James Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 To me this is a stupid ruling. It just encourages wages to get even more out of hand in order to put players off from having to pay out there contracts. How can FIFA, or anyone else, ignore the actual transfer fee being paid?.. It is out of FIFA's hands, it is the EU which has forced this clause into FIFA law, and it is the CAS that has enforced it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 it's got me wondering though, illegal approaches, tapping up and what not... in a car park.... chairman of surreal madrid ...'psst, swarfega, here's a few roberto to buy out your contract at panchester, and come to us, wink wink nudge nudge' swarfega... 'hokay, senor' ....tootles off and buys contract out, panchester's manager has aneurysm through rage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 To me this is a stupid ruling. It just encourages wages to get even more out of hand in order to put players off from having to pay out there contracts. How can FIFA, or anyone else, ignore the actual transfer fee being paid?.. It is out of FIFA's hands, it is the EU which has forced this clause into FIFA law, and it is the CAS that has enforced it. Well whoevers done it, there idiots.. I can see a lot of court cases coming from this ruling, evenually ending in the ruling being changed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 To me this is a stupid ruling. It just encourages wages to get even more out of hand in order to put players off from having to pay out there contracts. How can FIFA, or anyone else, ignore the actual transfer fee being paid?.. It is out of FIFA's hands, it is the EU which has forced this clause into FIFA law, and it is the CAS that has enforced it. Well whoevers done it, there idiots.. I can see a lot of court cases coming from this ruling, evenually ending in the ruling being changed. It has been to court, and has been victorious just like the Bosman ruling. Going to be very difficult to come back from this now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 FIFA have taken it to court perhaps, but there are many courts and many clubs out there who won't accept this. The Bosman ruling is one thing, it actually makes sense and was always going to be accepted, this ruling doesn't make sense and won't be accepted IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 FIFA have taken it to court perhaps, but there are many courts and many clubs out there who won't accept this. The Bosman ruling is one thing, it actually makes sense and was always going to be accepted, this ruling doesn't make sense and won't be accepted IMO. Indeed there are many courts, but you can appeal an counter-appeal, and it is these two courts who ultimately make the final decisions regardless of what gets said elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 it's got me wondering though, illegal approaches, tapping up and what not... in a car park.... chairman of surreal madrid ...'psst, swarfega, here's a few roberto to buy out your contract at panchester, and come to us, wink wink nudge nudge' swarfega... 'hokay, senor' ....tootles off and buys contract out, panchester's manager has aneurysm through rage Id assume, that th emoney must come from the players pocket, and accordingly would eb unable to accept such a payment. BUT! You wonder does he have enough money to do it, cos theres nowt stopping Madrid giving him the money back in terms of a signing on fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 FIFA have taken it to court perhaps, but there are many courts and many clubs out there who won't accept this. The Bosman ruling is one thing, it actually makes sense and was always going to be accepted, this ruling doesn't make sense and won't be accepted IMO. Indeed there are many courts, but you can appeal an counter-appeal, and it is these two courts who ultimately make the final decisions regardless of what gets said elsewhere. I just think that after enough cases are brought by clubs themselves this ruling will be re-thought, its too idiotic not to be BTW which two courts are you actually referring to? CAS is obviously the Court of Arbitration for Sport, what's the other? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 it's got me wondering though, illegal approaches, tapping up and what not... in a car park.... chairman of surreal madrid ...'psst, swarfega, here's a few roberto to buy out your contract at panchester, and come to us, wink wink nudge nudge' swarfega... 'hokay, senor' ....tootles off and buys contract out, panchester's manager has aneurysm through rage Yay! The return of Diego Swarfega. Are we on to sign him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Swarfega will never join us, so many better clubs are in for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfrederi Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/webster-ruling-sets-transfer-landmark-447523.html http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/webster-ruling-opens-exit-door-for-bigname-stars-784861.html Couple of links from independent quite old though In one of them states that players must give notice to their clubs within 15 days of the end of the season to enact it Fifa has suspended Webster for the first two weeks of next season for breaking his contract "without just cause", but this punishment is not for moving, per se, but rather for a technical anomaly in the amount of notice that Webster gave Hearts of his departure. Players wanting to "buy out" of contracts should tell their clubs within 15 days of the end of a season. Webster apparently told Hearts later than necessary, believing a Scottish Cup final was the end instead of Hearts' last league game Seems was a compromise as the EU wanted to abolish transfer fees all together Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Just seen it mentioned in another thread that while a player can pay off his contract and leave after three years the club he goes to also has to pay the same amount to the club he's leaving. So in effect the club the player leaves would get twice the worth of the remaining contract. Does anyone know if it definitely works like this? If so its much more reasonable then I first thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Just seen it mentioned in another thread that while a player can pay off his contract and leave after three years the club he goes to also has to pay the same amount to the club he's leaving. So in effect the club the player leaves would get twice the worth of the remaining contract. Does anyone know if it definitely works like this? If so its much more reasonable then I first thought. I don't think that's true at all. BTW. The old board were probably thinking about this when they gave everyone high wages. Way ahead of their time they were. Spurs are gonna be stuffed, what with their 1K/week wage ceiling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now