasn't". From what I've managed to find out about their Transfer Matching System, the user can see the TMS system time (i.e. from FIFA's clock) so they would have known what time they were working to. b) the appeal is focusing on FIFA's rules which says it's based on submission time, not received time. To me 'submitted to' the system is the same thing as 'received by' the system. If I applied for, for example, a cash ISA and the submission deadline was 5th Oct 5pm, and I decided to apply by post but didn't post it until midday on 5th Oct, then it would rightfully be rejected when it arrives at least 1 day later. Having a proof of postage receipt from the Post Office dated before the deadline wouldn't make it valid. However, it seems to be like their system has allowed submissions to be accepted after the deadline, which has resulted in the FA processing it (meaning he's our player) but then FIFA withholding clearance, leaving him in limbo. Any appeal should have been focusing on this flaw in the system logic, because if it's late the system should immediately prevent the submission. Instead, it's allowed it to be submitted (after presumably passing the basic validation that most competent systems would have in place), the transaction has been recorded in the system, and notification has been sent to the FA who have subsequently processed it. Then, the very same system that allowed it to be submitted has subsequently rejected it for being late!
  4. Stoke away - 12.30pm, Sat 4 Nov

    Why has the allocation dropped to 2300 (from the usual approx. 2700) when in fact it should have risen to about 2900 due to the fact that Stoke filled in one corner and added a couple of thousand more seats in the summer?
  5. The transfer fee has to have been agreed before an extension to complete the transfer is allowed. Last minute negotiations may have occurred over the payment structure but I would imagine the delay would have more likely have been that either they were waiting for confirmation of the Drinkwater sale, or results of the medical. Someone pushed a button 14 seconds late but it wouldn't be their fault. They probably had their finger hovering over the button for about 30 minutes waiting for the all clear. Ultimately I would imagine that would have come from Rudkin. However he would have been correct not to give the all clear until all all prerequisites were met.
  6. I don't think anyone's said they want the transfer ruled as void. I would absolutely prefer him to be in limbo until January rather than not joining at all. I've discussed it because in most cases, if all the admin processes that make up a transfer aren't completed then the transfer itself isn't complete and the player remains at his original club. So why wasn't that the case with Silva? We seem to be in a unique situation where at least one part of the admin process of the transfer wasn't completed and yet he has essentially been transferred, but he's not been allowed to be registered. I still can't understand why a) this transfer differs from others in that despite missing the deadline he didn't immediately default to being a Sporting player and b) FIFA's system allows a transfer to proceed to a point where the transfer is complete beyond the point of no return, but is still able to block a player's registration.
  7. The problem with ruling the transfer void is that FIFA didn't confirm their rejection of the registration until several days after the transfer window closed (presumably after taking several days to investigate the circumstances), by which point the deadline for Sporting to submit their squad lists (League and Champions League) had passed. Therefore if the transfer had been ruled void at that time, or anytime since, he wouldn't be able to play for Sporting either. The fact that FIFA didn't rule on this until after the squad lists had to be submitted may be something that we could use in our favour when arguing our case. If the documents for the transfer were in on time, and the only thing that was late was the request within the system which initiates the international transfer clearance request, then that suggests that 2 independent processes (the transfer and the international clearance) both have the same deadline. What FIFA don't seem to cater for is when the deadline is met for the transfer, but not for the clearance. Is there any case where this has happened before? Silva has essentially fallen through a gap in the logic within the TMS system, and therefore if it's a flaw in their website design then surely FIFA should recognise this and show some leniancy. Surely their system should immediately block the transfer, i.e. completely void it, if anything is late. If it allows a transfer to proceed up to a stage where there's no going back (as it appears has happened with Silva), then it should subsequently allow all other parts of the process to be completed, without any deadlines.
  8. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    I've been doing some research about about FIFA's TMS system to try to work out what could have happened. Looks like the system would a reported an issue straight away i.e. just after the deadline. Technicians for the TMS system would have been available to contact, to discuss the issue. If it can't be resolved during that conversation then the issue is forwarded to another department in FIFA, where the circumstances are investigated thoroughly and a decision is made. The fact that it took three working days before we had a response from FIFA suggests that it went through that process, and I suspect that if they could have found a convenient way to let the transfer through then they would have found it then. Maybe there's not much room for an appeal because I fear the conclusion is clear, which is that our submission was late. What they could be focusing on is arguing that if the relevant authorities (The FA, FIFA) can allow a transfer to be completed (before the deadline), then surely the international clearance should be allowed to follow regardless (when the alternative is that the player will be left in limbo).
  9. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    The only clock that matters is the clock on the TMS system web server, which being a Fifa system I will assume is located somewhere in Switzerland. This time will be consistent to all users of the system and used to timestamp all transactions, probably to the nearest millisecond. Users of the system will see the time displayed, but in their local time so if we see 22:30:25 bst, a user in France will see 23:30:25, but there time will move to 26 seconds at exactly the same time as ours. It's all within the system so everyone is synchronised to the same time, just displayed in local time. If we had a 1am deadline as shown within the system, that's the only deadline that mattered. It's not amateurish at all, it's the complete opposite. The system ensures everything matches up from all parties, and audits every transaction to ensure it's valid.
  10. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    The FA and FIFA do get it at the same time. All European clubs (and most clubs globally) HAVE to use the International TMS system when conducting international transfers, and all information is submitted solely through this system. Once the submitted, the FA are notified and then people at the FA will themselves retrieve the information from this system. All parties (FIFA, the football associations within FIFA, and the clubs within each football association) all use this one system. All transactions are recorded using the clock within this system, which is displayed to the users (so they know exactly what time that have left, regardless of what time the clock on the office wall says).
