Jump to content

Free Agents over 18


Recommended Posts

Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.

It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.

What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.

It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.

What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?

There's nothing to stop hom being employed by Rangers, so where does employment law fit in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the surface, it does appear that the embargo is discriminatory at best. (Why 18?) And what would Brussels say about this? I hope we challenge this all the way. As D&P said.. these sanctions were not available to them originally.. They just made it up ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.

It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.

What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?

We can 'employ' whoever we want, we just cant play him. As soon as the player steps over the white line, either in the league or cup, he must be registered with the sfa. This is what were banned from doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting point could be the free movement of trade as this is a very very broad article that literally outlaws ANYTHING that hampers trade between EU countries. Therefore, you could argue that the SFA is putting up a barrier to trade because although we can still sign players, it would make little sense to do so, therefore it is like an unreasonably high import tax or unreasonable tests that foreign goods would be subjected to. The only downfall though could be that because it is applied domestically also there is no discrimination.

I study european law and it is never clear, provisions can be construed in ways that would never have been considered before or the judge could simply say "naw".

Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't this what sion did?

Sion is different. In that their embargo didnt end in time for them to register the players they had bought. There was a bit of an argument as to when it ended and they could start buying. Thats what the court case was for, which they ultimately lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

doh

From the official site

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The decision by the appellate tribunal to uphold the sanction, namely the suspension of registration of players for one year, is not competent in the view of the club and its legal advisers. "Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination."
Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic isn't the closing of the transfer window between September and January illegal also?

I don't believe so because all teams have some sort of transfer window there is no discrimination or unfairness towards one or another and does not hamper the free movement as is shown by the evidence of clubs purchasing players outside transfer windows on a regular basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the official site

Edit: didn't quote properly. Basically discussing the fact that the tribunal could have chosen any sanction.

This is against one of the most basic legal principles: that in order to punish someone, they should have been able to know exactly what the available punishment was at the time of the commission of the crime. If you are interested read about the "principle of legal certainty", which I also believe is relevant to our tax case as it was not even illegal at the time we used EBT's.

Also, if we want to challenge this, then I think the European Court of Human Rights is where we would go :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is against one of the most basic legal principles: that in order to punish someone, they should have been able to know exactly what the available punishment was at the time of the commission of the crime.

I think this is the only avenue really - to say that it is illegal to have a clause which allows arbitrary punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe so because all teams have some sort of transfer window there is no discrimination or unfairness towards one or another and does not hamper the free movement as is shown by the evidence of clubs purchasing players outside transfer windows on a regular basis.

The OP's point wasn't about the club though, it was about the player. The player is free to move to any other club apart from Rangers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: didn't quote properly. Basically discussing the fact that the tribunal could have chosen any sanction.

This is against one of the most basic legal principles: that in order to punish someone, they should have been able to know exactly what the available punishment was at the time of the commission of the crime. If you are interested read about the "principle of legal certainty", which I also believe is relevant to our tax case as it was not even illegal at the time we used EBT's.

Also, if we want to challenge this, then I think the European Court of Human Rights is where we would go :D

Makes sense to me anyway. However, perhaps these tribunals do not follow 'principles of legal certainty'. The fellow that wrote the terrific blog (Chris....?) seemed to make the point that although the man in the street thinks that he is innocent until proven guilty... in these cases it is the opposite. So perhaps different rules apply.

I have no idea.. certainly not my area of expertise.. 00000042.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can 'employ' whoever we want, we just cant play him. As soon as the player steps over the white line, either in the league or cup, he must be registered with the sfa. This is what were banned from doing.

"As soon as the player steps over the white line, either in the league or cup, he must be registered with the sfa".

This is exactly what is stopping him doing his job and could be construed as hampering employment.

I understand this is a nightmare scenario and full of pitfalls but every avenue must at least be explored if not taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me anyway. However, perhaps these tribunals do not follow 'principles of legal certainty'. The fellow that wrote the terrific blog (Chris....?) seemed to make the point that although the man in the street thinks that he is innocent until proven guilty... in these cases it is the opposite. So perhaps different rules apply.

I have no idea.. certainly not my area of expertise.. 00000042.gif

As I understand it, this cannot be ignored by any authority, so while for practical reasons guilt will sometimes be assumed (so violent criminals do not commit crime sprees before the trial gets through the very slow court system) , it is impossible to punish someone with something that was not available at the time of the crime. Even in the case of the Nuremberg trials, when this did happen, it sat very uneasily with many people and was only really accepted because of the absolute evil of what had happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP's point wasn't about the club though, it was about the player. The player is free to move to any other club apart from Rangers.

True, but as far as I am aware (and I am certainly not an expert so I am happy to be proven otherwise) the free movement of workers is much less open than the free movement of trade. As the workers are able to move and become employed by another club then within the free movement of workers provisions it is not a big enough barrier that they are unable to do the job for a few months.

Trade, however, is much much more broad, and as I stated in another post, ANY barrier to free trade is likely to be struck down by the ECJ, therefore one must analyse if the transfer window is a barrier to trade, and if you look at the massive amounts of money spent during the window, and how it worked before the window, it would seem as though clubs have a budget and will spend that budget when they can...and even if they could buy players throughout the year, the same amount of money would be spent but just in a less confined time frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm yes but the fact that a transfer fee is usually involved , or the purchase of the players registration is surely covered by trade law if it was a free transfer then employment law would come into force, it's a complicated one to be fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.

It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.

What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?

EU law prevents discrimination, so provided Scottish/British an other European players are equally unable to sign up for Rangers, it complies with the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...