Man Utd (A) - Jonas confirmed available!

[Mick]

you said give me a reason for NUFC not wanting the deal concluded, neither of us mentioned desire as a factor

 

as chicago says the deal was announced weeks ago, if he's not eligible to play sunday someone needs sacking..."want" has nothing to do with it

 

[midds]

If the Jonas registration is true, then I have to assume they will get that resolved in time for Sunday.  They can't afford not to.  They have had a month and a half to identify this problem and find a solution.  If he can't play, someone wants sacking.  You don't run a club like that.

 

this

 

Give me one good reason for NUFC not wanting to tie up this deal and have him available for the game.

your post bears no relevance to the 2 you've quoted

 

You're criticising the running of the club. I'm saying it isn't totally their fault and they want the deal done asap.

 

You want people sacked for not getting the deal done ffs.

you said give me a reason for NUFC not wanting the deal concluded, neither of us mentioned desire as a factor

 

as chicago says the deal was announced weeks ago, if he's not eligible to play sunday someone needs sacking..."want" has nothing to do with it

 

Even if it's not our fault? 

 

Has it occurred to you that a the time we signed him and announced it, we believed the player's documentation was in transit too? The problems may have happened after we confirmed it. You can't rewind time.

 

I'm just saying that I think the club is doing everything it can to get the documents and they're as pissed off about it all as you, I and all of us are. If another party, the Spanish FA, is holding the deal up, it's not our fault.

 

Jesus fucking wept. 

 

i'll reply in 2 ways before kip;

 

1. it's a good point, something unexpected happened after they announced the signing yet they chose not to announce said impediment

 

2. we employ people on crazy wages, embarrassing wages really, to ensure this shit does not happen

 

have you seen it at another club? me either?

 

thus someones not earning their money, fucken sack em

 

Using the 'Webster rule' to sign a player isn't exactly a run-of-the-mill transfer. It's unusual and clubs are still trying to get their heads around the new legislation atm. I'm not exonerating the club totally however, and I hope they learn from their mistakes.

 

I'm suggesting the problems with the missing registration surfaced after we'd signed him and the Spanish FA are backing their team and holding fire for the time being.

 

I don't believe for a second that NUFC don't want this sorted asap and want to play Gutierrez as much and as soon as possible and are doing everything they can to get it resolved.

 

PS. I bet the same twats who are complaining about us announcing the Jonas signing early are the very same twats who are complaining about Coloccini not being confirmed on the website. Maybe, just fucking maybe, Ashley is a bit embarrassed by the Guti deal being held up and is holding fire on going public about the Colo deal. Just a thought.

 

Sleep tight, tiger. x 

 

ah, am i one of those twats then?  research my posts mate, i've consistently said i think colo's our player and am still of that opinion

 

wish i wasn't such a twat

 

oh and your point about ashley & guti/colo is so far beyond embarrassing i'm not even going to pull you on it

 

End of the conversation then isn't it?

[stozo]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

[mrmojorisin75]

If the Jonas registration is true, then I have to assume they will get that resolved in time for Sunday.  They can't afford not to.  They have had a month and a half to identify this problem and find a solution.  If he can't play, someone wants sacking.  You don't run a club like that.

 

this

 

Give me one good reason for NUFC not wanting to tie up this deal and have him available for the game.

your post bears no relevance to the 2 you've quoted

 

You're criticising the running of the club. I'm saying it isn't totally their fault and they want the deal done asap.

 

You want people sacked for not getting the deal done ffs.

you said give me a reason for NUFC not wanting the deal concluded, neither of us mentioned desire as a factor

 

as chicago says the deal was announced weeks ago, if he's not eligible to play sunday someone needs sacking..."want" has nothing to do with it

 

Even if it's not our fault? 

 

Has it occurred to you that a the time we signed him and announced it, we believed the player's documentation was in transit too? The problems may have happened after we confirmed it. You can't rewind time.

 

I'm just saying that I think the club is doing everything it can to get the documents and they're as pissed off about it all as you, I and all of us are. If another party, the Spanish FA, is holding the deal up, it's not our fault.

