Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

[dbtcity]

4 hours ago, NewEnglandFox said:

He's in limbo so both teams would rather he be put in bubble wrap than have exposed to the possibility of getting injured in training.

This just imagine we went through the appeals committee it gets rejected... he's trained with us and got injured... then we try to send him back to sporting or on the flip side he continues to train with sporting gets injured and we're successful in our appeal!!

 

Once we've had the final verdict via FIFA he'll begin training with us if we're deemed to own the player or back at sporting if there was a clause inserted so stop panicking about him being unable to train with either club before jan as it simply won't be the case

[Grebfromgrebland]

This just seems like such a farce, is there actually any example of there ever being a player in the same situation where they literally have to wait to the next transfer window to play?

 

With de gea he just carried on with man u. Silva has effectively been disowned by Sporting. Is this a first and unique situation?

[shen]

11 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

This just seems like such a farce, is there actually any example of there ever being a player in the same situation where they literally have to wait to the next transfer window to play?

 

With de gea he just carried on with man u. Silva has effectively been disowned by Sporting. Is this a first and unique situation?

Pretty sure Ben Arfa couldn't play when he joined Nice from Newcastle in January as he had featured for them and Hull already in the same season. I believe FIFA rules state a player cannot play for more than two different teams in one season.

[vanity]

5 hours ago, Collymore said:

It's not pathetic form FIFA. 

 

It's very frustrating for us of course but understandable why FIFA have to implement this by the letter of the law.

They can't make exceptions for one club and then not for another, that would make a mockery of FIFA and be very dangerous in the long run.

 

We missed the deadline so we have to face all the consequences associated with that, however annoying they are. 

 

 

I think the larger issue is that a player should not be penalized in such a situation, and yet, it appears Silva will be without a successful appeal. The rejection of the registration should be reversed, but that won't change the fact FIFA needs to have a rule for this precise situation so that the player is not punished in a restraint of trade sort of way. It would be much, much simpler  for FIFA to accept Leicester/Sporting's argument and then revise their rules, rather than face a lawsuit of some sort from the player. They know that, so I have ever reason to believe they will do the right thing, accept that it was SENT on time, and RECEIVED late, which is consistent with FIFA's regulations, and then revise the rules at their next opportunity to better clarify the transfer rules, including what happens to a player caught in such a situation.

 

EDIT: and it is not clear at all that we missed the deadline. The rule is it has to be sent in teh window, not received in the window.

[Clever Fox]

9 minutes ago, vanity said:

I think the larger issue is that a player should not be penalized in such a situation, and yet, it appears Silva will be without a successful appeal. The rejection of the registration should be reversed, but that won't change the fact FIFA needs to have a rule for this precise situation so that the player is not punished in a restraint of trade sort of way. It would be much, much simpler  for FIFA to accept Leicester/Sporting's argument and then revise their rules, rather than face a lawsuit of some sort from the player. They know that, so I have ever reason to believe they will do the right thing, accept that it was SENT on time, and RECEIVED late, which is consistent with FIFA's regulations, and then revise the rules at their next opportunity to better clarify the transfer rules, including what happens to a player caught in such a situation.

 

EDIT: and it is not clear at all that we missed the deadline. The rule is it has to be sent in teh window, not received in the window.

Proof of sending it on time should be the deciding factor. Who knows if their server or network crashed or not for a few minutes or seconds due to the heavy load of deadline transactions.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

52 minutes ago, vanity said:

I think the larger issue is that a player should not be penalized in such a situation, and yet, it appears Silva will be without a successful appeal. The rejection of the registration should be reversed, but that won't change the fact FIFA needs to have a rule for this precise situation so that the player is not punished in a restraint of trade sort of way. It would be much, much simpler  for FIFA to accept Leicester/Sporting's argument and then revise their rules, rather than face a lawsuit of some sort from the player. They know that, so I have ever reason to believe they will do the right thing, accept that it was SENT on time, and RECEIVED late, which is consistent with FIFA's regulations, and then revise the rules at their next opportunity to better clarify the transfer rules, including what happens to a player caught in such a situation.

 

EDIT: and it is not clear at all that we missed the deadline. The rule is it has to be sent in teh window, not received in the window.

I wish the whole thing was clear not shrouded in mystery like it is

 

come on City : FIFA : Sporting let's sort it all out

[WigstonWanderer]

14 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

FIFA has no control over where or who a player trains with. The player and his club

decide where he trains. I suspect it is LCFC who have told Silva to train on his own.

Surely this has to be the case. Why on earth would regulations stop him training with the rest of the team? Can't be right. Not having it. No, no, no, no, no....

[fox_favourite]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Surely this has to be the case. Why on earth would regulations stop him training with the rest of the team? Can't be right. Not having it. No, no, no, no, no....

Stringer made the point it could be due to insurance issues. If you're not a registered player and you break your leg in training say, the insurance wouldnt cover it/would invalidate the insurance. This seems a feasible reason that only registered players are covered.

