bizzbo
Well-Known Member
Bonol said:
did you see that game? he was their best player by miles,kid you not. danny collins and co were all over the shop, farcical.
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.
did you see that game? he was their best player by miles,kid you not. danny collins and co were all over the shop, farcical.
hongkongblue
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
bizzbo
Well-Known Member
hongkongblue said: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.
good post. but the other side is 'the integrity of the competition', a vague catchall that covers the rights of all other clubs as interested third parties. the bottom line is the rules were not well thought out, and will be rewritten this summer, no doubt. the fa have taken advantage of the urgency of our situation, they know we can't enter a prolonged arguement and have to accept the decision, whereas if they ruled the other way, spurs etc. would have all summer, and beyond, to challenge them.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,223
The Premier League/FA/Whoever urgently need to sit down and thrash out all the possible permeations within the game and then bring in some top-notch lawyers to draft a new set of all-encompassing regulations.bizzbo said:good post. but the other side is 'the integrity of the competition', a vague catchall that covers the rights of all other clubs as interested third parties. the bottom line is the rules were not well thought out, and will be rewritten this summer, no doubt. the fa have taken advantage of the urgency of our situation, they know we can't enter a prolonged arguement and have to accept the decision, whereas if they ruled the other way, spurs etc. would have all summer, and beyond, to challenge them.
This situation is like the Liverpool Champions League farce all over again. Why had no one envisaged this situation ever happening and why don't a set of black and white rules exist to govern it?
Is it really that difficult to imagine a team winning the Champions League and then not finishing in the top 4? And is it really that difficult to imagine that a team who is granted an emergency keeper loan may want to bring back one of their own keepers who is already out on loan? Of course it isn't; it just requires a tiny little bit of forethought.
But instead, the Premier League just blunder their way down blind alleys, making it up as they go along. How about they start earning the obscene amounts of money they are paid and attempt to properly regulate the game. They need to start using their imaginations and become a bit more proactive, rather than just waiting for things to happen and then reacting to them in a way that sets ridiculous and unenforceable precedents.
Basically, they need to stop acting like complete fucking idiots.
If Spurs had a striker crisis (through injuries) would City be happy with them recalling Robbie Keane from Celtic (And the premier league sanctioning it) who could then potentially score against us and potentially win that final 4th place spot?
Having said that ,the fact they allowed us to bring in a keeper at all shows that they agree that we need a keeper,so not to then allow us to bring back our own keeper doesn't really make any sense.
Having said that ,the fact they allowed us to bring in a keeper at all shows that they agree that we need a keeper,so not to then allow us to bring back our own keeper doesn't really make any sense.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,223
You answered your own question there. The PL view the position of goalkeeper as a specialist one that is governed by separate rules. If you have no strikers available, you can push a defender or midfielder up top, but the PL recognise that the same can't be done with a goalkeeper.royle said:If Spurs had a striker crisis (through injuries) would City be happy with them recalling Robbie Keane from Celtic (And the premier league sanctioning it) who could then potentially score against us and potentially win that final 4th place spot?
Having said that ,the fact they allowed us to bring in a keeper at all shows that they agree that we need a keeper,so not to then allow us to bring back our own keeper doesn't really make any sense.
Once they say we can have one, they can't then start dictating the quality of that player. I understand they are wary of legal action from other teams, but if they drafted their own sodding regulations properly, they would have nothing to fear.
the kippax wall
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 628
IrishMacca said:On another note, and it's sad to read people seem to be almost happy to have Given gone for a while thinking Hart will get the no. 1 jersey now no bother thinking it's the perfect opp to get Given out and Hart in, great timing and all. Which is rather sad to hear.
And depending on who you talk to here, Given will be, apparently, out for about 3ish plus months, apparently he's having an op on Weds.
Probably the most positive of the articles I've read lately as some of the English media has taken the tone of most people on here, saying Given should be pushed aside to second choice when he's back, and he should make room for England's number one.
Anyway, hopefully it's only about 3 months he's out for, but it seems if many had their way on here he'd never wear a City jersey again if Hart's around.
Next season we'll have Englands best keeper and Irelands best. Got to be said though, Out of the two I still reckon Given is a better keeper.
KarlTheBlue
Active Member
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2009
- Messages
- 38
ChippyPerthBlue said:Immaculate Pasta said:About as thick as some people not understanding the rules.
If a player is loaned out to another club in whatever division or even another country there is nothing that prevents a clause to bring the player back if required.
Obviously this would not suit all clubs looking to secure loan players and may have been the reason a recall clause was not included in this deal with Birmingham.
a recall clause wasnt included in the loan deal i believe, but surely if we wanted, we could ask for them to give us joe hart for the rest of the season and we will then re-loan him back to them for the 10/11 season.
bluevengence
Well-Known Member
if this is true we should never ever deal with them brunmmie twats again.....cheeky fookers
However, City's attempts to recall Hart from St Andrew's ended amid shambolic scenes shortly after 9pm on Tuesday as the Premier League rendered hours of wrangling over compensation a total irrelevance.
City were already struggling to conclude a deal with Birmingham as - after offering to waive a loan fee of £460,000, pick up Hart's £30,000-a-week wages and settle outstanding agents' fees - they were shocked by the Midlands club's demands.
Birmingham wanted City to pay £800,000 for every league position they dropped between now and the end of the season and compensate them for any season ticket revenue they lost ahead of next year as a result of slipping down the table.
Birmingham also demanded a further £250,000 if City finished in the Champions League places.
City were never likely to agree to these demands but talks were due to continue this morning before the Premier League stopped the move
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1269333/Birmingham-goalkeeper-Joe-Harts-return-Manchester-City-blocked.html#ixzz0mNDyfjx7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0mNDyfjx7</a>
However, City's attempts to recall Hart from St Andrew's ended amid shambolic scenes shortly after 9pm on Tuesday as the Premier League rendered hours of wrangling over compensation a total irrelevance.
City were already struggling to conclude a deal with Birmingham as - after offering to waive a loan fee of £460,000, pick up Hart's £30,000-a-week wages and settle outstanding agents' fees - they were shocked by the Midlands club's demands.
Birmingham wanted City to pay £800,000 for every league position they dropped between now and the end of the season and compensate them for any season ticket revenue they lost ahead of next year as a result of slipping down the table.
Birmingham also demanded a further £250,000 if City finished in the Champions League places.
City were never likely to agree to these demands but talks were due to continue this morning before the Premier League stopped the move
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1269333/Birmingham-goalkeeper-Joe-Harts-return-Manchester-City-blocked.html#ixzz0mNDyfjx7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0mNDyfjx7</a>