 

Jesus fucking wept. 

 

i'll reply in 2 ways before kip;

 

1. it's a good point, something unexpected happened after they announced the signing yet they chose not to announce said impediment

 

2. we employ people on crazy wages, embarrassing wages really, to ensure this shit does not happen

 

have you seen it at another club? me either?

 

thus someones not earning their money, fucken sack em

 

Using the 'Webster rule' to sign a player isn't exactly a run-of-the-mill transfer. It's unusual and clubs are still trying to get their heads around the new legislation atm. I'm not exonerating the club totally however, and I hope they learn from their mistakes.

 

I'm suggesting the problems with the missing registration surfaced after we'd signed him and the Spanish FA are backing their team and holding fire for the time being.

 

I don't believe for a second that NUFC don't want this sorted asap and want to play Gutierrez as much and as soon as possible and are doing everything they can to get it resolved.

 

PS. I bet the same twats who are complaining about us announcing the Jonas signing early are the very same twats who are complaining about Coloccini not being confirmed on the website. Maybe, just fucking maybe, Ashley is a bit embarrassed by the Guti deal being held up and is holding fire on going public about the Colo deal. Just a thought.

 

Sleep tight, tiger. x 

 

ah, am i one of those twats then?  research my posts mate, i've consistently said i think colo's our player and am still of that opinion

 

wish i wasn't such a twat

 

oh and your point about ashley & guti/colo is so far beyond embarrassing i'm not even going to pull you on it

 

End of the conversation then isn't it?

touche!

[mrmojorisin75]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

 

so reading that i wonder why he's being trumpeted as a new signing when in reality he's not until we pay whatever we're told to pay, which then may negate the "wonder deal" he was

 

magic

[Guest BooBoo]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

 

Bearing this in mind, you do wonder when we are actually going to see the lad playing for us. :-(

[Mick]

 

i'll reply in 2 ways before kip;

 

1. it's a good point, something unexpected happened after they announced the signing yet they chose not to announce said impediment

 

2. we employ people on crazy wages, embarrassing wages really, to ensure this s*** does not happen

 

have you seen it at another club? me either?

 

thus someones not earning their money, fucken sack em

 

Give your head a shake.

 

Rules are not set by our club, we're bringing a player in by using a rule which is relatively new and it's the first time we've used it so we'll have to learn as we go on, it will be the same for the Spanish FA and his former club who understandably don't want to lose out.  They would be stupid to throw the towel in without a fight and I would hope we would do the same if the situation was reversed.

 

You calling for a sacking because of this is stupid to say the least.

 

[stozo]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

 

so reading that i wonder why he's being trumpeted as a new signing when in reality he's not until we pay whatever we're told to pay, which then may negate the "wonder deal" he was

 

magic

Strictly speaking we won't have to pay anything, Gutierrez will, but I assume we'd pay it for him anyway.The cost of the deal will depend on what clauses Gutierrez had in his contract e.g. future goal bonuses and how much the FIFA hearing decides those clauses are worth. This could also be delayed by the fact by the sounds of it Velez and Mallorca are fighting it out to see who gets more money.

[Dave]

From the Wiki entry on Webster:

 

The transfer was a protracted affair; it took several months before contracts were approved by FIFA, and the governing body took further time to ascertain if Webster's former club were due any compensation. The matter was further complicated by Hearts' initial refusal to release the player from their books as they sought to challenge the decision.

 

...

 

FIFA were highly critical of the ruling; president Sepp Blatter said "the verdict in favor of the player will have far-reaching and damaging effects on the game as a whole. [it] is... a Pyrrhic victory for those players and their agents who toy with the idea of rescinding contracts before they have been fulfilled."

 

[mrmojorisin75]

 

i'll reply in 2 ways before kip;

 

1. it's a good point, something unexpected happened after they announced the signing yet they chose not to announce said impediment

 

2. we employ people on crazy wages, embarrassing wages really, to ensure this s*** does not happen

 

have you seen it at another club? me either?

