Sniper Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Fulham seem to be on the up and scoring goals, Smith won't get a look in back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/City-secure-Smith-month/story-25911076-detail/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 shame that he won't play at Wembley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ten minutes of rough Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Cotts will try to sign him. Clearly Fulham want to get rid. Whether we can afford him is another matter. Don't think 'affording' him would be a problem, more likely what he expects as a salary. Besides if we go up we have to look at what sort of player he will be in the Championship? That is I would think, might be the dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healeyred Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Dose this mean we can only have matt Smith till the end of February Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 shame that he won't play at Wembley. Shame we may not have the choice if we get there, but perhaps Wilbs. would be more deserving of a starting place anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I'm guessing that we will bring in a Striker in Jan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 This loan stuff is confusing. Can we not sign him on an emergency loan deal (93 days until the end of the season?)? He can't play for anyone else if Fulham don't play him anyway from what I understand? So his only options are: To go back to Fulham after Sunday. To go back for a couple of days then sign to us ( and only us) for a further month maximum. To sign for us permanently Have I got this right? If he signs another month for us and then goes back to Fulham, who might decide not to play him and cannot loan him out anywhere, he might finish his season at the end of Feb? I thought the whole point of a fulham sending him out was to get him match fit etc, but unless they use him he will be in the same boat again after a couple of weeks. Crazy situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 This loan stuff is confusing. Can we not sign him on an emergency loan deal (93 days until the end of the season?)? He can't play for anyone else if Fulham don't play him anyway from what I understand? So his only options are: To go back to Fulham after Sunday. Yes To go back for a couple of days then sign to us ( and only us) for a further month maximum. Yes To sign for us permanently Yes, but if we do that he won't be able to play for us this season. The rule is 3 registrations (ie 3 owners) but can only play for 2, having played for Leeds and Fulham we could take his registration but he couldn't play for us. The exception to that rule is an emergency 93 day loan, then he can play for 3 clubs. Have I got this right? If he signs another month for us and then goes back to Fulham, who might decide not to play him and cannot loan him out anywhere, he might finish his season at the end of Feb? I thought the whole point of a fulham sending him out was to get him match fit etc, but unless they use him he will be in the same boat again after a couple of weeks. Crazy situation. This is where I am stumped. If he goes back to Fulham could they loan him to another club. I don't think they can, as he would have turned out for two and us under an exception. What I do not know is whether a fourth club benefits from an exception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Perhaps not in this instance, but just thinking about this logically, this absolutely reeks of being ripe for a Bosman like challenge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted January 23, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 29AR - spot on, glad you explained it so well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 It will be very interesting to see how this pans out for the lad. I might be in a minority, but I'd be very happy if we managed to get Smith here on a permanent deal, but does seem like this would have to wait until summer even if we wanted to do this, and I'd hate to be a loanee who has to step into his shoes if we do seek I replace him this year. Nothing I've seen suggests Fulham will use him, as if they seriously needed/wanted him, I doubt they'd grant another month. Reckon that he'll need to get right into his gym to make sure that once the season is over he can find someone who really wants him. Got to be very strange for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I think the speculation as to whether he can cut it in the Championship is a tad unfair. He did alright for Leeds and the move to Fulham was more to do with what they were willing to pay than Leeds wanting shot of him. I'd be confident he'd be at least decent for us if we went up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshireSection Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 If Smit were to leave then we'd have one fit forward in Jet, surely we would be able to keep Smith as an emergency loan as he ticks all the boxes to legislate that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 If Smit were to leave then we'd have one fit forward in Jet, surely we would be able to keep Smith as an emergency loan as he ticks all the boxes to legislate that deal The total loan period (to be an emergency loan) cannot exceed 93 days, so whichever way you look at it we can only have him for 93 days in total. Stupidly the number of fit players you have is irrelevant in respect of the football league emergency loan system. 