I'll hardly be the first to bring this up, but I still don't know the answer, so I will.
It strikes me as a serious restraint of trade.
Is the guy not allowed to work until next season?
Or, despite having been released by the Saintees, does he remain on their payroll until his contract would have been up?
New Signing
Until someone comes on who knows what they are talking about, here is my stab in the dark. Do FIFA rules apply to a player looking to move to another country, but in the meantime he could be permitted to play for another Scottish club?
The summer-leagues idea still allows players to 'do a Beckham' and move from the home club to another in their home club's off-season but maybe, for some reason (I use the term loosely), FIFA deemed it inappropriate to allow players to go walkabout around the world, from club to club.
The summer-leagues idea still allows players to 'do a Beckham' and move from the home club to another in their home club's off-season but maybe, for some reason (I use the term loosely), FIFA deemed it inappropriate to allow players to go walkabout around the world, from club to club.
Yes, it is restraint of trade, but FIFA have a well-worn defence that clubs can employ whoever they want, but the rules only apply to football competitions, not employment. Basically, if you sign up to a FIFA-affiliated league, you sign up to FIFA's dumb-ass rules."FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players" wrote:Article 5.3
Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs. As an exception to this rule, a player moving between two clubs belonging to associations with overlapping seasons (i.e. start of the season in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring) may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club during the relevant season, provided he has fully complied with his contractual obligations towards his previous clubs. Equally, the provisions relating to the registration periods (article 6) as well as to the minimum length of a contract (article 18 paragraph 2) must be respected.
Re:
Yes, you're wrong. Loaned = registered. Which is why you can be registered for three clubs and play for two - registered for a parent club (but never play for them, then loaned out to one club for the first half of a season, and a second club for the second half of the season. Probably happens quite a lot to apprentices in the higher divisions."Baboo" wrote:Presumably if he had gone back to Dundee Utd and aksed them to (re)register him they could then have loaned him out to us for the rest of the season and there would have been no problem????
Surely I've got this wrong. It seems too crazy to be true.
Like most FIFA regulations, they've used a thermonuclear sledgehammer to crack the ghost of a theoretical nut.
The only reason I'm thinking that this couldn't possibly happen - is that presumably we were getting him a bucketload cheaper than the contract the Arabs had him on.
Therefore they would have had to have made up the difference in wages despite having released him as we surely wouldn't have paid the same amount (even if the pound is worth approximately three times more in Tayside). Could they re-register him and pay him nowt, and then loan him to us with no monies to be exchanged between the clubs? Seem a long shot.
Academic now, and I'm not sure another Chris-Allen-a-like is what we needed right now anyway.
Therefore they would have had to have made up the difference in wages despite having released him as we surely wouldn't have paid the same amount (even if the pound is worth approximately three times more in Tayside). Could they re-register him and pay him nowt, and then loan him to us with no monies to be exchanged between the clubs? Seem a long shot.
Academic now, and I'm not sure another Chris-Allen-a-like is what we needed right now anyway.
Re:
Not appropriate or relevant."BigCrompy" wrote:The only reason I'm thinking that this couldn't possibly happen - is that presumably we were getting him a bucketload cheaper than the contract the Arabs had him on.
Therefore they would have had to have made up the difference in wages despite having released him as we surely wouldn't have paid the same amount (even if the pound is worth approximately three times more in Tayside). Could they re-register him and pay him nowt, and then loan him to us with no monies to be exchanged between the clubs? Seem a long shot.
Academic now, and I'm not sure another Chris-Allen-a-like is what we needed right now anyway.
Re:
Why is his contract with Dundee United neither appropriate nor relevant? I would have thought that is entirely what we're talking about."tomoufc" wrote:Not appropriate or relevant."BigCrompy" wrote:The only reason I'm thinking that this couldn't possibly happen - is that presumably we were getting him a bucketload cheaper than the contract the Arabs had him on.
Therefore they would have had to have made up the difference in wages despite having released him as we surely wouldn't have paid the same amount (even if the pound is worth approximately three times more in Tayside). Could they re-register him and pay him nowt, and then loan him to us with no monies to be exchanged between the clubs? Seem a long shot.
Academic now, and I'm not sure another Chris-Allen-a-like is what we needed right now anyway.
-
A-Ro
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 pm
- Location: Beset by fools and ne'er do wells.
Re:
Dundee United aka The Arabs."tomoufc" wrote:Not appropriate or relevant."BigCrompy" wrote:The only reason I'm thinking that this couldn't possibly happen - is that presumably we were getting him a bucketload cheaper than the contract the Arabs had him on.
Therefore they would have had to have made up the difference in wages despite having released him as we surely wouldn't have paid the same amount (even if the pound is worth approximately three times more in Tayside). Could they re-register him and pay him nowt, and then loan him to us with no monies to be exchanged between the clubs? Seem a long shot.
Academic now, and I'm not sure another Chris-Allen-a-like is what we needed right now anyway.
It came from a European tie in the 1960 when in order to get the game on, fires were lit on Tannadice to melt the ice. Needless to say they stuffed it up, and there was no grass left. So the club put sand on, and the game was played in conditions not dissimilar to the Sahara.
They were forever after known also as The Arabs, and given the history of the name, it would be equally applicable to the team. It certainly more in use amongst the Dandy Don fans and popular press in those parts than 'Terrors' which you hardly ever hear.
They were forever after known also as The Arabs, and given the history of the name, it would be equally applicable to the team. It certainly more in use amongst the Dandy Don fans and popular press in those parts than 'Terrors' which you hardly ever hear.
If FIFA regs say you can only appear for two clubs, how did Nelthorpe play against us for three different teams last season?
Perhaps it is that the National FAs are led by the FIFA guidelines when registering players. But individual FAs then create their own rules for the leagues they are in charge of.
Perhaps it is that the National FAs are led by the FIFA guidelines when registering players. But individual FAs then create their own rules for the leagues they are in charge of.