Struwwelpeter60 Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 25 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said: You mean the "Guidetti case", surely? Different circumstances. No transfer. Guidetti went on loan to Celtic, but he remained a ManCity player. No two hour deadline extension. No deadline extension by FIFA. "Celtic successfully persuaded the Scottish Professional Football League to extend its deadline from 11pm to midnight, to fall in line with the SFA's deadline. But part of the registration document was received just after midnight, forcing the SFA and SPFL to take the club's case to FIFA." If that case has any relevance at all for our situation, than it is the fact, that obviously the time when the complete document has been received is decisive and not the time, when the transmission of the document started.
Gary Eatfood Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 I go out for the night and suddenly FT transforms into Boston Legal.
WigstonWanderer Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 36 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: Different circumstances. No transfer. Guidetti went on loan to Celtic, but he remained a ManCity player. No two hour deadline extension. No deadline extension by FIFA. "Celtic successfully persuaded the Scottish Professional Football League to extend its deadline from 11pm to midnight, to fall in line with the SFA's deadline. But part of the registration document was received just after midnight, forcing the SFA and SPFL to take the club's case to FIFA." If that case has any relevance at all for our situation, than it is the fact, that obviously the time when the complete document has been received is decisive and not the time, when the transmission of the document started. I'm missing something here. If I've read this correctly they had an extension of one hour making the deadline midnight. Part of the registration document was received just after midnight, so beyond the extended deadline. Exactly the same situation as in Silva's case! Surely this sets a precedent? @vanity
smudger63 Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 6 hours ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: Different circumstances. No transfer. Guidetti went on loan to Celtic, but he remained a ManCity player. No two hour deadline extension. No deadline extension by FIFA. "Celtic successfully persuaded the Scottish Professional Football League to extend its deadline from 11pm to midnight, to fall in line with the SFA's deadline. But part of the registration document was received just after midnight, forcing the SFA and SPFL to take the club's case to FIFA." If that case has any relevance at all for our situation, than it is the fact, that obviously the time when the complete document has been received is decisive and not the time, when the transmission of the document started. How is the the fact that Guidetti was a loan any different? Am i missing something here? Surely he is still being transferred from one club to another, all be it for a loan period, why would that make any difference? What you are stating is that Celtic had an extension in order to try and get the transfer/loan deal complete, So did we. Also part of the Celtic registration document was received just after the deadline, and if what we hear is true, then that is the same as us. I`m not sure how that case is different to ours, and surely sets a precedent. I`m not sure how long after the deadline Celtics registration got there, but i would be surprised if it wasn`t longer than 14 seconds!
Guest Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 I have it on good authority that the fa usually now accepts a transfer if both teams can show it was concluded prior to deadline, even if they send confirmation to the fa slightly after deadline. They ask for evidence from email trails etc to show that things were concluded. This comes from somebody within the professional game that would 100% know. Presumably fifa don't take the same view of things such explains why the fa are happy to register the transfer but fifa aren't.
katieakita Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 Still think this will have a positive resolution for the club and player imvho. Looks like we are getting legal people to look at the case and we are taking the time to ensure if we do appeal we have all the legal arguments in place for an appeal court to find in our and possibly more importantly the players favour. It appears the player is not 100% fit so at best may have only got in the match day squad for todays game so ensuring everything is in place for an appeal makes more sense. Think we have a number of grounds and in no particular order to appeal. If there has been a failure to comply with a ruling surely the punishment should be handed down to the club not the club and the player who is a victim in this with various EU working laws being broken if he is unable to fully earn his living and possibly damage his future career due to wrongdoings of someone else. Precedent has already been set by the Guidetti deal where missing a time deadline was also an issue. Also the states the application had to be submitted not received by I believe the FA if as claimed we had submitted the application before the deadline it could be the delay was at their end something that the club would have no control over. Also the wording of the rules is open to different interpretation to submit or to receive an application are 2 very different things. You submit an application for a driving licence or passport and to make the application valid it needs to be dated and you put the date on when it is signed and dispatched not the date it will be received. The clarity of these rules we are alleged to have broken may not be as crystal clear as the FA/FiFA believe. If for arguments sake it takes 1 minute to ensure all the documentation is fully submitted and received where we made fully aware of that, we had a 1 hr 59 minute extension from 11 pm not a 2hr extension. Also if we have blown this and the player cannot play for a period is that reasonable. It is suggested the club will pay in the region of £1.5 million in wages to Silva before January a £1.5 million fine punishment is for being 14 seconds late being fair in reasonable in anybody's language? think this would be seen as very much a penalty clause then you get things like the "Red hand rule" involved. Will be interesting to see how this pans out
katieakita Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 25 minutes ago, toddybad said: I have it on good authority that the fa usually now accepts a transfer if both teams can show it was concluded prior to deadline, even if they send confirmation to the fa slightly after deadline. They ask for evidence from email trails etc to show that things were concluded. This comes from somebody within the professional game that would 100% know. Presumably fifa don't take the same view of things such explains why the fa are happy to register the transfer but fifa aren't. So the FA now go to FIFA and say the issue and delay was at their end and the Apprentice responsible has been duly reprimanded
CosbehFox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 Looks like Leverkusen having a registeration issue regards a player from Argentina. Clubs agreed a deal but Argentinian FA didn't play ball with the certificate issuing. They have now asked FIFA to sort it.
