Oxlade - Chamberlain

[BW 0]

How about him on loan if he still not playing many games for arsenal in Jan. Could be another Wilshire type move? Yes only allowed two loans i''m already predicting it. anything under 3 months is considered a short term loan we can do that :). Feel he can provide of attacking midfield better options than Wes :)

[scotty is here LOL 0]

could be a possibilaty with Naughton''s loan deal ending in january ?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

He''s a good player, but very raw - lacks a lot of positional discipline and makes a lot of silly errors still. I wouldn''t want him playing every game but could be a very good impact sub. He isn''t as intelligent a player as Wes yet. Also his best position is out on the right wing so would be in competition with Bennett mainly.

 

Arsenal probably won''t let him go out on loan until they are knocked out of the FA Cup and League Cup (with a quater final against Man City soon it shouldn''t be long).

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="scotty is here LOL"]could be a possibilaty with Naughton''s loan deal ending in january ?[/quote]

 

He''s is a year loan....so we can''t loan anymore.[:|]

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="scotty is here LOL"]could be a possibilaty with Naughton''s loan deal ending in january ?[/quote]

 

He''s is a year loan....so we can''t loan anymore.[:|]

[/quote]

We can if it is for less than 3 months and not from Man United or Tottenham.

[Jonnyboy 0]

What about if we buy Naughton in Jan?

[ZLF 218]

PL rules this season are very clear - only two loan players, of any loan type, at any one time.  Unless one of the two we have go back (or we buy them) we cant have another loan player at the club this season.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]PL rules this season are very clear - only two loan players, of any loan type, at any one time.  Unless one of the two we have go back (or we buy them) we cant have another loan player at the club this season.[/quote]

They aren''t that clear, I was speaking to a compliance officer at a Premier League club and he told me there is still provision to bring in short term loans on top of the season long loans. Lambert said in an interview he was looking into the possibilities of adding loan players.

[Canary Man of Kent 0]

Looking at the rules, they are set out very clearly so I''m not sure what this compliance officer knows that isn''t included in there:

 

http://www.premierleague.com/page/Handbook/0,,12306,00.html

 

It''s rules M. 6 - 10 that deal with loans. The rules are written exactly how ZLF says they are.

[ZLF 218]

Hmm, to my innocent non-legal eyes the handbook looks crystal clear, the extract from this years handbook is below.   There is nothing esle by why of exceptions to these rules that seem to be a loop hole for us to exploit,  beyond the stated scenarios,  returning or permanently signing either delaet or naughton or claiming one of the as a keeper..

Fingers crossed there is a way around it though.

 

 

http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/bc/8a/0,,12306~166588,00.pdf

M7.5

the maximum number of Temporary Transfers to any one Club registrable in the same

Season shall be 4 and in no circumstances shall more than 1 be from the same Transferor

Club save there shall be excluded from these numbers any Temporary Transfer of the

kind described in Rule M.7.6.1 or M.7.6.2;

M7.6

not more than 2 Temporary Transfers shall be registered by a Club at the same time

except that there shall be excluded from that number:

   7.6.1 any Temporary Transfer which become permanent; and

   7.6.2 the Temporary Transfer of a goalkeeper which in its absolute discretion the Board

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Canary Man of Kent"]

Looking at the rules, they are set out very clearly so I''m not sure what this compliance officer knows that isn''t included in there:

 

http://www.premierleague.com/page/Handbook/0,,12306,00.html

 

It''s rules M. 6 - 10 that deal with loans. The rules are written exactly how ZLF says they are.

[/quote]

I know, I have that very rule book in front of me on my desk. Which is why I spoke to an official, he said that short term loans were still allowed and that they weren''t covered by these rules. It will be interesting to see what happens come January but from what I have been told Norwich would still be able to loan some players (although it wasn''t anyone at the club itself who told me this).

 

I might try and get some confirmation from someone at the Premier League, but they can be a bit hard to get hold of.

[ZLF 218]

So the rules are not the rules as there are some that are not in the rule book?   no wonder football is in a mess!    I think it even specifies what short term rules are in M6 or 7...

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]So the rules are not the rules as there are some that are not in the rule book?   no wonder football is in a mess!    I think it even specifies what short term rules are in M6 or 7...[/quote]

Yes, as clear as mud isn''t it.

[BW 0]

We can get more loans in from different clubs that are under 3 months long. Like Bethnal said. Wizard fed up with your attitude go away to another board only enough room for one wizard here

[ZLF 218]

[quote user="BW"]We can get more loans in from different clubs that are under 3 months long. Like Bethnal said. Wizard fed up with your attitude go away to another board only enough room for one wizard here[/quote]

And where does it say that in the rules???

[BW 0]

WR2 - wizard rule number 2

[Jacko 0]

Based on the rulebook Zipper is absolutely right. It should definitely only be 2. So whether that loan is short term or long term is irrelevant really. I don''t see a loophole personally.

