Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
stu

Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, richardsfoxes said:

Can people relax, the player has appealed, the club has appealed, the Portuguese FA will come out to help the player as well i'm sure as they don't wan't their player not playing for 4 months wait for the appeal process then cry if they still **** us. 

Totally agree. Maybe it's just my glass half full attitude but I think that FIFA have to reject the registration because it was late and late is late but I think they will overturn the decision on appeal. Nobody is benefitting from the decision to reject the registration. Surely common sense will prevail?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BoyJones said:

Haven't read many posts, but why don't our owners just take FIFA or whoever to court?

 

Some of their rules contravene EU law, particularly employment law. Freedom of movement is enshrined in the EU, individual businesses / associations can't just do their own thing. 

 

If i was Top, I would be pushing my Dad to challenge them, particularly with their proven lack of integrity and the fact they are not fit for purpose

I'm sure Silva could have bought himself out of his Sporting contract, moved to the UK and get a job in Tesco if he fancied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, richardsfoxes said:

Can people relax, the player has appealed, the club has appealed, the Portuguese FA will come out to help the player as well i'm sure as they don't wan't their player not playing for 4 months wait for the appeal process then cry if they still **** us. 

That's all that gives me hope. There are literally no winners if this doesn't go through. We aren't the only party who wants this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Totally agree. Maybe it's just my glass half full attitude but I think that FIFA have to reject the registration because it was late and late is late but I think they will overturn the decision on appeal. Nobody is benefitting from the decision to reject the registration. Surely common sense will prevail?!

Good for you to be honest for being so glass half full over this. And I hope you're right. I believe we'll look a far more confident side with Silva in it and yes, this decision is benefiting no one. It smacks of FIFA just wanting to flex their muscles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the probable FIFA stance, even if we appeal is "the paperwork was late doesnt matter if 14 seconds or 14 days", its a shame he is our player, otherwise we could have taken him on loan.

Im not sure what routes are available to us to rectify the situation

 

Maybe Silva has a "right to work", although he is getting paid so perhaps not applicable

 can see the matter going to court with the result not announced till January

ITfeels like weve signed a player with a long term injury, but i suppose a positive is he should be sttled in the uk by January, and maybe he will be allowed to play in the development team to keep match fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Totally agree. Maybe it's just my glass half full attitude but I think that FIFA have to reject the registration because it was late and late is late but I think they will overturn the decision on appeal. Nobody is benefitting from the decision to reject the registration. Surely common sense will prevail?!

 

That's what I think too.

 

@Babylon has already looked into a previous case and the appeal process were more lenient. My guess is the most likely scenario is FIFA have rejected this to the letter of the law and the appeal will find in favour of Silva and Leicester.

 

Anything else would totally be unjust if Silva is left without a club he can play for until 2018. His right to play should certainly be a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

What are you on about? What scenario are you responding to then?

You jumped into the thread posting about FFP, you didn't quote me but seeing as I was in the middle of a discussion about it I'm going to presume you were talking about my conversation. What you suggested in your original post had nothing to do with the actual discussion being had. The original was along the lines of "we should have bought Silva whether we sold Drinkwater or not". You asked why owning them both for 10 minutes would breach FFP, it wouldn't clearly... we were discussing having both players until at the very least January. Which obviously potentially could break FFP or the premier league wage increase rule.

 

22 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Clubs announce replacements before letting players go all the time. Everton had spent 90 million before signing off on the Lukaku sale, they didn't seem to be too worried about the seller inexplicably changing their mind without reason last minute.

Nobody is saying they don't and pretty much everyone is saying Silva should have been signed before letting DD go. Again, not what the FFP discussion was about though. The point was we potentially couldn't just sod the consequences and sign Silva and KEEP Drinkwater.
 

22 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

There's no excuse for what's happened here at all. There is no reason for not making sure this was done before letting Drinkwater go.

 

Nobody is excusing it, just stating there are reasons why we couldn't sign Silva two months ago and keep DD as well. I'm sure 99.9% agree it's a muck up to let DD go before we were sure we had Silva. End of the day, both transfers should have been pulled when it got to the point of looking like we were struggling with Silva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dpjfox said:

Unfortunately the probable FIFA stance, even if we appeal is "the paperwork was late doesnt matter if 14 seconds or 14 days", its a shame he is our player, otherwise we could have taken him on loan.