 

thus someones not earning their money, fucken sack em

 

Give your head a shake.

 

Rules are not set by our club, we're bringing a player in by using a rule which is relatively new and it's the first time we've used it so we'll have to learn as we go on, it will be the same for the Spanish FA and his former club who understandably don't want to lose out.  They would be stupid to throw the towel in without a fight and I would hope we would do the same if the situation was reversed.

 

You calling for a sacking because of this is stupid to say the least.

 

your stupid is my intelligent then mate - stupid to me is announcing a signing that under a tiny microscope of scrutiny we see there are many many complications and possible pitfalls

 

give your head a shake and you'll see geremi and duff on sunday at old trafford

[Mick]

 

so despite knowing nothing and admitting the webster ruling is a grey area you're perfectly confident all is well then?  wierd

 

and as i said earlier if the club knew he couldn't play they should have used pre-season for players they know can, outlandish opinion i know

 

If he doesn't play then somebody will replace him and it's almost certain that it will be somebody who played last season so will know his team mates.  The player who would benefit more from pre-season was given a few games to work with his team mates, even if it takes a week or two before he gets league games.

[Mick]

 

Bearing this in mind, you do wonder when we are actually going to see the lad playing for us. :-(

 

I doubt this will take as long to sort out as the original ruling was based on nothing, this one has a precedence to follow.  We’ll be used as a test case to fine tune the rules, not set them.

[Guest JamesD]

I'm more worried about having to play Shola or Smith for Owen and Martins instead of either Duff, Milner, or N'zogbia for Gutierrez. Obviously i'd love to see him play, but there are certainly more pressing issues within the team, and I'm sure we'll know more about it after the game anyways. Chill.

[chicago_shearer]

 

i'll reply in 2 ways before kip;

 

1. it's a good point, something unexpected happened after they announced the signing yet they chose not to announce said impediment

 

2. we employ people on crazy wages, embarrassing wages really, to ensure this s*** does not happen

 

have you seen it at another club? me either?

 

thus someones not earning their money, fucken sack em

 

Give your head a shake.

 

Rules are not set by our club, we're bringing a player in by using a rule which is relatively new and it's the first time we've used it so we'll have to learn as we go on, it will be the same for the Spanish FA and his former club who understandably don't want to lose out.  They would be stupid to throw the towel in without a fight and I would hope we would do the same if the situation was reversed.

 

You calling for a sacking because of this is stupid to say the least.

 

 

Let's say we don't get off to a good start, and a talented player like Jonas is stuck watching from the stands for a month or even two.  What then?  Do we blame Mallorca for wanting more money or the procedures the club knew FIFA had in place to deal with Webster deals?  Or ourselves.  Is that just the price we pay?

 

This is an 11th placed squad aiming to improve about 10 points (based on last season) and climb to 8th.  Three days before the start of the season, we have made only two improvements in that direction, and the board made a gamble that may keep one of them out of the team until an arbitration panel hopefully decide in our favour.  Why should I be giving them the benefit of the doubt? 

[stozo]

 

Bearing this in mind, you do wonder when we are actually going to see the lad playing for us. :-(

 

I doubt this will take as long to sort out as the original ruling was based on nothing, this one has a precedence to follow.  Well be used as a test case to fine tune the rules, not set them.

It's not precedent in one sense as the ruling has been used before. But it is precedent as it is the first time dual ownership has come into it and unfortunately although we have nothing to do with the Mallorca/Velez who gets the most compensation battle, we won't be allowed to register Gutierrez until it's sorted.

[UV]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

 

Webster's registration wasn't held up until the amount of the compensation was agreed though was it? Theoretically, there should be no hold up at all as it's quite clear in the regulations that he is entitled to break his contract, the only matter to be resolved is the amount of the compensation and to whom it should be paid. Can't really blame the club if FIFA/UEFA are being slow about it.