Mind you the FA have a knack of making things up as they go along. An example being the complete inept way they handled Faurlingate last year. I still don''t have a clue what that was all about and why?!

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Jacko"]Based on the rulebook Zipper is absolutely right. It should definitely only be 2. So whether that loan is short term or long term is irrelevant really. I don''t see a loophole personally. Mind you the FA have a knack of making things up as they go along. An example being the complete inept way they handled Faurlingate last year. I still don''t have a clue what that was all about and why?![/quote]

That link is only to the ''handbook'' and not the complete rulebook (which is such a dirge of legal jargon and sub clauses etc it is unreadable to anyone apart from lawyers). There is a ''loop hole'' for short term loans and even as the handbook says all transfers are at the descretion of ''the Board'' i.e. the Premier League.

 

The FA has nothing to do with these rules, in their rules they say transfers must be carried out under the rules of League. There really wasn''t a ''Faurlingate'' it was a lot of journos thinking the situation was like the Tevez one and it was very different - rather than being a third party ownership issue it was more down to the QPR board lying to their fans regarding the transfer - which in attempting to cover up they made some clerical errors in registering the player. People who say the FA are inept generally don''t understand the differences between the FA''s role and Leagues'' role.

[PurpleCanary 4,933]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

There really wasn''t a ''Faurlingate'' it was a lot of journos thinking the situation was like the Tevez one and it was very different - rather than being a third party ownership issue it was more down to the QPR board lying to their fans regarding the transfer - which in attempting to cover up they made some clerical errors in registering the player.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Bethnal, not so. The FA found QPR guilty of gaining a "sporting advantage" by playing someone whose registration was invalid. It was a question of third-party ownership. There is no doubt about that. And  this sporting advanatge was all through the season in which QPR were struggling to stay in the Championship, as well as last season. The bottom line is that QPR should have spent last season trying to get promotion out of  League One.

 

This is the key section of the tribunal report:

 

The failure to notify The FA meant that the Club was able to acquire the Player, for

no immediate financial outlay, in circumstances where another team, in an identical

position to the Club would not have been able to do so if they had notified The FA of

the TPI issue. There was no evidence before us that any other team was, in fact,

disadvantaged in that way, but the Commission finds that a sporting advantage did

accrue to Club in being able to sign and field a Player whose initial registration is

likely to have been refused, or at least delayed, until such times as the FL and/or The

FA (and particularly the latter) either satisfied themselves that the arrangement

between the Club and TYP did not contravene any TPI, or other, Rules and

Regulations, or until the TPI issue was removed by a buy-out.

The Commission further found that the ongoing failure to notify meant that the

Sporting Advantage continued throughout the 2009/10 FL Championship season

when the Club finished in 13th position.

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

There really wasn''t a ''Faurlingate'' it was a lot of journos thinking the situation was like the Tevez one and it was very different - rather than being a third party ownership issue it was more down to the QPR board lying to their fans regarding the transfer - which in attempting to cover up they made some clerical errors in registering the player.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Bethnal, not so. The FA found QPR guilty of gaining a "sporting advantage" by playing someone whose registration was invalid. It was a question of third-party ownership. There is no doubt about that. And  this sporting advanatge was all through the season in which QPR were struggling to stay in the Championship, as well as last season. The bottom line is that QPR should have spent last season trying to get promotion out of  League One.

 

This is the key section of the tribunal report:

 

The failure to notify The FA meant that the Club was able to acquire the Player, for

no immediate financial outlay, in circumstances where another team, in an identical

position to the Club would not have been able to do so if they had notified The FA of

the TPI issue. There was no evidence before us that any other team was, in fact,

disadvantaged in that way, but the Commission finds that a sporting advantage did

accrue to Club in being able to sign and field a Player whose initial registration is

likely to have been refused, or at least delayed, until such times as the FL and/or The

FA (and particularly the latter) either satisfied themselves that the arrangement

between the Club and TYP did not contravene any TPI, or other, Rules and

Regulations, or until the TPI issue was removed by a buy-out.

The Commission further found that the ongoing failure to notify meant that the

Sporting Advantage continued throughout the 2009/10 FL Championship season

when the Club finished in 13th position.

 

[/quote]

 

You are of course correct Purple. But I meant the situation was being played out to a much larger extend in areas of the media. The ruling itself says that the only advantage QPR gained was the amount of time it would have taken for the club to clear up the rather odd registration issue. Many people became pretty peeved with the FA over this, when personally I feel they handled the situation correctly, whereas the Football League were trying to cover themselves from any liability.

 

It just goes to show how the world of transfering players is far from black and white and there are many clever agents/lawyers out there finding new inventive ways to circumvent the ''rules''.