Yep, that's possible. But that's why I said the fine should be a percent of the transfer fee to make it more equitable.
Adrian Silva: arrives at Leicester 14 seconds too late
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Well, that escalated quickly
That just becomes a tax the rich clubs get used to paying and the poor suffer because of.
If it was to ever happen it would be essential that it all goes to a charity rather than UEFA's coffers.
For me, this is the main point here and not the 14 seconds. If the 'transfer' itself wasn't done in time - even by 1 second, the rule is there for a reason and should be upheld. It's a bit like saying the ball was only over the line by 1mm so the goal shouldn't stand.
It should be one transaction for both the transfer going through and the eligibility of the player to play for his new club. The whole transaction goes through or not at all. In the modern day of electronic banking and other IT systems, it is ridiculous that only part of this transaction stands. FIFA need to take a look at their processes and systems so that this can't happen. I actually think it may be a human rights issue if he isn't allowed to play football for his club.
Are you suggesting that being 'only just' offside isn't offside? Putting aside the fact we don't have the ability or technology, to detect this, if we did then this would be absolutely correct.
Then the deadline is 12:01.
No, because he is working and being paid. In the same way you can't apply the same logic to cup tied players.
No, it's not. He has no rights to play for a private association and his right to work is actually respected since he has an employer.
Rules are rules.
I was just using your 20% model. £40m wouldn't have stopped PSG if it came to it with Neymar and I think the same if United had to pay another £15m to sign Lukaku.
But I think it far harder on a club like Leicester to pay a £6-8m fine on a £30-40m player.
Serves them right. The cnuts spent all summer trying to feck Chelsea over for an extra £8m.
Now enjoy writing off 10% of the contract and 6 months wages. That gouged money not looking so good now is it.
Now enjoy writing off 10% of the contract and 6 months wages. That gouged money not looking so good now is it.
What about the player, does he deserve to miss out on football?Serves them right. The cnuts spent all summer trying to feck Chelsea over for an extra £8m.
Now enjoy writing off 10% of the contract and 6 months wages. That gouged money not looking so good now is it.
Yeah that's a bit of a problem. Just saw he is 28 as well so 6 months without football could harm his international career a great deal.
No, I am all for using sense while assessing these sorts of situations. If you are 0.1 mm in front of the defender, gaining zero advantage whatsoever, goal should stand because that's the logical thing to do. Also that there's difference between margins, a significant one too, and all the nonsense about 'it doesn't matter if it's 1 day or 1 second' is just that, pure nonsense.
Call me a fool but I want football to not only be about a 500-page book of rules, I want it to be about 22 men kicking the ball, the excitement and emotions surrounding it. I absolutely hate that we are moving towards football being more about documents and books of rules than about the actual game itself, and even more so concerned that majority of fans are LOVING it.
Brexiteers don't even know what Brexit means. A 12 o'clock deadline for transfers on the other hand, is not hard to understand.
They might as well loan him out and offer to continue paying his wages.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/feb/03/sport.comment
"In the old days, the benefit of the doubt was always given to the defender. Now, hopefully, it will be given to the attacker."
That offside analogy isn't very helpful. It's more like getting a second yellow, because you kicked the ball towards the goal, a couple of centiseconds after the offside whistle.
And while we are correcting analogies - the bus driver one wasn't very good either, because of the huge chasm in relative frequency. Rather than driving daily, this would be much more akin to driving a bus full of tourists to (say Greece), making a 15 minute cigarette break, and then deciding that the guy who is late from the toilet and running towards you, deserves to have the door slammed shut before his face, because - hey, rules are rules after all, and you did say 15 minutes.
None of this is as relevant as the fact that we simply would not know that this ever happened, had they just registered him. The whole precedent setting argument is therefore ludicrous.
And while we are correcting analogies - the bus driver one wasn't very good either, because of the huge chasm in relative frequency. Rather than driving daily, this would be much more akin to driving a bus full of tourists to (say Greece), making a 15 minute cigarette break, and then deciding that the guy who is late from the toilet and running towards you, deserves to have the door slammed shut before his face, because - hey, rules are rules after all, and you did say 15 minutes.
None of this is as relevant as the fact that we simply would not know that this ever happened, had they just registered him. The whole precedent setting argument is therefore ludicrous.