 

But saying that Hammond played with the u23s for a while?

[urban.spaceman]

I wonder what was on that last page that caused all this bother by arriving 14 seconds late? 

 

I'm going to guess at: 

"For office use only"

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Stringer made the point it could be due to insurance issues. If you're not a registered player and you break your leg in training say, the insurance wouldnt cover it/would invalidate the insurance. This seems a feasible reason that only registered players are covered.

 

But saying that Hammond played with the u23s for a while?

I suspect deano's policy renewal would be covered by a Sunday morning bring and buy sale !!

 

not really comparing eggs with eggs and i assume dean is still registered to play by the English FA. 

 

Think more the case case of someone being injured by him in training. The insurance company with riyad's policy would refuse to pay if silva ended his career via an unfortunate training ground accident. 

[Callabinho]

Put aside all of the hysteria and bullshit and just take a look at this recent window and the state of football today. 

 

It's dead ladies and gentlemen. 

[mozartfox]

10 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes, I think it's called restraint of Trade.

Restraint clauses are only valid and effective if they are reasonable. The Punishment seems to be totally unreasonable on Silva.

Restraint of Trade is English Law.  The contract should have a Jurisdiction Clause which hopefully is 'English Law and Jurisdiction'.

[nwl fox]

3 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Stringer made the point it could be due to insurance issues. If you're not a registered player and you break your leg in training say, the insurance wouldnt cover it/would invalidate the insurance. This seems a feasible reason that only registered players are covered.

 

But saying that Hammond played with the u23s for a while?

'kin hell, Stringer said something that makes sense, these are worrying times!

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, mozartfox said:

Restraint of Trade is English Law.  The contract should have a Jurisdiction Clause which hopefully is 'English Law and Jurisdiction'.

Hopefully, You're right. Then again it may be covered by European Law as there are 3 nationalities involved. The two Clubs plus Fifa.

 

Maybe we should flood FIFA with emails pointing out the unfairness of it all.

[Countryfox]

13 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Hopefully, You're right. Then again it may be covered by European Law as there are 3 nationalities involved. The two Clubs plus Fifa.

 

Maybe we should flood FIFA with emails pointing out the unfairness of it all.

Lets hope they're not late ...

[dedlock]

7 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Hopefully, You're right. Then again it may be covered by European Law as there are 3 nationalities involved. The two Clubs plus Fifa.

 

Maybe we should flood FIFA with emails pointing out the unfairness of it all.

Whether it's English or EU law that applies the ultimate decision must be fair and reasonable. As with any quasi judicial decision there should be an element of discretion to ensure a fair outcome.

 

Currently we have only the suggestion that the notification was received 14 seconds after the deadline expired. All the circumstances must be taken into account to arrive at a proportionate and reasonable decision, not least the welfare ot the player. This game we all enjoy is ultimately only possible through the 22 men on the pitch.

 

 

[dpjfox]

Have we actually officially appealed?. I thought we might just accept it, but if we have good enough evidece we might go for it

If i was a mediator i would find a solution that pleases/punishes

ie hefty fine, Silva can train with first team but only play competitive for Development squad until January

[Clever Fox]

He's either our player or Sportings legally so he should be allowed train with one or the other Clubs. The whole thing is ridiculous

 

The player is the innocent party. No court is going to stand over how he's been treated.

[The whole world smiles]

6 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

He's either our player or Sportings legally so he should be allowed train with one or the other Clubs. The whole thing is ridiculous

 

The player is the innocent party. No court is going to stand over how he's been treated.

My guess is legally he can train with us but we are not letting him to put extra pressure on FIFA to rule in our favour.

[Gerard]

10 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

My guess is legally he can train with us but we are not letting him to put extra pressure on FIFA to rule in our favour.

 

Also we probably haven't ruled out the possibility of not going through with the transfer on some technicality. If he trains with us it's an admission he's our player.

[dedlock]

9 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

My guess is legally he can train with us but we are not letting him to put extra pressure on FIFA to rule in our favour.

If the deal was completed but the delay was formally registering, unless the transfer was conditional on such registration,he is our player. He attended Saturday's game,which suggests he considers himself a City player 

 

It appears the club are hedging their bets until the issue of registration is resolved. We should support the player and involve him whatever the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

[FoxinNotts]

Leave it to the club and their lawyers. Despite what some people think on this forum, our owners are astute and clever people. They know what they are doing, and they know more than most posters on here. I'm sure all is frantically being worked on as fast as possible. We wait with baited breath!

[Snik-Snok]

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...

[weller54]

2 minutes ago, Snik-Snok said:

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...

So,  in brief... 

We're f**ked! 

[Countryfox]

4 minutes ago, Snik-Snok said:

but I would be amazed if FIFA rule he can play for us before January.  

 

1 minute ago, weller54 said:

 

We're f**ked! 

 

That about sums it up then ..

 

See you all in January ...