  11. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    FIFA are not preventing his involvement. It's our failure to comply to the rules that have prevented his involvement. We are governed by the FA, who in turn are under the jurisdiction of FIFA. Therefore, we need to adhere to the rules and regulations of those organisations. If we opt to omit a player from our squad list, that's our responsibility. If, for whatever reason (whether it be waiting for confirmation of Drinkwater's transfer, waiting for the results of Silva's medical, waiting for a fax from Portugal, late haggling over the payment structure of the transfer fee), we left it late, it's still our responsibility to submit the information to FIFA's system prior to the deadline. It's not FIFA's fault we did this late. They cannot allow a late submission because it was only a few seconds late, as that will leave them open to all sorts of potential problems going forward. We would have to prove there were mitigating circumstances outside our control, which I'm still hoping we can find. The problem here is that that the FA have appear to have processed a transfer despite it being submitted late, but FIFA have failed to sanction the registration as it was beyond a deadline which the FA seemed to allow a bit of leniency on. Therefore if anything this could evolve into a dispute between the FA and FIFA, as perhaps the FA allowed something to be processed which it shouldn't have done.
  12. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    It would be the LCFC legal team that's not allowing him to train with the squad. FIFA's ruling only prevents him from playing in any FA affiliated competitions. It will primarily be because it's still unclear who owns the player. Sporting insist he's ours, we may well be disputing that (or at least considering it), and therefore allowing him to train with us would contradict our argument. Secondly for insurance purposes, if he gets seriously injured, or seriously injures another player, then the insurance company will have a good excuse not to pay out if a player involved is not registered, or legally employed, as an LCFC player. I would imagine that the main discussions that are going on behind the scenes now are to get a definitive resolution to who actually owns the player. To me, a transfer is essentially the transfer of a player's registration from one club to another, the FA's request to the Portuguese FA to initiate this process was blocked immediately because LCFC's notification to the system to activate the process was late. Therefore I assuming his registration will still be with Sporting. However, from what I can work out from piecing together the fragments of information, it appeared that the FA processed his transfer and therefore in theory he's currently contracted to us, i.e employed by us, but his registration is still with Sporting. If a) he goes back to Sporting (if the contract is voided by the failure to complete his registration), he won't be able to play for them until January because he's not in their submitted squad list. If it's ruled that b) he's our player, he won't be able to play for us until January because the request for the international transfer certificate was submitted to the system late, hence his registration was not transferred. The only outcomes I can see is either a or b above. Restraint of trade is a non-argument because once this is resolved, he will be employed, and being paid, either by Sporting or LCFC. In that respect, it's no different to a player being at a club but being omitted from the squad list, like Benalouane in the first half of last season. If its ruled he's our player, then he will begin to train with us, but I would be amazed if FIFA rule he can play for us before January. Even if the relevant documents were uploaded to FIFA's TMS system in time, the notification to that system, which starts the process for the FA to request the international transfer certificate, was late. If this is LCFC's responsibility, then we can have no complaints, as the rules are clear that this needs to be submitted to the system prior to the deadline. If however, this is triggered by some some of delayed batch job within the FIFA system (which runs e.g. every 30 seconds), upon receipt of the final document, then we may have some sort of case. However I would assume that if this was the case, they would have already ruled in our favour. The above is however all guesswork, so I'm some retaining some hope that my assumptions about the situation are wrong and that we've still got a chance of him playing for us some time soon...
  13. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    The deal sheets that have to be submitted when applying for the extension need to include to transfer fee and be signed by both parties. The extension is to allow extra time for personal terms to be agreed and the medical sorted. Therefore the fee must have already been fixed and couldn't have been a reason for any delay late on. This is what they said last Thursday on sky sports news anyway. Having said that, they could have been haggling over the payment structure after this time I guess...
  14. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    Nobody needs to. They are all using the same system, the TMS (Transfer matching system). The clock on that system is the only one that matters. I've not tried it, but I suspect if I change my PC clock to midday yesterday and then post a message on Foxestalk, it would be stamped with the time from now, not yesterday, as it's Foxestalk's server that stamp the date/time, it's not taken from the device it's submitted from. Same principle applies to the TMS. All transactions (both clubs, both football associations, and FIFA) are all done using the same system.
  15. Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

    It wasn't a document that was uploaded late. According to the Leicester Mercury, all documents were loaded to the TMS before the deadline. However, the final step of clicking the 'go' button which authorises the F.A. to proceed with actioning the transfer (and request, if required, clearance via FIFA from another country's FA) was clicked late. Therefore, I don't think the excuse of an upload delay is relevant because the amount of data transferred in that final step would be minimal, and therefore instant. If they did believe it was done before the deadline, the only hope they have is to prove that the TMS system clock was ahead of actual time by at least 14 seconds. If the LCFC computer click said 11:59 that's irrelevant, as the only clock that matters is the one on the TMS server. From what I can gather, clubs can put all the documents in, but if they don't complete the final step of requesting authorisation then the F.A. don't action the transfer. Therefore a club could put all the documents in for a potential transfer, but if a condition isn't met (e.g. in our case the Drinkwater sale doesn't go through), then they can void the potential transfer by not completing the final step. I suspect the documents may have been uploaded with plenty of time to spare but they didn't want to hit that button until they'd got confirmation that Chelsea had hit the button at their end for the Drinkwater transfer (which must have come very late, and perhaps itself was also past the deadline but not a problem because being a non-international transfer wouldn't have needed to go via FIFA as international clearance wasn't required).