Writer: Mike Field
Date:Friday February 5 2010
FIFA are apparently concerned about the use of 'emergency loans' in the English game when it means a player, like Shorey, turns out for 3 different clubs in one season.
Goal.com are carrying quotes from a 'FIFA Spokesman' who believes that the appropriate regulations are being skewed when it suits.
This appropriate regulation, given this is the first time I've ever paid attention to it seems very much against EU law on restricting the right to work to be honest as by default it could lead a player to rot on the training pitch for a season if a loan move doesn't work out, but nontheless the super Paragraph 3 in Article 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (short title - waste of space, typical beaurocracy) states that a player can as a maximum be registered with 3 clubs during 1 season, but can however only physically play for 2 of them.
Shorey has already turned out for Villa, Forest and now Fulham.
'Generally speaking, and with regard to the application of Article 5, Paragraph 3, the regulation should be applied as stated.'
However the FA's outlook on this is that emergency loans don't fall under this Regulation because the player is technically still registered to this 'parent' club.
However it now means the deal between Villa and Fulham is to be potentially investigated which may or may not have a bearing on the future of the player - as afterall, an agreement is in place to make the deal permanent at the end of the season should Fulham wish to.
Surely FIFA have better things to do? If the FA have classed the loan as an appropriate 'emergency deal' then Villa hold the registration and Article 5 is irrelevant.
Moreover, in the grand scheme of all things football, let alone life, what does it really matter if a player turns out for more than 2 clubs in a season.
It's a game...not an exercise in creating red tape to justify the existence of organisations that quite frankly football could do without.
Afterall, if I understood the news correctly earlier all the time FIFA spent on the Chelsea inducement nonsense was a waste of time because the players 'contract' was void anyway - therefore they cannot have breached any FIFA rules and the transfer embargo has been lifted.
Do you think eventually this game will ever be the fans' again?
Date:Friday February 5 2010
Villa Aren't Carrying The Can For Vlaar Contract (Sunday November 23 2014)
Lambert Wants More Progress Against Southampton (Sunday November 23 2014)
Tadic Was Our Failed January Buy (Sunday November 23 2014)
Something For The Weekend (472) (Friday November 21 2014)
Optimism From Lawro - None From Mystic Mug (Friday November 21 2014)
Aston Villa FC - 140 Years And Counting (Friday November 21 2014)
Villa Support 21st Minute Initiative (Thursday November 20 2014)
Injury Update Ahead Of Southampton (Thursday November 20 2014)
Villa In Talks With Justice For The 21 (Thursday November 20 2014)
The Stiliyan Petrov Foundation (Thursday November 20 2014)
|1.||Pride of Lions||786|
|West Ham||0||-||0||Aston Villa|
|Aston Villa||0||-||2||Man City|
|15. Crystal Palace||12||3||3||6||-4||12|
|16. Hull City||12||2||5||5||-3||11|
|17. Aston Villa||11||3||2||6||-11||11|
|18. Leicester City||12||2||4||6||-7||10|
|Liverpool: Rodgers Running Out Of Time
» Liverpool : 24/11/2014 19:00:00
|Pocognoli Close To Arsenal Return
» WBA : 24/11/2014 18:28:00
|Irvine Unhappy With Chelsea Opener
» WBA : 24/11/2014 18:14:00
|Coates to appeal F.A. charge
» Stoke : 24/11/2014 18:01:00
|Ref Watch: Pawson to officiate Liverpool v Stoke
» Stoke : 24/11/2014 18:00:00