The mancityfans.net football forum

I cannot find a topic on this specific issue so thought I'd start one, until someone decides it should be listed under 'rumours' or 'fake news' or the 'media are out to get us' topic.

Anyway this issue that seems to be surfacing with the potential transfer ban over the signing of Benjamin Garre (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... n-10545324), are we worried that this might come true - hence the early transfer activity to get the ball rolling before the ban hits us - or is this just an example of poor journalism? Obviously we have had our own issue about tapping up youth players and currently have a UK ban on signing any registered youth players from the UK. I note that Barcelona, Real and Athletico Madrid have all been handed transfer bans, but as I haven't followed any of those cases in much detail I note that the clubs appealed against the ban, but the appeal was rejected. It seems with our case that the case was dismissed by FIFA, but that Valez Sarsfield have appealed to the court of arbitration for sport.

I guess I am answering my own question as this seems like the press are just using the precedent set for a case that is different for us. It is just that I don't trust anyone to not try and screw us over and I am wondering if that's why we are rushing to get all our transfer business done?

Dunnylad wrote:I cannot find a topic on this specific issue so thought I'd start one, until someone decides it should be listed under 'rumours' or 'fake news' or the 'media are out to get us' topic.

Anyway this issue that seems to be surfacing with the potential transfer ban over the signing of Benjamin Garre (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... n-10545324), are we worried that this might come true - hence the early transfer activity to get the ball rolling before the ban hits us - or is this just an example of poor journalism? Obviously we have had our own issue about tapping up youth players and currently have a UK ban on signing any registered youth players from the UK. I note that Barcelona, Real and Athletico Madrid have all been handed transfer bans, but as I haven't followed any of those cases in much detail I note that the clubs appealed against the ban, but the appeal was rejected. It seems with our case that the case was dismissed by FIFA, but that Valez Sarsfield have appealed to the court of arbitration for sport.

I guess I am answering my own question as this seems like the press are just using the precedent set for a case that is different for us. It is just that I don't trust anyone to not try and screw us over and I am wondering if that's why we are rushing to get all our transfer business done?

Fifa see no wrong and they are the ones who hand out sanction, they have already dismissed it. If CAS uphold it I cannot see anything other than compensation.

Would explain why we're doing business early for a change

Wonderwall wrote:

Dunnylad wrote:I cannot find a topic on this specific issue so thought I'd start one, until someone decides it should be listed under 'rumours' or 'fake news' or the 'media are out to get us' topic.

Anyway this issue that seems to be surfacing with the potential transfer ban over the signing of Benjamin Garre (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... n-10545324), are we worried that this might come true - hence the early transfer activity to get the ball rolling before the ban hits us - or is this just an example of poor journalism? Obviously we have had our own issue about tapping up youth players and currently have a UK ban on signing any registered youth players from the UK. I note that Barcelona, Real and Athletico Madrid have all been handed transfer bans, but as I haven't followed any of those cases in much detail I note that the clubs appealed against the ban, but the appeal was rejected. It seems with our case that the case was dismissed by FIFA, but that Valez Sarsfield have appealed to the court of arbitration for sport.

I guess I am answering my own question as this seems like the press are just using the precedent set for a case that is different for us. It is just that I don't trust anyone to not try and screw us over and I am wondering if that's why we are rushing to get all our transfer business done?

Fifa see no wrong and they are the ones who hand out sanction, they have already dismissed it. If CAS uphold it I cannot see anything other than compensation.

The lad holds an EU passport (Italian), but the ruling is that the transfer has to be between two EU states and the kid has to be domicile in an EU state, as far as I understand (see their interpretation below). Velez Sarsfield argued that we looked for him before he was 16, they said no. He moved to Europe a few days before his birthday and the transfer was done a day after it.
FIFA see this as within the law, no matter how sneaky the Argentines feel it may be.

from ESPN:

"They made us a written offer [before his 16th birthday]. We rejected it, in writing, saying we weren't prepared to transfer him because it was prohibited by FIFA. The rules are clear, you can't transfer a player before he turns 16 under any circumstances.