st albans fox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 I wonder exactly what our tack is on this. We may be pursuing several avenues which are mutually exclusive - hence until one door is confirmed locked another one can't be tried. perhaps the end game could be that the Portuguese fa afirm that he is not an employee of SCP (with SCP confirmation as per their financial statement this week) and hence they are no longer able to hold his international registration. The English FA have already been denied approval to take this by FIFA. Hence the player becomes 'stateless' re his registration- like a free agent. the English fa can then take this on board. whilst this could provide precedent of a type FIFA will not want, the fact that the deal between the two clubs was legally transacted before the deadline should be enough for them to waive it through.
Gerard Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 55 minutes ago, st albans fox said: I wonder exactly what our tack is on this. We may be pursuing several avenues which are mutually exclusive - hence until one door is confirmed locked another one can't be tried. perhaps the end game could be that the Portuguese fa afirm that he is not an employee of SCP (with SCP confirmation as per their financial statement this week) and hence they are no longer able to hold his international registration. The English FA have already been denied approval to take this by FIFA. Hence the player becomes 'stateless' re his registration- like a free agent. the English fa can then take this on board. whilst this could provide precedent of a type FIFA will not want, the fact that the deal between the two clubs was legally transacted before the deadline should be enough for them to waive it through. I've thought that myself about the "stateless" argument. There really shouldn't be a point in time when a player ISN'T registered with one club or the other.
Livid Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 59 minutes ago, st albans fox said: I wonder exactly what our tack is on this. We may be pursuing several avenues which are mutually exclusive - hence until one door is confirmed locked another one can't be tried. perhaps the end game could be that the Portuguese fa afirm that he is not an employee of SCP (with SCP confirmation as per their financial statement this week) and hence they are no longer able to hold his international registration. The English FA have already been denied approval to take this by FIFA. Hence the player becomes 'stateless' re his registration- like a free agent. the English fa can then take this on board. whilst this could provide precedent of a type FIFA will not want, the fact that the deal between the two clubs was legally transacted before the deadline should be enough for them to waive it through. I don't know where we are at. The fact that the Club seems to be still speaking to Sporting vexes me. Reading between the lines I just get the feeling that we are wanting him in nowish or we don't want him at all. I agree waiting until January isn't a good option for anyone but we should honour the deal with Silva.
easilee Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 There is no benefit to FIFA by not letting it go through on appeal. A few hundred thou fine and it'll go through. As long as a couple of senior FIFA officials get their Bentley's valeted free for a year, we'll get our man.
st albans fox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 1 minute ago, easilee said: There is no benefit to FIFA by not letting it go through on appeal. A few hundred thou fine and it'll go through. As long as a couple of senior FIFA officials get their Bentley's valeted free for a year, we'll get our man. We are unaware of the politics that plays out there every day. An opportunity to kick the FA and premier league may have been sitting in their intray for months if not years.
Bluetintedspecs Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 As we now have a lawyer thread, this blast from the past has it covered C'mon Petrocelli.
A pint of Exmoor Fox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 I'm a long time lurker, first time poster and supporter for over 25 years. The Silva "transfer" saga has driven me to finally joining. As a solicitor with no experience in commercial contracts and sports law (property law is my thing) I don't know if City or FIFA are legally right or wrong on this. Some really good, persuasive arguments in this thread though and believe it or not English contract law is very based on common sense so they may be right. However, I don't think the club will go to the CAS and challenge FIFA. It would probably take a month or two at least and there is never any guarantee you will win a court case. Basically City could risk a big legal bill just to get Silva for a few games. The cost of losing (poss. Low likelihood of winning plus high costs) probably outweighs the potential benefit (Silva plays a couple games). I also think the club's lawyers have told them they probably they won't win. It is all very "We're working together...solution...all parties" etc. If they had a strong case they'd be saying much stronger things in public, like the Sporting president has, or even applied to the CAS already. Just me reading between the lines and could be wrong but if my Firm were instructed in a commercial dispute then this is what would usually happen. Gutted for the player and the club.