This is probably the least controversial controversy ever.
They were late. Doesn't matter by how much.
Tough shit.
They were late. Doesn't matter by how much.
Tough shit.
No It's more like you know the offside rule you score goal which is offside because either striker's hair, hand, leg, t-shirt is offside, linesman givan offside but somehow you think common sense should be use as striker don't want to be offside, and striker is so honest he will not celebrate if he score offside goal.
The fact that we wouldn't know is irrelevant. The problem concerns other clubs, across the globe thousands of transactions are made at the last minute and you can't subjectively decide that 15 seconds late isn't a big deal, why would it be a lesser deal than 20 seconds, 2 minutes, 15 minutes or a worse deal than 2 seconds?
The line has been drawn in order to put everyone in the same objective situation, you just have to respect that line.
Can they mutually terminate his contract thereby relegating him to being an out of contract player? Then they can resign him with a similar contract and get him registered?
It really is not, unless you're willing to drop the whole precedent setting part of the argument, which is so prominent throughout the thread. 'Thousands of transactions' is silly talk.
So many analogies flying around, so here's some more:
- A runner failing to meet the Olympic qualifying time by 0.01 seconds. Just let them in, its common sense!
- A boxer not making weight by 0.1 pounds. Just let them fight, its common sense!
- A footballer being too old for an U-X tournament by 5 minutes Just let them play, its common sense!
Surely Leicester could just release him from the contract and sign him again as a free agent?
Would be funny if he signed for someone else on a free.
I think the main issue is that the transfer of the player and the registering of the player is independent. Surely if the player has been tranferred there should be flexibility in being able to registering them. Or even make them dependent on each other so he's a Sporting player. This really and truly shouldn't be able to happen.
Are there any other cases where a player has been transferred during a transfer window, but not registered (apart from transfer bans)?
That second yellow analogy is admittedly much better. But RULES ARE RULES!!!!!!!!!
None of the above actually prevents anybody from continuing to work in their profession though, and all but the last one is actually related to something the athlete had the chance to affect.
It's more like an equivalent of a boxer being disqualified from fighting because they were 5 seconds late for weigh-ins because his managers had failed to organize a transport for him and he was stuck in a huge traffic using an Uber instead. He did not really benefit from that and nobody really did, and it's something he couldn't really affect but he will end up screwed anyway.
I've never been as convinced by Freud's concept of anal retentiveness, as I am reading this thread.
There are legal reasons for that if I remember correctly but I'm not a lawyer so wouldn't be able to explain them.
The problem is that what we call transfer is just a transfer of contract, clubs declare that a player has a new employer. That fact is independent to the FIFA, they can't do anything about it and it has no baring on whether a player can play in Football Association. That's why you have two actions, first the clubs have to present the new contract, then the FIFA will register the player as a member of the Association and linked with a certain club according to the contract.
You can also see why transfer bans don't exist and are instead registration ban.
Rules that can't be bent or broken when it makes sense are silly in my eyes. Personally I wouldn't make any fuss about 14 seconds or even 14 minutes in this case. Why strictly enforce something if it doesn't cause any problems or disadvantages for anybody?
The only reasonable complaint I'd accept would be by a club competing with Leicester that has followed the rules. Even if I personally think it'd be silly, I'd understand their complaint.
The only reasonable complaint I'd accept would be by a club competing with Leicester that has followed the rules. Even if I personally think it'd be silly, I'd understand their complaint.
Isn't that literally exactly what happens in boxing, and other martial arts, by catchweight? Usually with the one not making weight fined 20% of their purse.
The transfer deadline is garbage. Total garbage.
Just take a day off them in the next window. Or a week.
Punish the club. Not the player.
Without it, clubs like Leicester would be having their players poached throughout the season.
We are in September I suggest you learn how to count if you think it's 6 months until JanuaryServes them right. The cnuts spent all summer trying to feck Chelsea over for an extra £8m.
Now enjoy writing off 10% of the contract and 6 months wages. That gouged money not looking so good now is it.
14 seconds becomes 28 becomes 42 etc etc. The deadline has to be hard and fast or it's irrelevant. Frustrating and unfortunate for the player though
If this was us the whole thread would be unanimous in calling Woodward a cnut. Beautiful it would be
Moral of the story don't move to Liverpool.