Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
As an African I will give my input. To Europe, AFCON is a nuisance and many (not all) of the European born players with no attachment to their countries also hold it likewise. Matip had no issue playing for Cameroon when they were in the world cup so why is it convenient for him to miss the AFCON now ...??

I'd rather these players choose to play for their birth countries as they only ever choose the African countries when it is apparent they will not make the grade in Germany, France and England. So I'd actually support his banning to prevent the nit picking of which tournaments they would want to play in.

FYI Origi would be playing for Kenya but he chose Belgium to enable him develop. Luckily we have a **** and incompetent FA and that made his decision easy
 
This has got peoples chins wagging apparently


You must log in or register to see images


The reply from Lovren to Fonte

I dont think its a message we're signing him though. Think he's referring to our cup game
 
Tobes said:
Not in this context - no.

Let me give you an analogy. I decide to form a Tiddly Winks League, and draw up a set of rules. You and Saint read the rules and decide to join. Amongst the rules in section 17, clause 4, is a rule that says if you turn up to any tiddly winks league match wearing a Liverpool shirt, you will receive a 6 month ban and a £100 fine. As ludicrous as the rule maybe, you've agreed to it, as you signed the T&C's of my sports club.

For what it's worth in this case I doubt Cameroon will ask for a ban, as it appears the player has no interest in playing for them, as opposed to him being pressured to **** them off. The rule is there to stop abuse of players rights, as well as the rights of the national FA's. Otherwise, clubs could add clauses to players contracts restricting their availability for International duty, or apply massive pressure to the player behind closed doors to refuse to play. Therefore the rule stops both happening as it ensures that the player would be unavailable domestically in any case.
Click to expand...
My squidge-off is the stuff of legend. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
Tobes said:
Not in this context - no.

Let me give you an analogy. I decide to form a Tiddly Winks League, and draw up a set of rules. You and Saint read the rules and decide to join. Amongst the rules in section 17, clause 4, is a rule that says if you turn up to any tiddly winks league match wearing a Liverpool shirt, you will receive a 6 month ban and a £100 fine. As ludicrous as the rule maybe, you've agreed to it, as you signed the T&C's of my sports club.

For what it's worth in this case I doubt Cameroon will ask for a ban, as it appears the player has no interest in playing for them, as opposed to him being pressured to **** them off. The rule is there to stop abuse of players rights, as well as the rights of the national FA's. Otherwise, clubs could add clauses to players contracts restricting their availability for International duty, or apply massive pressure to the player behind closed doors to refuse to play. Therefore the rule stops both happening as it ensures that the player would be unavailable domestically in any case.
Click to expand...

and if the rule is found to be spurious and in contravention of eu employment law?

before bosman max 3 foreign players rule. after it was a free for all.

the point would be if a player could prove his club career was affected by such a ban then he could and should take a case.
 
If I was given the choice to loose Matip to Cameroon or a suspension, I vote suspension. Would prefer he didn't go out there and **** him self. He seems injury prone enough as it is.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
and if the rule is found to be spurious and in contravention of eu employment law?

before bosman max 3 foreign players rule. after it was a free for all.

the point would be if a player could prove his club career was affected by such a ban then he could and should take a case.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it.

It can't be in contravention of employment law as the player is still getting paid and his contract is unaffected , it's a sports bodies suspension from being able to play in X number of games.

The suspension would be no different to any other that is issued due to contravention of the sports 'club's' rules. Sports clubs rules for discip and suspension are agreed by all members, there is therefore no legal challenge in this context.
 
Tobes said:
You're still not getting it.

It can't be in contravention of employment law as the player is still getting paid and his contract is unaffected , it's a sports bodies suspension from being able to play in X number of games.

The suspension would be no different to any other that is issued due to contravention of the sports 'club's' rules. Sports clubs rules for discip and suspension are agreed by all members, there is therefore no legal challenge in this context.
Click to expand...

