|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Mar 22, 2014 12:59:11 GMT
Would it just be a fine of some sort?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 13:00:06 GMT
Could be points deduction?
|
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Mar 22, 2014 13:04:55 GMT
Their word against ours, surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 13:06:25 GMT
I'd be amazed if there wasn't something more formal in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Mar 22, 2014 13:07:01 GMT
I think in lower leagues if an ineligible player is fielded the match is forfeited. If this is relevant to the Ireland situation I'm not sure....
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Mar 22, 2014 13:13:01 GMT
Their word against ours, surely? Maybe a written and signed contract, and the fact the match is on the telly might just constitute prima facie evidence...... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 13:14:21 GMT
This latest bout of incompetence is written in black and white, sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on Mar 22, 2014 13:17:21 GMT
They slated the idea on soccer saturday. They said Villa should pay his wages for this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Mar 22, 2014 13:20:54 GMT
I think a winner from his replacement palacios should do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by slother on Mar 22, 2014 13:22:07 GMT
You get a Higgs Boson.
|
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Mar 22, 2014 13:27:14 GMT
But it's not like this deal was ratified by the league, why can't we just breach the agreement? Would the FA or the PL even have jurisdiction over this?
|
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Mar 22, 2014 13:29:47 GMT
Surely it's just a gentleman's agreement. I don't see how a selling club can get into the contract 'you can't play against ... ' it's tantamount to 3rd party ownership as they are exercising rights analogous to ownership over Ireland
In other words, play him, but if we do we'll never get another player off Villa
|
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Mar 22, 2014 13:32:17 GMT
Let Ireland borrow Simmo"s syrup for the game !!  Nobody would know, our little secret |
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Mar 22, 2014 13:32:18 GMT
Maybe Scholes dripped pizza sauce over that area of the contract and missed it while he was reading it over? Facking Scholes AGAIN....  |
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Mar 22, 2014 13:33:18 GMT
He wouldn't be ineligible as far as the authorities are concerned, but I assume Villa would sue us for breach of contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattythestokie on Mar 22, 2014 13:41:24 GMT
Depends whether it was a verbal agreement or written i suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeloyal on Mar 22, 2014 13:45:59 GMT
If we've agreed verbally or otherwise it'd be pretty sly and shoddy business to go back on our word, regardless of punishment.
Why we agreed to the clause in the first place is another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 13:54:36 GMT
I'd be amazed if there wasn't something more formal in place. We'll have signed a contract with Villa when we took over Ireland's contract. That contract will have a clause in it preventing Ireland playing against Villa this season. We'd be in breach of that contract, of which Villa will have a copy, and Ireland would be deemed to be an ineligible player. I'd imagine there would be a hefty fine and probably a big points deduction as we could hardly claim ignorance given that Villa and ourselves would have copies of the contract. I think the points deduction in the circumstances could well be 10 points or thereabouts - enough to relegate us if we don't have a good last 8 games. |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Mar 22, 2014 13:55:46 GMT
They can only deduct points if we flout PL rules surely? This is a separate contractual agreement, I would imagine Villa could sue for breach but the PL could do naff all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 13:57:41 GMT
If we've agreed verbally or otherwise it'd be pretty sly and shoddy business to go back on our word, regardless of punishment. Why we agreed to the clause in the first place is another matter. If we didn't agree to the clause then I assume Villa would have said that in that case Ireland remains on loan and the loan is not converted to a permanent transfer. You could argue with hindsight that it might have been better if Ireland had remained on loan as we haven't really got much game time out of Guidetti. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 13:58:58 GMT
They can only deduct points if we flout PL rules surely? This is a separate contractual agreement, I would imagine Villa could sue for breach but the PL could do naff all. Not abiding by a contract IS flouting Premier League rules. All contracts have to be drawn up to be WITHIN those rules. |
|
|
|
Post by jarvinski on Mar 22, 2014 14:02:31 GMT
It's in black and white in the contract that he can not play against villa
|
|
|
|
Post by roosterscomb on Mar 22, 2014 14:04:38 GMT