[Mick]

your stupid is my intelligent then mate - stupid to me is announcing a signing that under a tiny microscope of scrutiny we see there are many many complications and possible pitfalls

 

give your head a shake and you'll see geremi and duff on sunday at old trafford

 

We announced a signing because the player signed a contract with us, most clubs announce signings before international clearance comes through, this is just another form of red tape along those lines.

[Guest JamesD]

FWIW, both .com and the official site have him down as our player.

[stozo]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

 

Webster's registration wasn't held up until the amount of the compensation was agreed though was it? Theoretically, there should be no hold up at all as it's quite clear in the regulations that he is entitled to break his contract, the only matter to be resolved is the amount of the compensation and to whom it should be paid. Can't really blame the club if FIFA/UEFA are being slow about it.

Going off memnory I don't think Webster played until it was all sorted. Theoretically that's how it should work but the ruling is just too new for it too work like that, it may work like that in 2 or 3 years time but not at the moment.

[Guest Heneage]

Is thisnot just like Charlie? He still played while we sorted the comp out with Le Harve?

[JH]

Is thisnot just like Charlie? He still played while we sorted the comp out with Le Harve?

 

No, we held his registration. We don't hold Jonas' yet (apparently)

[stozo]

Is thisnot just like Charlie? He still played while we sorted the comp out with Le Harve?

Diffferent because Charlie was on a youth deal not a professional contract at Le Harve.

[Mick]

 

Let's say we don't get off to a good start, and a talented player like Jonas is stuck watching from the stands for a month or even two.  What then?  Do we blame Mallorca for wanting more money or the procedures the club knew FIFA had in place to deal with Webster deals?  Or ourselves.  Is that just the price we pay?

 

This is an 11th placed squad aiming to improve about 10 points (based on last season) and climb to 8th.  Three days before the start of the season, we have made only two improvements in that direction, and the board made a gamble that may keep one of them out of the team until an arbitration panel hopefully decide in our favour.  Why should I be giving them the benefit of the doubt? 

 

A rule is in place, I don't see how it could go against us.  If any of the ruling bodies had wanted to change it then it would have been done before now.  By allowing Webster to move they've opened the doors for others to use it, if we have to wait then so be it.

 

The only thing which could really be in doubt is how much is paid in compensation and who gets it.

 

[chicago_shearer]

Fucks sake people how many times do I have to post this.

 

Article 17 is not yet like the Bosman ruling. You can't just invoke it and sign the player. You have to invoke it then if the selling club (Mallorca) refuses to recognize Article 17 then FIFA/UEFA have to hold a hearing (which based on the Webster precedent took a decent amount of time) to decide who pays who how much compensation, which is further complicated in this case by the fact Mallorca and Velez both own him. The dual ownership aspect of Article 17 has never been seen before so there is no precedent so it will take more time to get FIFA to transfer his registration.

 

Webster's registration wasn't held up until the amount of the compensation was agreed though was it? Theoretically, there should be no hold up at all as it's quite clear in the regulations that he is entitled to break his contract, the only matter to be resolved is the amount of the compensation and to whom it should be paid. Can't really blame the club if FIFA/UEFA are being slow about it.

Going off memnory I don't think Webster played until it was all sorted. Theoretically that's how it should work but the ruling is just too new for it too work like that, it may work like that in 2 or 3 years time but not at the moment.

 

If they get some sort of special dispensation to allow him to play in the mean time, then fair enough.  I take back what I said.  A very shrewd business deal that improved the squad, well done Wise & Ashley.

 

Otherwise, they took a big gamble to save some money on a player we wanted, and that might negatively affect our results on the pitch.  In the mean time, and with full knowledge of the complications involved, they made very few noteable improvements to an underperforming squad before the start of the season. 

 

[Mick]

It's not precedent in one sense as the ruling has been used before. But it is precedent as it is the first time dual ownership has come into it and unfortunately although we have nothing to do with the Mallorca/Velez who gets the most compensation battle, we won't be allowed to register Gutierrez until it's sorted.

 

Who the former owner was shouldn't stop him from moving, who is to be compensated should not hold the players registration up.