Sounds like Blackburn really like Cairney!

A few of us said something like that. As i dont see Blackburn being promoted this season it would be good business to make TC a part of any Jordan Rhodes deal. Not sure if Blackburn have paid anything to us yet for Evans either ?

In saying that, I suspect that there will be other championship clubs wanting Tom if he carries on like this.

Let the bidding commence............

 

Ive just checked and it's 6 months and the fact that he turns 23 in Jan means we dont get a penny compensation.

 

Blackburn have massive debts and are losing money big time. Under the new FFP rules they may well have to sell and trim down there squad especially if promotion looks unlikely. Venkys dont have a clue about football finance. As for Rhodes and Askew i would suggest that off the records talks have already been had. Twt but we shall have to wait for January.

Does not matter as agents can talk with anyone anytime.

 

Where did you look? Wherever it is was wrong.

"Within 7 days of the first Saturday in May, or the date of the last competitive Match of the Club’s first team, whichever is the later, the Club must give notice in writing to the Player indicating that either the Club offers a re-engagement or, if appropriate, exercises any option contained in the agreement.
(iv) If the notice offers re-engagement it must specify the period which the Club is prepared to agree and the terms and conditions to apply, which must be the same or not less favourable overall than those which applied during the initial period of employment – or the option period (if applicable).
(v) The Player must notify in writing the Club holding the registration within 28 days of receipt of the said notice whether or not the offer of re- engagement is accepted.
(vi) If the offer is rejected the Player is immediately free to negotiate with another Club.
(vii) If the Player does not reply in writing to the offer of re-engagement then at the expiry of a period of 28 days, the Player is free to negotiate with another Club.
(viii) In either of the instances as set out in Rules C1(j)(vi) and (vii) above, the Club holding the Player’s registration has the right to receive compensation. The Player’s registration for the new Club will not be accepted until such time as the Club has confirmed in writing to The Association that it will negotiate a compensation fee with the former Club failing which it will abide by any decision taken by an appeal committee comprising those persons pursuant to Rule C1(j)(xii) (a “League Appeals Committee”)."

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/.../fa-rule-c---relating-to-players-2013-14.ashx

 

I cant remember where I saw it now, some employment law website. So where does it specify about foreign clubs being allowed to speak to them? There's no reference to different rules between English and EU clubs here. Im no expert but I wouldve thought that was illegal. You yourself said a player can speak to foreign teams 6 months before the end of their deal so why doesnt it say that here?

 

It's a very strange rule. All I know for fact is we can approach and confirm transfers long before seasons end for players at foreign clubs in their final 6 months of contract, but we can only approach players at other professional English clubs in their final month (or at least until the seasons finished as that rule portrays on the face of it).

I think foreign clubs can approach players at English clubs in the final 6 months of their contract, but I have no idea whether the final month rule is unique to England or the same in every nation.

Just to back it up, you can find English clubs confirm free transfers for players at foreign clubs at any point in the players final 6 months of contract easily, Van Wolfswinkel being one recently, but you try and find any free transfer confirmed between one English club to another before the end of the season. There aren't any.

 

That, I believe is true in every scenario except transfers between 2 English clubs. Like I said I don't know for sure whether its the same in every nation, but I believe it's only England.

The rule is one of the English FA's own rules, much like the emergency loan rule and player registration rule to accompany it, which takes precedence over the rule the UEFA or FIFA rule book would display, which is where the general Bosman Rule would be taken from.

Like I said, you try and find any free transfer between 2 English clubs confirmed before the end if the season. If it can be done at any time in a players final 6 months it should be easy...

 

TC will not be going to an English club though, AC Meelan will be swooping in for him and TC can then take his place as the rightful heir to Redondo. Butt ****ing Inter in the process who never get the really big players.....

 

Didn't really answer my question. It doesn't say anywhere in that ruling that foreign clubs can speak to English based players 6 months before the end of their deal which we ALL acknowledge they can do. So why not if this is the definitive ruling?

 

I have no idea, that's the rule extracted straight from the FA website.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a foreign club agreeing a deal for a player at an English club before the end of the season, but as you say I'm fairly certain they can do.

It's not black and white though, there's not really much to be said about it anywhere that I can find.

 

Didn't we do it with George Boyd?

 

We took him on loan, and although everyone knew we'd sign him at the end, the deal wasn't actually done until after the season finished, if anyone remembers he was at the KC a day or two before he jetted off to Vegas. If he could sign in the final 6 months he would have done.

Maybe clubs can give permission for another club to talk to players before the end of season, but a transfer can't actually be agreed and signed off.

 

We signed Boyd officially in the summer. It was agreed long before then but t theoretically anyone else could have come from in for him.

 

& that's the whole point, as he was in the last 6 months of his contract he was free to speak to whoever he liked.

"With six months or less remaining on an existing contract for players aged 23 or older, they are free to negotiate with other clubs and sign a pre-contract agreement, indicating their ability to move to their intended club on a Bosman transfer once the next transfer window opens"

 

George Boyd didn't do that, he didn't sign his deal til the summer, just before he jetted off to Vegas. The rule is there in that extract from the FA's rule book I posted above. They govern football in this country, and if they contradict any rules in UEFA or FIFA's guide, the FA's interpretation holds true.