What about the Bosman ruling though?
 
astro said:
What about the Bosman ruling though?
Click to expand...
<doh>

The bosman ruling was about a player who's contract had expired, and was restricted in his rights to ply his trade elsewhere by his club wanting a fee for his registration. It wasn't about a suspension due to contravening the sports clubs rules or disciplinary procedures, it's got no relevance whatsoever to this issue.
 
Tobes said:
<doh>

The bosman ruling was about a player who's contract had expired, and was restricted in his rights to ply his trade elsewhere by his club wanting a fee for his registration. It wasn't about a suspension due to contravening the sports clubs rules or disciplinary procedures, it's got no relevance whatsoever to this issue.
Click to expand...

[HASHTAG]#bite[/HASHTAG]

<cracker>
 
Not sure the substance of what I just read on Twatter...
But, if advised in advance that he doesn't want to be considered for selection, then Cameron FA have no grounds for requesting a sanction..
Seems to be make sense, but not sure the validity of that report, but I'd like for that to be true!
 
Tobes said:
You're still not getting it.

It can't be in contravention of employment law as the player is still getting paid and his contract is unaffected , it's a sports bodies suspension from being able to play in X number of games.

The suspension would be no different to any other that is issued due to contravention of the sports 'club's' rules. Sports clubs rules for discip and suspension are agreed by all members, there is therefore no legal challenge in this context.
Click to expand...

Its a matter of employment though. Not an old boys club. Hes paid to play so if prevented from doing so he misses out on bonuses pitentially. Ergo.. worth testing in court
 
Lamborini said:
As an African I will give my input. To Europe, AFCON is a nuisance and many (not all) of the European born players with no attachment to their countries also hold it likewise. Matip had no issue playing for Cameroon when they were in the world cup so why is it convenient for him to miss the AFCON now ...??

I'd rather these players choose to play for their birth countries as they only ever choose the African countries when it is apparent they will not make the grade in Germany, France and England. So I'd actually support his banning to prevent the nit picking of which tournaments they would want to play in.

FYI Origi would be playing for Kenya but he chose Belgium to enable him develop. Luckily we have a **** and incompetent FA and that made his decision easy
Click to expand...

My answer woukd be

A) my understanding is its a long term falling out thats gone on longer than his lfc career not a sudden the acn is in the way thing.

B) if a player is born in belgium. As origi was in you example and grows up there all his life imo its not even a decision. All his development was done by belgium. In his case his father was a kenyan footballer.

C) sadly its not a case of birth country v adopted country is it? Its which country give them most return in sponsors or whatever. Enland have seen the same thing as has scotland. Players deciding to go to ireland or ales etc etc if they aint good enough and players declare for england cos it would boost their career.

D) the acn is its own worst enemy. Its timing is stupid in the extreme as not all countries in afrca are boiling in june are they? Its the only major tournament out of sequence nearly globally.dont they get that itd be wider watched if it were not clashing with proper club football.
 
Given he's not played in any qualifiers think would have good grounds to appeal any kind of suspension they may want to put on him.
 
He's made himself unavailable for selection for a good while.. its not a sudden change of heart..
Senegal would have grounds to appeal if Mane didn't turn up all of a sudden given he's played for them whenever he's been able to do so over the last few years!
 
JonnyBaws said:
He's made himself unavailable for selection for a good while.. its not a sudden change of heart..
Senegal would have grounds to appeal if Mane didn't turn up all of a sudden given he's played for them whenever he's been able to do so over the last few years!
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me anyway.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
Its a matter of employment though. Not an old boys club. Hes paid to play so if prevented from doing so he misses out on bonuses pitentially. Ergo.. worth testing in court
Click to expand...

Firstly FFS <doh>

Secondly FFS <doh>

No it isn't mate, as it would be a suspension handed out under the rules of the governing body, if he was found to be transgressing the rules of the governing body of the sport. It's a sports club, with sports club rules, that all who operate within it are bound by, simple as that.

You could apply the same logic you've tried to argue there, to any ban handed out for whatever reason within the game. There is no legal recourse outside of the sport on an issue of this nature.

It's likely to be moot anyway, as I doubt Cameroon will ask FIFA to act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back