jagfox Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Article 5.2 of the FIFA regulations regarding the status and transfer of players states that: “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”.The actual wording of the regulations as above is interesting and certainly open to challenge in the case of Tidser. Michael Tidser did not play a match for Rotherham; he played in a match for 27 minutes.No doubt that point will be ridiculed by some, but I suggest that any semi-competent lawyer could make a very decent case of it. The essence of the framing of such rules is that they are able to be interpreted precisely.It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few days/weeks. ^^^ Morton club secretary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 You clearly don't recall Tonsilitis' clown running across a minefield contribution to every Morton thread. Now yet another useless leech behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I can see the point Mr Toon is making. If a game is abandoned after 27 minutes, it has to be replayed and the abandoned game doesn't count, and in fact I think the crowd get a refund. However as the game in which he played was presumably completed, I don't think we can get away with that line. Surely the best tactic is to point out that the rule is possibly illegal under EU law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Will be interesting to see the result of Ben Arfa case going on with the same issue, with the English FA now trying to help out... If FIFA class that u21 match as an official match but still accept that appeal then the precedent is set. No it isn't. That's not them deciding that the rule is flawed, that's them changing the definition of an official match. They're not going to decide competitive first team games aren't official matches. Look, it's perfectly valid to say that it's a stupid rule but regardless of whether it is or isn't, it's the responsibility of the club to know the rules and their failure to do so here is the real issue. The stupidity of the club absolutely dwarves the stupidity of the rule, and it's the gross incompetence of the club we should be complaining about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I can see the point Mr Toon is making. If a game is abandoned after 27 minutes, it has to be replayed and the abandoned game doesn't count, and in fact I think the crowd get a refund. However as the game in which he played was presumably completed, I don't think we can get away with that line. Surely the best tactic is to point out that the rule is possibly illegal under EU law? Another candidate for straw clutcher of the year. The club fucked up, deal with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Article 5.2 of the FIFA regulations regarding the status and transfer of players states that: “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”. The actual wording of the regulations as above is interesting and certainly open to challenge in the case of Tidser. Michael Tidser did not play a match for Rotherham; he played in a match for 27 minutes. He started two competitive cup games for Rotherham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Aitken's Love Child Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 Not trying to play devil's advocate or anything here, but would checking up on something like this, and filing contracts, even come under the remit of the Chief Executive? I would imagine that it would be handled by the company Secretary, who according to the official site, is Mary Davidson, who I have to admit, I have never had any dealings with. Not that I am suggesting that we need to have a scapegoat here, just making the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I can see the point Mr Toon is making. If a game is abandoned after 27 minutes, it has to be replayed and the abandoned game doesn't count, and in fact I think the crowd get a refund. However as the game in which he played was presumably completed, I don't think we can get away with that line. Surely the best tactic is to point out that the rule is possibly illegal under EU law? A legal challenge to the EU courts what next rock, paper, scissors to decide if he can play. If and its a big if the club had done their work properly they would not be in this position having due diligence they then could have explained the Tidser option was a no go due to this ruling and moved on and signed A N Other in the transfer window . This has the double negative of debating the what if they or these rules don't make sense when the focus should be to improve results to achieve promotion the wage will obviously restrict the ability to bring in anyone else unless Rae lumbers the club with more debt to cover up the incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
port-ton Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Finished work early today to head down from glasgow and go to this and give the club money despite it being on tv after they pushed the boat out to sign tidser. No chance am i giving that shambles of a club my money until the chief executives head rolls. Night infront of the telly for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tri-TON Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Not trying to play devil's advocate or anything here, but would checking up on something like this, and filing contracts, even come under the remit of the Chief Executive? I would imagine that it would be handled by the company Secretary, who according to the official site, is Mary Davidson, who I have to admit, I have never had any dealings with. Not that I am suggesting that we need to have a scapegoat here, just making the point. You do have a point but we should push for Donaldson's exit regardless. It just makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 He doesn't have a point; the chief executive is responsible for the efficient running of the club, not a secretary. And even had it fallen under the remit of the secretary, the onus is on the chief executive ie the line manager, to make sure major staff decisions are scrutinised so as to not make a roaring, utter fucking cock up with a significant amount of money. Donaldson has done neither role to any level of competency. Indeed, I think we'd be hard pushed to identify much that she has actually accomplished during a decade at the club. Hopelessly out of her depth, even by the low standards of professionalism normally found at GMFC. TTG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJM77 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I have no fucking idea why I'm even going to this anymore, we're going to get embarrassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Well, looks like my tenner placed on Morton to finish Champions was truly wasted. Out of curiosity does anyone know the purpose of the rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Pires on the Wing Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Well, looks like my tenner placed on Morton to finish Champions was truly wasted. Out of curiosity does anyone know the purpose of the rule? Probably to stop teams signing players on 1 game contracts, or something. f**k knows. Only really seems to have any effect for low level players and teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurbineTon Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Finished work early today to head down from glasgow and go to this and give the club money despite it being on tv after they pushed the boat out to sign tidser. No chance am i giving that shambles of a club my money until the chief executives head rolls. Night infront of the telly for me. Typical of you. Get a grip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
port-ton Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Typical of you. Get a grip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure Mental Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The club is a joke. Do us a favour and shut the gates for good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurbineTon Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 So you still finished work early to come down even although you knew about this last night. Enough of your sob story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Another candidate for straw clutcher of the year. The club fucked up, deal with it I'm not clutching at straws. I was just saying that I could see the point Mr Toon was trying to make. A legal challenge to the EU courts what next rock, paper, scissors to decide if he can play. If and its a big if the club had done their work properly they would not be in this position having due diligence they then could have explained the Tidser option was a no go due to this ruling and moved on and signed A N Other in the transfer window . This has the double negative of debating the what if they or these rules don't make sense when the focus should be to improve results to achieve promotion the wage will obviously restrict the ability to bring in anyone else unless Rae lumbers the club with more debt to cover up the incompetence. I assume nobody at the club knew Tidser had played for Rotherham and perhaps their due diligence was nonexistent. However the rule appears to have been brought in to stop players moving from club to club several times on say monthly contracts. I doubt it was intended to catch players who go out on loan. It may be that it is just an ill thought out rule. Incidentally Robbie Crawford played for us and is now at Ayr. Did he play for Therangers at any time this season? Very exasperating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.