For instance, FIFA and UEFA rules state that no player may play for more than 2 clubs in the same season, or move clubs outside of a transfer window, yet we all know a player can play for 3, 4 or even 5 if he wants through our unique emergency loan system, which contradicts FIFA rules in more ways than one. It's a similar case with the pre-contract rule the FA has set withing English football, though it appears only to affect transfers between two English clubs.

 

George Boyd didn't sign for us until his old contract ran out, but he did discuss & agree to the move prior to his old contract expiring, as he was free to do so from Jan 1st (providing his contract expired on 30th June). He was also free to discuss terms with any other club in this period.

In the last 6 months of a contract players can speak to other clubs & if they want sign a pre-contract agreement with any club to join them when their contract expires.

These pre-contract agreements are not always legally binding but are usually considered to be if terms such as salary & length of contract form part of the pre-agreement.

 

I believe players could be allowed to discuss terms with another club about a future contract so long as their current employers give the nod, as you say it was reported there was a deal in place for Boyd when we signed him on loan, same as it was also reported Jack Hobbs has a deal in place for when his loan ends a whole season before his contract runs out. Equally it could just be the media saying it and no terms can legally be discussed until the end of the season. Without asking someone who actually knows, we don't really know, as the FA rules aren't really clear on it, from what I read they don't say anything about pre contract agreements being made prematurely with the current employers blessing.

It does say though in black and white that a player cannot enter negotiations with a club until a new contract has been declined by either the club or the player within 7 days of the end of the season. That much is certain, so without our permission, it's definitely not legal for any other English club to approach Tom Cairney about a contract until after the seasons finished.

Also BCC I just noticed you mention Cairney turns 23 in January so we wouldn't be entitled to any compensation. This is not the case, if a player under 24 refuses a new contract from their current club, whoever they sign for will have to pay compensation. So as long as we offer Cairney a new deal on equal terms to what he's currently on, if he goes elsewhere we will get compensation for him.

 

http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/john-shea/item/the-enforceability-of-pre-contracts-in-football


The advent of the transfer window and the Bosman ruling in 1995, which enabled players to agree to join a new club six months before the player’s contract with his present club is due to expire, has meant that pre-contracts between clubs and players have become increasingly common. Pre-contracts come in many different forms but generally speaking it is an agreement providing for the player to join the club on a future date.

The nature of a pre-contract can often lead to the parties misinterpreting its legal effect and disputes can arise when one party fails to honour its obligations under the pre-contract. A dispute recently arose between Scottish player, Richard Brittain, and clubs Ross County and St Johnstone. In January, Richard Brittain signed a pre-contract with St Johnstone ahead of a move to the club in the summer from Ross County. However, Richard Brittain subsequently changed his mind about the transfer for personal reasons and signed a new contract with Ross County. St Johnstone insisted that Richard Brittain was bound to the pre-contract that he had signed and threatened legal action against Richard Brittain for breach of contract.

Are pre-contracts binding?
The enforceability of a pre-contract will depend on the specific terms of the agreement. Pre-contracts are generally not binding under English law as they are usually marked “Subject to Contract” and are simply a commitment by the parties to enter into a later contract. The difference between a pre-contract and a contract is that the parties to the pre-contract have not agreed the essential terms and so the pre-contract does not reflect the final agreement. However, if a pre-contract contains all the essential terms that have been agreed, then the pre-contract is effectively a final contract and is likely to be binding.
FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (“DRC&#8221 has had to determine on a number of occasions whether a pre-contract has binding effect when a dispute between a club and a player has arisen. The DRC has generally held that a pre-contract is binding if it contains essential terms such as the duration of the contract, remuneration and additional benefits. Another factor taken into account by the DRC is whether the pre-contract has come into effect. If the pre-contract has been terminated prior to when it is due to take effect, then the DRC has been reluctant to find that the pre-contract is binding whilst if the parties have already begun to perform their obligations under the pre-contract prior to any termination, then this is usually evidence to prove that the parties intended to be bound by the terms of the pre-contract. In an attempt to release themselves from the obligations under a pre-contract, parties have attempted to allege that the validity of a pre-contract was conditional upon a player successfully completing a medical or obtaining a work permit however the DRC has rejected all such arguments on the basis that Article 18(4) of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012 prevents the validity of a contract between a player and a club being “subject to a successful medical examination and/or the grant of a work permit.”

Conclusion
The dispute involving Richard Brittain was ultimately resolved after Ross County agreed to pay St Johnstone compensation. In order to avoid similar disputes, clubs and players should exercise caution when entering into pre-contracts given the risk of the parties being bound by the pre-contract at an earlier stage than they intended. A breach of a pre-contract without just cause would entitle the innocent party to compensation and likely lead to sporting sanctions being imposed on the party in breach in accordance with Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012. If the parties do not intend to be bound by the terms of the pre-contract, then they should expressly state that the document is not the final contract and that its terms are not intended to be legally binding.
A club, like Ross County, that considers signing a player who has signed a pre-contract with another club should also tread carefully as the club and the player would be jointly and severally liable for any compensation payable if the player is found to have breached the pre-contract without just cause (Article 17(2) of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012). Sporting sanctions can also be imposed on the club for inducing the player to breach the pre-contract as there is a presumption, unless established to the contrary, “that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach” (Article 17(4) of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012).

 

All that does is explain FIFA's ruling on whether a pre contract is binding or not and give an example in Scotland, which is not governed by the English FA.

I reiterate, that the final month rule is the English FA's own rule and not FIFA's, so players in Scotland signing pre-contracts 6 months prior holds no comparison, it's under a different governing body.