Im not sure what routes are available to us to rectify the situation

 

Maybe Silva has a "right to work", although he is getting paid so perhaps not applicable

 can see the matter going to court with the result not announced till January

ITfeels like weve signed a player with a long term injury, but i suppose a positive is he should be sttled in the uk by January, and maybe he will be allowed to play in the development team to keep match fit?

He couldn't have come on loan, the transfer window is shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I find it hilarious that an organisation that does absolutely nothing to enforce its anti racism commitments, and happily organises its tournaments in homophobic countries that contravene internationally agreed human rights on an almost daily basis, decides to take a hard line over a 14 second delay:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matty98 said:

If FIFA want to stop him from playing for us that's fair enough but he should atleast be allowed to play for Sporting until January. It would be a ridiculous punishment for the player to not be allowed to play as he has done nothing wrong.

And if he gets injured?

 

I do not think the club will want to allow a £22m signing to go back on loan at the club he came from - we are not in a position to take that risk would i believe be the club's stance.

 

I understand we will either have a successful appeal or he will have a four month settling in period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nickfosse said:

I must admit I find it hilarious that an organisation that does absolutely nothing to enforce its anti racism commitments, and happily organises its tournaments in homophobic countries that contravene internationally agreed human rights on an almost daily basis, decides to take a hard line over a 14 second delay:D

The joys of bureaucracy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We only have ourselves to blame if this doesn't go through.  Whether we were 14 seconds before or after the deadline it's absurd to be leaving it that late.

 

But as arguments go, I've had a quick look at the guidance and first thing I found was:

 

3.

Players may only be registered – subject to the exception provided for in article 6 paragraph 1 – upon submission of a valid application from the club to the relevant association during a registration period.

 

So it depends what they mean by submission - there will be lawyers arguing the email need only be sent to be submitted (Leicester etc.) or an email needs to be received to be submitted (FIFA).  I was expecting the guidance to say it the application had to be "received" during the registration period like most legal documents would, and in that case we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  I'd say "submitted" is more in our favour.

 

There might some other stuff in there tho - imagine we'll appeal as far as we can take it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old Fox said:

And if he gets injured?

 

I do not think the club will want to allow a £22m signing to go back on loan at the club he came from - we are not in a position to take that risk would i believe be the club's stance.

 

I understand we will either have a successful appeal or he will have a four month settling in period.

He's just as likely to get injured training with us as he is playing for them, atleast this way we'd have some of his wages covered and he'd get to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Benji said:

We only have ourselves to blame if this doesn't go through.  Whether we were 14 seconds before or after the deadline it's absurd to be leaving it that late.

 

But as arguments go, I've had a quick look at the guidance and first thing I found was:

 

3.

Players may only be registered – subject to the exception provided for in article 6 paragraph 1 – upon submission of a valid application from the club to the relevant association during a registration period.

 

So it depends what they mean by submission - there will be lawyers arguing the email need only be sent to be submitted (Leicester etc.) or an email needs to be received to be submitted (FIFA).  I was expecting the guidance to say it the application had to be "received" during the registration period like most legal documents would, and in that case we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  I'd say "submitted" is more in our favour.

 

There might some other stuff in there tho - imagine we'll appeal as far as we can take it.

 

I would be homing in on the words 'upon Submission' in that clause. If it stated 'upon receipt' I think we would be screwed.

 

FIFA are like teflon though, there's a reason they are based in Switzerland and it's not for neutrality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, however, if the bloke carrying peices of paper around hadn't have forgotten something and had to go back into the building before getting in the car, this might've gone through. That could be a very expensive 14 seconds. 

 

It all looked very unprofessional for a multimillion pound business deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Totally agree. Maybe it's just my glass half full attitude but I think that FIFA have to reject the registration because it was late and late is late but I think they will overturn the decision on appeal. Nobody is benefitting from the decision to reject the registration. Surely common sense will prevail?!

I would have agreed with you prior to yesterday evening. infact I half expected this would happen but I expected it would be dealt with behind closed doors with no one any the wiser. once the information is in the public domain it becomes much more difficult for them to pass any appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, however, if the bloke carrying peices of paper around hadn't have forgotten something and had to go back into the building before getting in the car, this might've gone through. That could be a very expensive 14 seconds. 

 

It all looked very unprofessional for a multimillion pound business deal. 

he went backwards and forwards 6 times! That's your 14 secs plus about 5 minutes. If he hadn't been torn between 2 rooms, miles apart. He would've had time to get the paperwork in and have a celebratory 'paid' dump on works time. FFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...