They can only deduct points if we flout PL rules surely? This is a separate contractual agreement, I would imagine Villa could sue for breach but the PL could do naff all. It is in the PL rules. Clause V.7.3, clubs can agree to this rule when a loan is made permanent but it has to be put in writing to the League at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 14:06:22 GMT
Surely it's just a gentleman's agreement. I don't see how a selling club can get into the contract 'you can't play against ... ' it's tantamount to 3rd party ownership as they are exercising rights analogous to ownership over Ireland In other words, play him, but if we do we'll never get another player off Villa Yes, this seems most likely....as it suited stoke to remove Ireland from the loan list. If he was on loan, no one would question him not playing against his parent club. For Villa to let us take his contract over, as relegation rivals, allowing him to play against them (when they could just keep the status quo of the existing loan contract) would be a really really stupid move for them. This seems the win/win. Stoke get the player, Villa don't carry the risk. I think this is a more sensible arrangement than people are making out |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Mar 22, 2014 14:06:44 GMT
We forfeit 2 pizzas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 14:11:02 GMT
Surely it's just a gentleman's agreement. I don't see how a selling club can get into the contract 'you can't play against ... ' it's tantamount to 3rd party ownership as they are exercising rights analogous to ownership over Ireland In other words, play him, but if we do we'll never get another player off Villa Yes, this seems most likely....as it suited stoke to remove Ireland from the loan list. If he was on loan, no one would question him not playing against his parent club. For Villa to let us take his contract over, as relegation rivals, allowing him to play against them (when they could just keep the status quo of the existing loan contract) would be a really really stupid move for them. This seems the win/win. Stoke get the player, Villa don't carry the risk. I think this is a more sensible arrangement than people are making out Rubbish. Have a look at Roosterscomb post about 4 posts above above. It has to be in writing and a copy has to be filed with the Premier League. This isn't something which has developed over years and years - it was a RULE CHANGE agreed recently. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 14:15:34 GMT
Yes, this seems most likely....as it suited stoke to remove Ireland from the loan list. If he was on loan, no one would question him not playing against his parent club. For Villa to let us take his contract over, as relegation rivals, allowing him to play against them (when they could just keep the status quo of the existing loan contract) would be a really really stupid move for them. This seems the win/win. Stoke get the player, Villa don't carry the risk. I think this is a more sensible arrangement than people are making out Rubbish. Have a look at Roosterscomb post about 4 posts above above. It has to be in writing and a copy has to be filed with the Premier League. This isn't something which has developed over years and years - it was a RULE CHANGE agreed recently. Sorry....are you saying that both clubs could not have agreed Ireland not playing against them in order for Stoke to take over the contract? I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club? |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Mar 22, 2014 14:16:26 GMT
They can only deduct points if we flout PL rules surely? This is a separate contractual agreement, I would imagine Villa could sue for breach but the PL could do naff all. It is in the PL rules. Clause V.7.3, clubs can agree to this rule when a loan is made permanent but it has to be put in writing to the League at the same time. Fair enough! |
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Mar 22, 2014 14:17:32 GMT
They can only deduct points if we flout PL rules surely? This is a separate contractual agreement, I would imagine Villa could sue for breach but the PL could do naff all. It is in the PL rules. Clause V.7.3, clubs can agree to this rule when a loan is made permanent but it has to be put in writing to the League at the same time. There we go so time to get fucking over it. Every fucker and his sister on here was in favour of the move at the time so stop the whingeing now FFS. Gouranga.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 14:21:33 GMT
Rubbish. Have a look at Roosterscomb post about 4 posts above above. It has to be in writing and a copy has to be filed with the Premier League. This isn't something which has developed over years and years - it was a RULE CHANGE agreed recently. Sorry....are you saying that both clubs could not have agreed Ireland not playing against them in order for Stoke to take over the contract? I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club? loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. But If the agreement was that he could not (as in this case) then this had to be put as a clause into the contract between Villa and Stoke and a copy had to go to the Premier League. Simples. But Stoke were never in a position to INSIST that Ireland could play unless Villa were happy about that. |
|
