Is Adebayor eligible to play against City in the Europa cup?

?

 

First reaction is no but I suppose it could be one of those things that wasn't really considered and therefore didn't get blocked. I'm sure there's probably a UEFA rule against it, even if City had overlooked it.

 

Good question.

I'm not sure if the "Can't play against parent club" applies to all competitions or just the English ones.

Will be interesting to know if anyone can find out.

 

Obviously my first reaction was also no but what about the strange European laws saying that one can't restrict players playing?
UEFA versus European law.

 

Do European Laws affect whether players actually play? Surely they only affect employment. Ade can still be employed by Spurs during a game vs man City - he just can't play. Don't see a conflict.

 

I would be surprised if man city had it in the contract directly, as they would not have expected to be in the europa. But I would expect there to be something in the contract that man city will have the right to overrule on any spurs decision about the player, and will have final say on what the player can do, or the player is not allowed to do anything that will damage his owner club, basically something indirect so they can overrule spurs, as he is technically still there player. Meaning that if they really wanted to they could tell spurs that he wasn't allowed to play, most of these contract have some kind of clause like that so that the parent club can overrule the loan club. If that was the case you would pretty much be reliant on what city wanted.

 

I would be amazed if the lawyers drawing up the contract would have not bothered including a clause covering the eventuality of Man City and Spurs meeting in the Europa simply because it seemed unlikely. Really amazed.

And there can also surely not be anything in a contract that says man City can effectively demand that Ade not play whenever they fancy it. Say we were both fighting for fourth spot again - are you saying that Man City could just turn around to Spurs and say "Ade can't play the last five games of the season cos we don't want him to". No way. No way if would be accepted by the loaning club, no way it would even be suggested, no way an arrangement like that could even technically be called "a loan".

 

Surely the contract will say he can't play against City regardless of the competition? Why limit it?

 

I doubt Ade is contractually allowed to play tiddly-winks against ManArab, let alone anything resembling a game of football....

 

"Meaning that if they really wanted to they could tell spurs that he wasn't allowed to play, most of these contract have some kind of clause like that so that the parent club can overrule the loan club."

Just out of interest - what makes you say that?

 

I would have thought that the clause would've been put in to avoid us playing him against them in domestic cup competitions.
I believe that we're not allowed to use him against them in the league either, even if we sign him permanently in January.

 

I just think that most clubs would look to protect their investment (in this case the player) in the event that kind of dispute were to arise. Meaning that the parent club would have final say, if a dispute were to arise, as the player is technically still owned by man city. I may be completely wrong, but I think most of these contracts allow the parent club to recall or cancel a loan agreement at any time? Or some of them certainly do.

 

At it again I see, how pathetic.

 

Again the word pathetic always springs to mind when I read any of your posts.

 

Guys, guys. I think we can take as as read that none of us know the details of Ade's loan agreement.

However, most agreements seem to have a clause that forbids the player from playing against his home club. Also there must be a threshold (eg if 15 of Citeh's 20 strikers are on the injury list ) before a player can be recalled, although if conditions are broken by the loanees I guess a player can be recalled immediately.

 

I don't think that a player can be recalled from a season-long loan deal unless both clubs agree to it, Chirpy.
I could be wrong.

 

I've said before I believe, don't the parent club have to pay some sort of cancellation fee in the event of an injury crisis?

 

You can't recall them at all in an inter Premier League club loan. I'm sure City could have thrown enough money at Birmingham to make them agree to Hart being recalled two seasons ago but it simply isn't allowed.

 

I think that the Premier League blocked the Hart recall, as the season had already passed the January window, so he would've had to have been registered as an emergency signing.
The rumour is that Birmingham were trying to milk City for everything that they could get, but other interested parties pressured the Premier League into blocking it.
No idea how true that is, in all honesty.