david in sweden Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 Lots of people remember Arron Davies time with the Saints Academy,(in the Walcott, Bale era) until his subsequent move onto Yeovil. Some Saints fans were sad to see him go but he made good progress there. A later move to Notts Forest looked good for his career, but successive managers have ignored him and he was on his way back to Yeovil on a free transfer UNTIL they discovered that having played for Forest and then being loaned out elsewhere..he can't complete the move, having already played for two sides in one season! This has effectively scre*ed the lads future till August and he is forced to be unemployed until the end of the season because of the FA ruling. There may have been some logic to the original regualtions, but in this case it has worked against him. Being "unemployed" may not be a problem for top players on big salaries who have a " buffer " in their economy, but I think it's tough on Arron, who surely wasn't in that sort of salary bracket. Hope it works out OK for you, Arron.... good luck ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildgoose Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 That's a shame for him. The FA have bent the rules on this already this week, it's a shame the League can't follow suit on this occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markr27 Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 If he was still contracted to a club fair enough, but to prohibit him from being re-employed elsewhere when he's effectively jobless for the next six months is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 (edited) So his contract ran out in January..is that normal ? would have thought the summer is the time for end of contracts, irrespective ffel for the lad and hope at the least he can get training with a club to retain match fitness so ready to roll next season. Edited 29 January, 2010 by INFLUENCED.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 If he was still contracted to a club fair enough, but to prohibit him from being re-employed elsewhere when he's effectively jobless for the next six months is stupid. I reckon this is in contravention of EU law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 This isn't Saints related surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK_Phoey Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 I reckon this is in contravention of EU law. Agree everyone has a basic right to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 So his contract ran out in January..is that normal ? would have thought the summer is the time for end of contracts, irrespective ffel for the lad and hope at the least he can get training with a club to retain match fitness so ready to roll next season. I reckon this is in contravention of EU law. Difficult; it's not that the rules are stopping him from earning a playing contract, but that he can't play in regular first team games. Now obviously his attraction to clubs with that in mind is very low, but the rules are not strictly preventing him from being taken on by and working for a club. I guess it's similar to the Cantona and Rio Ferdinand suspensions; they still continued to earn a wage from their clubs (I think one of them even signed a new contract in the middle of the suspension period) so they were employed as footballers, they just couldn't play in first team games. Don't get me wrong, in this case I think it's a thoroughly daft rule and there should certainly be the ability to bypass the rule in certain exceptions. As said above it's surprising that his contract has finished in now and not the summer; perhaps his contract was paid up in full to allow him to leave. If it's Yeovil he's off to they may allow him to train with them until the end of he season and then sign him in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 So his contract ran out in January..is that normal ? would have thought the summer is the time for end of contracts, irrespective ffel for the lad and hope at the least he can get training with a club to retain match fitness so ready to roll next season. If I remember correctly Aaron and Forest mutually agreed to terminate his contract early so that he could go find another club. (Don't know how mutual mind you!). I reckon this is in contravention of EU law. Agree everyone has a basic right to work. I agree. I think if he took this all the way through the courts, the word Davies might enter the lexicon alongside Bosman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 As an aside, I thought the three club rule only applied to permanent moves and not loans. It seems I'm wrong with that. And if that's the case, then it would mean that Saints can't loan out Lancashire to anyone but Grimsby. Doesn't make an awful lot of sense to count loan moves to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopkins Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 I'm pretty sure loans do not count in the 3 club rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 I'm pretty sure loans do not count in the 3 club rule. Thought the wording was played for oppose to owned by ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamwic Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 People obviously feel strongly about this and rightly so. My guess is that there are others in the system who are similarly, (and possibly wrongly), treated. I suggest you all make your feelings known to the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 I'm sure the 2 club rule only applies to permanent signings not loans. Also Arron Davies is 28 - so he was in the youth team a bit before Walcott and Bale! Wasn't he on the fringes of the first team in our FA Cup final season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 As an aside, I thought the three club rule only applied to permanent moves and not loans. It seems I'm wrong with that. And if that's the case, then it would mean that Saints can't loan out Lancashire to anyone but Grimsby. Doesn't make an awful lot of sense to count loan moves to me. I'm pretty sure loans do not count in the 3 club rule. I thought this as well. I am certain that in the past we have loaned players to 2 or even 3 different clubs in a season and had them play for us as well. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 I thought this as well. I am certain that in the past we have loaned players to 2 or even 3 different clubs in a season and had them play for us as well. :confused: FIFA Rule: III. REGISTRATION OF PLAYERS Article 5 - Registration 1. A player must be registered at an association to play for a club as either a professional or an amateur in accordance with the provisions of article 2. Only registered players are eligible to participate in organised football. By the act of registering, a player agrees to abide by the statutes and regulations of FIFA, the confederations and the associations. 