|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Jun 15, 2023 16:12:53 GMT
Multiball rule. That'll upset Carlisle Was annoying when some refs decided that you had to use just the one ball. Even if it went into the stand and there was one pitch side, they insisted on waiting for the original to return. Not every ref did this either which was more confusing. David Moyes when at Everton used to have multiball if they needed to score and original ball retrieval if protecting a scoreline so it could change mid game. Absolutely no idea how he got away with it. Pre planned time wasting. Can't blame him for it not being flagged |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,460 
|
Post by pirate on Oct 4, 2024 9:02:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Oct 4, 2024 9:56:16 GMT
It says they agreed with most of FIFA's rules on it, but said only two parts were not right. I can't see it making too much difference. If anything if players couldn't sign long contracts, they might lose out. I think this was because the club cancelled the contract and sacked him. I don't think a player can just cancel it without a good reason? |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,460
|
Post by pirate on Oct 4, 2024 11:34:10 GMT
It says they agreed with most of FIFA's rules on it, but said only two parts were not right. I can't see it making too much difference. If anything if players couldn't sign long contracts, they might lose out. I think this was because the club cancelled the contract and sacked him. I don't think a player can just cancel it without a good reason? I think we'll have to see what happens after it all settles down, but it sounds quite significant. "Should the ECJ rule that it was unlawful of FIFA to refuse the ITC in this situation it would lead to the revision of its transfer regulations, and that would be very problematic." "The potential issue for clubs is that there would be a big swing in power to the players and agents, with players able to break contracts at any point. There would likely have to be new body set up to determine the kind of compensation that clubs were due, and it would effect the value of players in the transfer market due to the lack of security around it, taking away the ability to negotiate with clubs and a club’s ability to refuse a transfer if a player had expressed a willingness to leave." "It would also likely be punitive for clubs outside the elite group, those who seek to try and keep their assets so that they can improve and break into that top level." "It also would potentially impact the ability of those kind of clubs to aid their revenue-generating potential through effective player trading, a model which many European clubs now follow and one that has been the financial lifeblood for them in recent years. On the flipside, however, is the potential for it to be damaging for the players themselves." "If contracts don’t have the kind of security that they do right now then what clubs are really going to be paying huge salaries to players if they can break deals at any time? It would almost certainly see driving down of player salaries across the board as the potential value that the players had held under the transfer regulations that exist today would be much different, and the ability to negotiate and use leverage would be taken out of their hands and decided by a panel who would determine compensation." "Without transfer income to support paying salaries, the ability for clubs to pay the sums they have been would diminish. It would also likely see squad sizes balloon, with some big clubs potentially stockpiling players." www.football.london/premier-league/lassana-diarra-court-case-explained-30070620 |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Oct 4, 2024 13:25:52 GMT
It says they agreed with most of FIFA's rules on it, but said only two parts were not right. I can't see it making too much difference. If anything if players couldn't sign long contracts, they might lose out. I think this was because the club cancelled the contract and sacked him. I don't think a player can just cancel it without a good reason? I think we'll have to see what happens after it all settles down, but it sounds quite significant. "Should the ECJ rule that it was unlawful of FIFA to refuse the ITC in this situation it would lead to the revision of its transfer regulations, and that would be very problematic." "The potential issue for clubs is that there would be a big swing in power to the players and agents, with players able to break contracts at any point. There would likely have to be new body set up to determine the kind of compensation that clubs were due, and it would effect the value of players in the transfer market due to the lack of security around it, taking away the ability to negotiate with clubs and a club’s ability to refuse a transfer if a player had expressed a willingness to leave." "It would also likely be punitive for clubs outside the elite group, those who seek to try and keep their assets so that they can improve and break into that top level." "It also would potentially impact the ability of those kind of clubs to aid their revenue-generating potential through effective player trading, a model which many European clubs now follow and one that has been the financial lifeblood for them in recent years. On the flipside, however, is the potential for it to be damaging for the players themselves." "If contracts don’t have the kind of security that they do right now then what clubs are really going to be paying huge salaries to players if they can break deals at any time? It would almost certainly see driving down of player salaries across the board as the potential value that the players had held under the transfer regulations that exist today would be much different, and the ability to negotiate and use leverage would be taken out of their hands and decided by a panel who would determine compensation." "Without transfer income to support paying salaries, the ability for clubs to pay the sums they have been would diminish. It would also likely see squad sizes balloon, with some big clubs potentially stockpiling players." www.football.london/premier-league/lassana-diarra-court-case-explained-30070620We will see. Most of the reports I've read, don't think it will come to that. The issue here, was that the club cancelled the contract and then tried to make him pay compensation and he couldn't sign for another club, while it was going on. That is against guidelines. But a lot of what FIFA do, is within guidelines. Obviously it might not work out like that, but that's what I read from a few sources and they said clubs were not worried at all. |
|
|
|
Post by neilv93 on Oct 4, 2024 14:00:45 GMT
It says they agreed with most of FIFA's rules on it, but said only two parts were not right. I can't see it making too much difference. If anything if players couldn't sign long contracts, they might lose out. I think this was because the club cancelled the contract and sacked him. I don't think a player can just cancel it without a good reason? I think we'll have to see what happens after it all settles down, but it sounds quite significant. "Should the ECJ rule that it was unlawful of FIFA to refuse the ITC in this situation it would lead to the revision of its transfer regulations, and that would be very problematic." "The potential issue for clubs is that there would be a big swing in power to the players and agents, with players able to break contracts at any point. There would likely have to be new body set up to determine the kind of compensation that clubs were due, and it would effect the value of players in the transfer market due to the lack of security around it, taking away the ability to negotiate with clubs and a club’s ability to refuse a transfer if a player had expressed a willingness to leave." "It would also likely be punitive for clubs outside the elite group, those who seek to try and keep their assets so that they can improve and break into that top level." "It also would potentially impact the ability of those kind of clubs to aid their revenue-generating potential through effective player trading, a model which many European clubs now follow and one that has been the financial lifeblood for them in recent years. On the flipside, however, is the potential for it to be damaging for the players themselves." "If contracts don’t have the kind of security that they do right now then what clubs are really going to be paying huge salaries to players if they can break deals at any time? It would almost certainly see driving down of player salaries across the board as the potential value that the players had held under the transfer regulations that exist today would be much different, and the ability to negotiate and use leverage would be taken out of their hands and decided by a panel who would determine compensation." "Without transfer income to support paying salaries, the ability for clubs to pay the sums they have been would diminish. It would also likely see squad sizes balloon, with some big clubs potentially stockpiling players." www.football.london/premier-league/lassana-diarra-court-case-explained-30070620My interpretation of the above, rightly or wrongly, is that the premise is that players could effectively pay their way out of a contract. Hypothetical example: Bristol Rovers player signs a contract worth £5,000p/w for three seasons (36 months) = £180,000 'value' (excluding bonuses etc. for the purpose of the example) Birmingharrods then decide they want to sign said player in January. With 30 months left on the contract, the BRFC player could 'buy themselves out' of the contract by paying BRFC the remaining £150,000 (£180,000 / 36 * 30). Birmingharrods could offer the player a signing on bonus worth more than £150,000 to 'cover' the fee, whilst BRFC receive no transfer fee (likely a lot more than £150,000 in this example). That might be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off, but that was my initial interpretation. |
|
