citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 18,302
Depends when it starts - if it's 1 July 2017 then it's only one yearThat article says it's 2 years this ban with an extra one year suspended in case we go and mess up again.
Depends when it starts - if it's 1 July 2017 then it's only one yearThat article says it's 2 years this ban with an extra one year suspended in case we go and mess up again.
Depends when it starts - if it's 1 July 2017 then it's only one year
Actually yeah... so three years suspended means we are on some kind of probation for three years after it? Why do they bother saying it's 2years at all then, lawyers never say anything clearly do they?Depends when it starts - if it's 1 July 2017 then it's only one year
Actually yeah... so three years suspended means we are on some kind of probation for three years after it?
This was Liverpools ban: 'The ruling means Liverpool cannot sign players who have been registered to another Premier League or English Football League academy for two years. The second year of the ban is suspended for a three-year period.'Actually yeah... so three years suspended means we are on some kind of probation for three years after it? Why do they bother saying it's 2years at all then, lawyers never say anything clearly do they?
10. Who cares anyway. The academy will probably produce one or two players maximum in the next 5 years.
11. English players are generally shite.
12. St Bede's will be more worried than anyone when the gravy train stops for a year.....
I read that as meaning a 1 year ban from 30th June 2017 to 30th June 2018 and then the other year suspended for 3 years from that date. I might be wrong though.
So we didn't offer any bribes or financial enticement... we only offered to take them on at our academy? Fair enough the rules are the rules but morally we haven't done much wrong in my eyes, except offer them a much better chance at making a good career for themselves with a much better academy, nothing shady about that.
Isn't Marwood nominally in charge of the academy? **** needs to pull his finger out, he's got more resources at hand than any person in an equivalent role at another club, no excuse for this shit.
I disagree with that, I'm not defending the breaking of the rules(we know the rules or should do and we should follow them) but from a moral standpoint and the best interests of these kids the talk of "false hope" is just rubbish... we have one of, if not THE best setup around in the UK. Put it this way who'd have a better chance of making a success of themselves a player at ours or someone at a small club with less resources, worse coaches, less staff, less attention to detail, don't we have an on campus college now for our academy?Big clubs can exploit parents and children by giving them false hope (deliberately, or simply because parents themselves can get carried away with dreams etc). It's dangerous, because the best interests of a young player aren't just about the biggest club with the best facilities. It's also important for smaller clubs to be able to invest in, and develop young players with the threat of big clubs cherry picking players on a seeming whim, and in large numbers - before ditching them. Giving someone a 1 in a million chance of playing for a PL club is not always a better deal than a 1 in 1000 chance of playing for a championship or lower league club.