2. A player may only be registered with one club at a time. 3. Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs. As an exception to this rule, a player moving between two clubs belonging to associations with overlapping seasons (i.e. start of the season in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring) may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club during the relevant season, provided he has fully complied with his contractual obligations towards his previous clubs. Equally, the provisions relating to the registration periods (article 6) as well as to the minimum length of a contract (article 18 paragraph 2) must be respected. 4. Under all circumstances, due consideration must be given to the sporting integrity of the competition. In particular, a player may not play official matches for more than two clubs A loan counts as a player registration. There, using Saints as an example, we could hold the registration for A Smith and loan him to Torquay for the first half of the season; and then loan him to Brighton in the second half as long as he played no games for us - registered with 3 clubs, but only played for 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 FIFA Rule: A loan counts as a player registration. There, using Saints as an example, we could hold the registration for A Smith and loan him to Torquay for the first half of the season; and then loan him to Brighton in the second half as long as he played no games for us - registered with 3 clubs, but only played for 2. Cheers Pancake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRINKLY SAINT Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 If he took this to court this is a restriction of trade and would be deemed illegal.But hey FIFA are run by total imcompetents so I am sure they will try to ignore the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 I'm pretty sure loans do not count in the 3 club rule. they seem to, O'Hara was only on loan at Skate yet he couldn't move on and at that time Pompey were on a transfer embargo and couldn't renew his loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 It's a shame for him, but if he's taken mutual termination then he's effectively resigned from his job. Either: He gets a job. Any job, maybe not even in football, like many of the part timers do, to tie him over until the summer. OK, he can't play football which is a shame for him, but surely he could do SOMETHING... OR: The FA should make Notts Forest continue to pay his wages until the summer. I'm not sure how that would work though. Or they'll just break their own rules somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 he either had his contract paid up by Forest, in which case he earned a tidy sum and doesn't need to earn it, or if he left without being paid up till the summer then he's a fool for not knowing that he coudn't play for more than two clubs in a season. Everyone knows that, and as its his job you'd think he would have asked the FA or the PFA first. I know he's a local lad, but why should I feel sorry for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polegategavin Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 he either had his contract paid up by Forest, in which case he earned a tidy sum and doesn't need to earn it, or if he left without being paid up till the summer then he's a fool for not knowing that he coudn't play for more than two clubs in a season. Everyone knows that, and as its his job you'd think he would have asked the FA or the PFA first. I know he's a local lad, but why should I feel sorry for him? Or more importantly that is his agent's job, that's what they pay them for. If he doesn't have an agent in this day-and-age then more fool him, he must be the only professional football who doesn't!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 Or more importantly that is his agent's job, that's what they pay them for. If he doesn't have an agent in this day-and-age then more fool him, he must be the only professional football who doesn't!! does Gary Neville? he was pouting off about not needing agents, although it might have been not needing to pay agents 15% to wipe their arses, and just needing them to handle the contract negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 29 January, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 January, 2010 he either had his contract paid up by Forest, in which case he earned a tidy sum and doesn't need to earn it, or if he left without being paid up till the summer then he's a fool for not knowing that he coudn't play for more than two clubs in a season. Everyone knows that, and as its his job you'd think he would have asked the FA or the PFA first. I know he's a local lad, but why should I feel sorry for him? well,Chez he is a former player and with better luck would have become a first-teamer, I'm sure. The local bit doesn't bother me ..I'd feel the same if it was Pereployotkin (excuse spelling)..another excellent Academy player who we lost because of the Home Offices' weird work regulations. (now, a Latvian international BTW). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 Difficult; it's not that the rules are stopping him from earning a playing contract, but that he can't play in regular first team games. Now obviously his attraction to clubs with that in mind is very low, but the rules are not strictly preventing him from being taken on by and working for a club. Don't get me wrong, in this case I think it's a thoroughly daft rule and there should certainly be the ability to bypass the rule in certain exceptions.. I would say the rules are stopping him, yes your are right in the fact that there is nothing stopping a club hiring him and paying him a wage, but what club will do that if he can't play football. Therefore the rules are preventing him from fulfilling his primary function of playing football, he is prevented from selling his skills in the market place. It is similar to the condition when people left jobs in the 70's that they couldn't take up anther job with a certain radius of their old place of work. This was successfully challenged under restraint of trade and I would suspect that this case would win on similar grounds. What is the reason for the two club rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 29 January, 2010 Share Posted 29 January, 2010 What is the reason for the two club rule? To stop Redknapp from taking Crouch and Defoe everywhere he does in 1 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now