Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Average

About Snik-Snok

  • Rank
    Youth Team
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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...
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. Burton Away

    You can pay on the turnstile to go in the home standing areas, if you don't mind mingling with the Burton hardcore. The away end is sold out, so it's the only option for anyone wanting to go. From Burton's website (which incidentally appears suspiciously similar to our own fancy new supposedly bespoke one)... "BURTON Albion supporters will be able to pay cash-on-the-turnstiles for the two home pre-season friendlies. Albion supporters must still purchase seated tickets in advance of the games, but are able to pay cash-on-turnstiles to enter the terrace for both friendlies. Visiting supporters must purchase their tickets through their own club. Only Burton Albion fans can pay using cash-on-turnstiles." https://www.burtonalbionfc.co.uk/news/2017/july/2407-preseasoncash/
  10. Leicester City's 2017/18 kits thread

    They could make it optional and for anyone that wants it, it should be free. No matter how hideous it looks, some people would still want to own exactly the same kit as what the players wear. Does anyone know if other clubs are selling shirts with the sleeve sponsorship already on, off or with a choice of either?
  11. Leicester City's 2017/18 kits thread

    Exactly. The purple badge itself is bad enough, but what makes it much worse is that it's slapped over a pattern that clearly wasn't designed to have anything stuck over it. If it was stuck on a plain black sleeve, and a bit smaller, it wouldn't look quite so bad. Same issue will apply to the Premier League badge. Knowing the badges were going on, surely the club could have talked to Genesis/Puma and got the same shirt but without the daft shoulder pattern. Without it, both the blue and black shirts would be classics. The sensible thing would be to make the sponsors sleeve badges optional for anyone buying a shirt, the same as the Premier League badges. Maybe a condition of the sponsorship was that they had to be included, but it's marketing suicide. So many sales are going to be lost, including one from me, I was going to make it my first shirt since the white bukta one circa 1992. The end result is a complete mess, and it looks like a pub team shirt that's had the badge sewn on by a group of primary school kids.
  12. Away priority points removed!?

    I'm missing several of the people on my friends and family list, but my wife's is still there. Therefore I assume that you keep people registered at the same address, but anyone else you'll have to manually add them back in.
  13. Expand the stadium? The poll

    Looks nice that. My perfect stadium would be double-tiered stands similar to that on 3 sides and then a large, single-tiered, low-roof stand behind one goal. Maybe the upper tiers would be a bit bigger, and the lower tiers a bit smaller, with the upper ones overhanging the lower ones a bit. Then, ideally the single tiered stand and one lower tier down one side would be standing areas, as and when the regulations allow it.
  14. Derby at Home

    Really annoys me that for cup games, the club gives L1 to away fans. At Derby it would have been easy for them to extend the away corner behind the goal where the away end used to be, but instead they put us down the side to keep their main vocal part of the ground intact. Instead, we're just going to hand ours to the away team and disperse everyone around the ground, meaning it'll kill the atmosphere, and give benefit to Derby. It's a midweek game, the family end will be half empty. Why not do what they did with the Champions League games and reduce the family stand and then give Derby and extra block or two from there instead? Not doing this can't be due to the existing segregation arrangements because Derby are getting block K which is beyond the normal cup game away sections, so they are going to have to put temporary segregation in place anyway. Finally, why have we also given Derby block K, as the required 15% doesn't include that?
  15. This talk of signing Gaston Ramirez has got me thinking. Have we ever signed a player from a Premier League club who was in their first choice starting 11? In recent years we've signed Huth and Albrighton but they were not first choice players at the time. Going back I can't think of any. Ian Walker I think was back up at Spurs. Frank Sinclair is a maybe, although I remember him as a Chelsea squad player who happened to be playing quite regularly due to injuries, but wouldn't have been in their team when everyone was fit and available. Is there anyone? Would Ramirez be the first?