'Emergency' is a complete red herring. Hopefully it wont get that far, but I hope our club secretary is aware whether we need to extend the loan whilst he is here or if he went back to Fulham without the loan extended would he be eligible to play if we loaned him in again... A myriad of confusion which, particularly if you look at Smith's position, is a clear restriction on his EU freedoms of establishment and movement, and for Fulham a restraint of trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 The total loan period (to be an emergency loan) cannot exceed 93 days, so whichever way you look at it we can only have him for 93 days in total. Stupidly the number of fit players you have is irrelevant in respect of the football league emergency loan system. 'Emergency' is a complete red herring. Hopefully it wont get that far, but I hope our club secretary is aware whether we need to extend the loan whilst he is here or if he went back to Fulham without the loan extended would he be eligible to play if we loaned him in again... A myriad of confusion which, particularly if you look at Smith's position, is a clear restriction on his EU freedoms of establishment and movement, and for Fulham a restraint of trade. Thanks for explaining it so well, I still have a lot to learn about the finer rules of football (but I can explain offside!). I was wondering about the point you made about freedom of movement/trade as I was typing my original post. In effect he is prevented from working and earning a living, I've seen lots of Human Rights stuff spouted about that's similar ( but not involving contracted footballers). I could buy him, but why would we buy and then not be able to use for 7 months (he sounds like a Season Ticket Ha Ha). I doubt this occurs very often but 3 clubs in a season doesn't sound unreasonable if he then signs or be continued to be loaned to one of the 3 clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Why can't we extend his loan for the whole season? Does playing for Leeds restrict us as that's his 3rd club. If you can't play for 3 clubs in a season how can he play for us? Ben arfa can't sign for a French club what's the difference, just seems stupid that you can't play when required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Red Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Why can't we extend his loan for the whole season? Does playing for Leeds restrict us as that's his 3rd club. If you can't play for 3 clubs in a season how can he play for us? Ben arfa can't sign for a French club what's the difference, just seems stupid that you can't play when required. He has played 3 League games for Leeds and Fulham and two cup games for Leeds this season meaning he can only play for another club e.g. us on an emergency loan which is a maximum of 93 days hence only a 1 month extension being the only option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Thanks for explaining it so well, I still have a lot to learn about the finer rules of football (but I can explain offside!). I was wondering about the point you made about freedom of movement/trade as I was typing my original post. In effect he is prevented from working and earning a living, I've seen lots of Human Rights stuff spouted about that's similar ( but not involving contracted footballers). I could buy him, but why would we buy and then not be able to use for 7 months (he sounds like a Season Ticket Ha Ha). I doubt this occurs very often but 3 clubs in a season doesn't sound unreasonable if he then signs or be continued to be loaned to one of the 3 clubs I agree. Playing devil's advocate he is not prevented from earning a living; he can always go back to Fulham and it's at their whim whether he plays, but he still earns a living. But, as Mr Bosman contested, if he was not free to move it amounted to a restriction of his fundamental European rights. Whilst arguably Mr Smith can earn a living, Hatem Ben Arfa cannot. As I understand it (could be wrong) he agreed termination of his contract with Newcastle to go play in France and now he cannot play this season because he played at Hull and in some meaningless, but competitive, game for Newcaslte (under 21's or reserves wasn't it?). Again devil's advocate there's nothing preventing the French team from signing him and paying him now despite not being able to play, but that is a nonsense. It's my personal belief that the whole transfer system is rather flimsy on a legal basis: restraint of trade, restriction of movement, freedom of establishment etc. A challenge to it legally would be incredibly interesting, extremely complex and fascinating for anyone interested in the law. I wonder if any legal professionals are circling around Ben Arfa desperate to take his case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 He has played 3 League games for Leeds and Fulham and two cup games for Leeds this season meaning he can only play for another club e.g. us on an emergency loan which is a maximum of 93 days hence only a 1 month extension being the only option. Just seems daft to me, Ben arfa can't play for a 3rd club but smith can play for us on loan as a 3rd club, but only for a set time. Whilst Bobby Reid is able to go to Plymouth return etc. all season (know its only 2nd club but surely loan for season not on off until now). The rules just seem so draconian and as someone else has mentioned, sooner or later they will be challenged. Just seems bigger clubs like the rules the way they are so they can sign up all the good players and then loan them back, to see how good they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Interesting topic, but I feel bad that it has taken until one of 'our' players for me to realise the rules. It does seem though that the rules are very outdated are were probably formed when players didn't move around as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.