You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Emergency keeper loan / Hart / Brum [All merged]
- Thread starter There is a Light
- Start date
No mate, the way the contract was drafted meant that it had to be a "competitive" England cap. So basically World Cup/Euros or qualifying. Jamaica was only a friendly.
Think our chairman must have made a mistake with drafting. Will get it eventually I guess. Sooner rather than later would be good though.
Think our chairman must have made a mistake with drafting. Will get it eventually I guess. Sooner rather than later would be good though.
Andy1985 said:Maybe Hart will go back to City.
Maybe he will get a competitive England cap.
Maybe then City will pay Shrewsbury Town (My team) the 650k as per his contract that would be an absoloutely massive amount to a league 2 club like us.
Maybe...Hopefully.
Your chairman was not very pleasant about this, even though he knew it was a 'competative start', not a half time friendly sub v T&T.
It is likely to be the autumn at the earliest.
Another point about this ruling - it's actually contradictory.
They say if there was a release clause in the contract it would be fine. Yet won't allow both parties to the contract exit on mutual agreement. Legally you are entitled to do so.
They say if there was a release clause in the contract it would be fine. Yet won't allow both parties to the contract exit on mutual agreement. Legally you are entitled to do so.
bizzbo
Well-Known Member
we ran out of time.projectriver said:We should be in court today. Instead it looks like we have reluctantly accepted a poor decision by the FA to keep the peace. I can't understand what we have to lose taking this to the highest levels immediately.
anyway it's a footballing matter, fa/uefa are recognised bodies, don't they have jurisdiction?... above them it's CAS ....good luck getting a hearing this year!
hongkongblue
Well-Known Member
Posted this under a related thread. Perhaps more appropriate here.
Assuming that the explanation given in The Guardian (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010</a> ... goalkeeper) is correct and that the FA have stymied the deal, then it is not merely unfair, but careless of the contractual rights and commercial expectations of the clubs.
When Club X loans a player to Club Y it is, at bottom, because both clubs see some commercial advantage in it. X, for a time, can share some of its investment in a player and Y gets a player that it might not be able to afford otherwise. The clubs do not have to consult other clubs that might have an interest in whether the loan to Y might improve that club league position and whether X's financial strength is improved. Nor does the FA give other clubs a right of veto in the question of arranging a loan
Given (pardon the pun) that the FA recognizes that loan arrangements can be unwound in the case of emergency-a fact seemingly established to the FA's satisfaction in this case- the same considerations that operated when the loan agreement was entered into arise again-whether it is to the commercial advantage of both clubs to terminate the loan agreement prematurely upon the occurrence of an event which gives rise to premature termination.
As JH has successfully done the job at B/ham for which he was loaned and there is no further advantage in retaining him, that club has a commercial interest in premature termination of the agreement, as does City, for obvious reasons. The consideration for letting JH leave early is something to be negotiated between City and B/ham in the open commercial market until a price is arrived at which is to City's and B/ham's joint satisfaction, even though B/ham is in the driver's seat.
I cannot, for the life of me, at the moment see what third party interests have to do with it. City loaned JH out knowing that FA rules provided for his possible recall in the event of emergency cover being required. All the other clubs knew of the rule and could benefit from it in the case of emergency. It is really incumbent on the FA to explain rationally why its discretion to approve/disapprove was exercised on the basis of third party interests who could likewise plead 'emergency' and attempt to renegotiate a contract to serve their commercial interests. It cannot be that the FA thinks that some clubs have 'more worthy' commercial interests than other clubs.
If the FA explain this move then there is the appearance of bias and confidence in the institution takes yet another knock.
Assuming that the explanation given in The Guardian (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010</a> ... goalkeeper) is correct and that the FA have stymied the deal, then it is not merely unfair, but careless of the contractual rights and commercial expectations of the clubs.
When Club X loans a player to Club Y it is, at bottom, because both clubs see some commercial advantage in it. X, for a time, can share some of its investment in a player and Y gets a player that it might not be able to afford otherwise. The clubs do not have to consult other clubs that might have an interest in whether the loan to Y might improve that club league position and whether X's financial strength is improved. Nor does the FA give other clubs a right of veto in the question of arranging a loan
Given (pardon the pun) that the FA recognizes that loan arrangements can be unwound in the case of emergency-a fact seemingly established to the FA's satisfaction in this case- the same considerations that operated when the loan agreement was entered into arise again-whether it is to the commercial advantage of both clubs to terminate the loan agreement prematurely upon the occurrence of an event which gives rise to premature termination.
As JH has successfully done the job at B/ham for which he was loaned and there is no further advantage in retaining him, that club has a commercial interest in premature termination of the agreement, as does City, for obvious reasons. The consideration for letting JH leave early is something to be negotiated between City and B/ham in the open commercial market until a price is arrived at which is to City's and B/ham's joint satisfaction, even though B/ham is in the driver's seat.
I cannot, for the life of me, at the moment see what third party interests have to do with it. City loaned JH out knowing that FA rules provided for his possible recall in the event of emergency cover being required. All the other clubs knew of the rule and could benefit from it in the case of emergency. It is really incumbent on the FA to explain rationally why its discretion to approve/disapprove was exercised on the basis of third party interests who could likewise plead 'emergency' and attempt to renegotiate a contract to serve their commercial interests. It cannot be that the FA thinks that some clubs have 'more worthy' commercial interests than other clubs.
If the FA explain this move then there is the appearance of bias and confidence in the institution takes yet another knock.
SalfordCityBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 2,476
projectriver said:Instead it looks like we have reluctantly accepted a poor decision by the FA
Again.
Don't blame the club, but we do seem to be taking it up the arse from the FA a lot this year with barely a whimper.
Have to say, that lawyer rambling on about Spurs and Villa being furious and possibly suing the FA has cheered me right up this morning. They must be rattled...
Project said:And we should absolutely not be doing any business with Birmingham this summer. They've burned their bridges.
This. If we do loan Hart out next year (i know unlikely due to Givens injury), then Brimingham, if they enquire should be told to "do one"
bizzbo
Well-Known Member
hertsblue said:Project said:And we should absolutely not be doing any business with Birmingham this summer. They've burned their bridges.
This. If we do loan Hart out next year (i know unlikely due to Givens injury), then Brimingham, if they enquire should be told to "do one"
reading between the lines, they'd blown it already, mcleish had spoken out of turn once too often