"In response, City told us they were going to ask FIFA for an exception. The player left here when he was 15. He left here a couple of days before his 16th birthday, he spent a few days in Germany and he entered England one day after his 16th birthday.

"Man City argued that there is an exception in the FIFA rules that said that because he has a European passport he could be transferred. But the FIFA rule does not say that, it says he can move only within the EU, between EU clubs."

The highlighted part is the bit they were appealing about, as far as I know.

Wooders wrote:Would explain why we're doing business early for a change

This time last year we signed Gundo and this time 7 years ago it was Barry so its not totally unlike us to have business done. Last year was earlyish too.

I dont think it was the reason for 'early business' whatever that really means, truth is we have probably been talking to a lot of our targets for several months if not longer.
The early activity means we realise we have to do a lot of business.

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

Dunnylad wrote:I cannot find a topic on this specific issue so thought I'd start one, until someone decides it should be listed under 'rumours' or 'fake news' or the 'media are out to get us' topic.

Anyway this issue that seems to be surfacing with the potential transfer ban over the signing of Benjamin Garre (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... n-10545324), are we worried that this might come true - hence the early transfer activity to get the ball rolling before the ban hits us - or is this just an example of poor journalism? Obviously we have had our own issue about tapping up youth players and currently have a UK ban on signing any registered youth players from the UK. I note that Barcelona, Real and Athletico Madrid have all been handed transfer bans, but as I haven't followed any of those cases in much detail I note that the clubs appealed against the ban, but the appeal was rejected. It seems with our case that the case was dismissed by FIFA, but that Valez Sarsfield have appealed to the court of arbitration for sport.

I guess I am answering my own question as this seems like the press are just using the precedent set for a case that is different for us. It is just that I don't trust anyone to not try and screw us over and I am wondering if that's why we are rushing to get all our transfer business done?

Fifa see no wrong and they are the ones who hand out sanction, they have already dismissed it. If CAS uphold it I cannot see anything other than compensation.

The lad holds an EU passport (Italian), but the ruling is that the transfer has to be between two EU states and the kid has to be domicile in an EU state, as far as I understand (see their interpretation below). Velez Sarsfield argued that we looked for him before he was 16, they said no. He moved to Europe a few days before his birthday and the transfer was done a day after it.
FIFA see this as within the law, no matter how sneaky the Argentines feel it may be.

from ESPN:

"They made us a written offer [before his 16th birthday]. We rejected it, in writing, saying we weren't prepared to transfer him because it was prohibited by FIFA. The rules are clear, you can't transfer a player before he turns 16 under any circumstances.

"In response, City told us they were going to ask FIFA for an exception. The player left here when he was 15. He left here a couple of days before his 16th birthday, he spent a few days in Germany and he entered England one day after his 16th birthday.

"Man City argued that there is an exception in the FIFA rules that said that because he has a European passport he could be transferred. But the FIFA rule does not say that, it says he can move only within the EU, between EU clubs."

The highlighted part is the bit they were appealing about, as far as I know.

It seems there might be something there for anyone, who was of such a mind, to cause us a degree of mischief.

We're so lucky to have the comforting security of FIFA's protective arm, wrapped reassuringly around our corporate shoulders and guarding us from pitfalls and potential dangers........or or we ??

It is a huge grey area, the EU bit is all about transfers taking place within the territory of the EU / EEA between the ages of 16-18 - not sure what happens before that age. Plus there is a regulation covering player's parents moving into a different country for reasons not linked to football. Typically FIFA's guidance is not crystal clear, there's certainly more detail surrounding this trainee that we aren't aware of - I can't say I trust FIFA to get anything right and just wondering if we are erring on the side of caution in case it does bite us in the arse.

One thing that does bother me, is that we are sailing close to the wind with drugs testing and acquisition of youth players or we have some pretty crap administrative staff who aren't advising those in a position of say of the rules about how we conduct our business.

So are we in the clear or is this case a worry?
What are our chances of winning this case?

Dimples wrote:So are we in the clear or is this case a worry?
What are our chances of winning this case?

We've already won the case, but this is an appeal to the original decision. I'm just a worrier by nature...

Wooders wrote:Would explain why we're doing business early for a change

Yes, quite possibly.