HighPeakFox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 Something I noticed on this thread was an apparent (judging by the bizarre references to Brexit and the EU) conflation of FIFA and UEFA. Although, to be fair, one could argue it's all the same s**t under a different name.
UniFox21 Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 1 minute ago, A pint of Exmoor Fox said: I'm a long time lurker, first time poster and supporter for over 25 years. The Silva "transfer" saga has driven me to finally joining. As a solicitor with no experience in commercial contracts and sports law (property law is my thing) I don't know if City or FIFA are legally right or wrong on this. Some really good, persuasive arguments in this thread though and believe it or not English contract law is very based on common sense so they may be right. However, I don't think the club will go to the CAS and challenge FIFA. It would probably take a month or two at least and there is never any guarantee you will win a court case. Basically City could risk a big legal bill just to get Silva for a few games. The cost of losing (poss. Low likelihood of winning plus high costs) probably outweighs the potential benefit (Silva plays a couple games). I also think the club's lawyers have told them they probably they won't win. It is all very "We're working together...solution...all parties" etc. If they had a strong case they'd be saying much stronger things in public, like the Sporting president has, or even applied to the CAS already. Just me reading between the lines and could be wrong but if my Firm were instructed in a commercial dispute then this is what would usually happen. Gutted for the player and the club. Agreed here, think FIFA could drag this one out into a costly battle. Whilst one would assume they'll want to save face and not lose anymore dignity after all the raids and such that have gone on and all the headlines and bad press. Think we're a mixture of unlucky to have missed the deadline and just down right stupid to have risked it. But at the same time FIFA once again showing they don't really have any idea what they're doing.
UniFox21 Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 4 minutes ago, foxinsocks said: So what are we doing or chanting today? Flying to FIFA and dirty protesting until they let Silva sign
katieakita Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 7 minutes ago, A pint of Exmoor Fox said: I'm a long time lurker, first time poster and supporter for over 25 years. The Silva "transfer" saga has driven me to finally joining. As a solicitor with no experience in commercial contracts and sports law (property law is my thing) I don't know if City or FIFA are legally right or wrong on this. Some really good, persuasive arguments in this thread though and believe it or not English contract law is very based on common sense so they may be right. However, I don't think the club will go to the CAS and challenge FIFA. It would probably take a month or two at least and there is never any guarantee you will win a court case. Basically City could risk a big legal bill just to get Silva for a few games. The cost of losing (poss. Low likelihood of winning plus high costs) probably outweighs the potential benefit (Silva plays a couple games). I also think the club's lawyers have told them they probably they won't win. It is all very "We're working together...solution...all parties" etc. If they had a strong case they'd be saying much stronger things in public, like the Sporting president has, or even applied to the CAS already. Just me reading between the lines and could be wrong but if my Firm were instructed in a commercial dispute then this is what would usually happen. Gutted for the player and the club. But in effect a £1.5 million fine for allegedly missing a deadline by 14 seconds can that be deemed fair and reasonable with any common sense being shown?
A pint of Exmoor Fox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 With my foxes head on I'd say it should have signed off by FIFA days ago but there are arguments both ways. Also whilst English law is (mostly) common sense we are talking about how FIFA regulations are interpreted and applied and I don't know what jurisdiction is relevant. So if this was between two British companies fighting about a court deadline in England the court would probably allow this if both parties had tried their best to meet the deadline. FIFA eh? At least you knew where you stood when a Blatter was in charge!
SheppyFox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 I swear it was the English that invented the beautiful game? Like a lot of things however we don't really get any say do we, Europeans do.
ZeGuy Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 Dunno if it was already mentioned before but I read that he can't even train with the team?
TheUltimateWinner Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 Just seen he's meant to be in the stands today, dunno if that's been mentioned
HighPeakFox Posted 9 September 2017 Posted 9 September 2017 19 minutes ago, SheppyFox said: I swear it was the English that invented the beautiful game? Like a lot of things however we don't really get any say do we, Europeans do. And there it is, irrelevant and plain untrue.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.