View Full Version : City frustrated as FIFA refuses to clear star signings
From today's Examiner
City frustrated as FIFA refuses to clear star signings
By Liam Mackey
FIFA have refused Cork City’s request that new signings Colin Healy and Gareth Farrelly be cleared to play for the club.
Yesterday’s news, relayed to the club through the FAI, is being viewed in Turner’s Cross as an annoying setback rather than a fatal blow, with manager Damien Richardson expressing confidence that the club can still make a case for both players being treated as exceptions to the rule.
Under FIFA regulations, a player cannot be registered with three clubs in one season. Colin Healy has already been with Bradford and Barnsley this season while Gareth Farrelly moved from Bohemians to Blackpool, before both men signed for Cork City.
However, the summer nature of the eircom League is one of the exceptional circumstances which the Leesiders are keen to cite. The FIFA year is from June to June whereas the Irish club season now runs from March to November.
Having had their first request for clearance turned down on general grounds, it’s understood City will now have to make detailed and separate submissions to world football’s governing body on behalf of each player.
Yesterday’s ruling, and the further delay it implies in blooding both players in the Cork colours after they missed the Setanta Cup 0-0 draw with Dungannon Swifts, came as a blow to Richardson.
However, there was better news for the manager with confirmation that Colin Healy has finally officially signed on the dotted line, while full-back Neal Horgan has inked a new two-year contract. Billy Woods was also set to re-sign for the club yesterday.
Said Horgan: “I’m delighted to sign back with the club and I’m very excited about the coming season. Along with the other recent signings, the squad is looking strong and I’m confident that we should be challenging for silverware this season.”
Meanwhile, the Bohemians-Shamrock Rovers eircom League game scheduled for Dalymount Park on Friday, March 23, has been moved to Tuesday, April 3. March 23 is the eve of the Ireland-Wales Euro qualifier at Croke Park and, after consultations between both clubs, the FAI and the gardaí, it was decided to defer the league game for operational reasons.
endabob1
01/03/2007, 8:04 AM
Surely The Liverpool Mascherano deal has put a precedent in place regarding the different season that countries have.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2002639,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=5
"The ruling appears to take into account the fact that the Brazilian and English seasons do not run parallel, with the Campeonato Brasileiro beginning in April and ending in December - thus cutting through the close season in this country. "Particular emphasis was given to the safeguard of the sporting integrity and the crucial element of overlapping sports seasons between associations, notably in cases in which a sports season starts prior and ends beyond July 1," continued the statement."
Surely The Liverpool Mascherano deal has put a precedent in place regarding the different season that countries have.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2002639,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=5
"The ruling appears to take into account the fact that the Brazilian and English seasons do not run parallel, with the Campeonato Brasileiro beginning in April and ending in December - thus cutting through the close season in this country. "Particular emphasis was given to the safeguard of the sporting integrity and the crucial element of overlapping sports seasons between associations, notably in cases in which a sports season starts prior and ends beyond July 1," continued the statement."
City will be hoping that this sets a precedent.
Risteard
01/03/2007, 10:19 AM
I'd a bad feeling City were under-estimating this hurdle.
Nonetheless, i think it is totally contrary to European law and won't stand up if pushed.
We should not have to appeal this & the incur the costs & delays involved.
Are Liverpool so special they change the CL rules to allow them back & also allow they sign a player outside the rules who already has a club.
Farrelly & Healy are unemployed so this is denying them earning a living.
:rolleyes:
no its not - cork are paying these two while they can't play
John83
01/03/2007, 12:18 PM
no its not - cork are paying these two while they can't play
But they don't have to - FIFA is saying that they can't earn a living as a footballer at any club but their last one. The rule is clearly very badly worded, and should be amended before someone gets it made illegal in court.
paudie
01/03/2007, 1:10 PM
The Mascherano case seems very similar to Farrelly's case so City should be ok with that. Not sure about Healy.
John83
01/03/2007, 1:25 PM
The Mascherano case seems very similar to Farrelly's case so City should be ok with that. Not sure about Healy.
How so?
Farrelly was a player manager, and has been released by his club. Mascherano was a player, still under contract. Healy was out of contract too, right?
Farrelly was a player manager, and has been released by his club. Mascherano was a player, still under contract. Healy was out of contract too, right?
He was a player at Blackpool. If anything a player out of contract has a much better case than one under contract.
The EU have freedom of employment LAWS. Fifa/Uefa have rules governing movement of players. LAWS are more powerful than rules in every circumstance (e.g. Bosman case.). Fifa haven't a hope of defending in court but should not need to go that far.
:mad:
John83
01/03/2007, 1:46 PM
He was a player at Blackpool. If anything a player out of contract has a much better case than one under contract.
Thanks, didn't know he was playing elsewhere. Were they both playing so? Agreed, denying an out of contract player work is daft in the extreme.
The EU have freedom of employment LAWS. Fifa/Uefa have rules governing movement of players. LAWS are more powerful than rules in every circumstance (e.g. Bosman case.). Fifa haven't a hope of defending in court but should not need to go that far.
:mad:
They've long been granted certain exemptions from those laws, and besides, there may well be a loophole in terms of registration for any given season. I don't expect this to drag out though. Either they grant further exemptions here, or they'll get whacked in court.
I don't expect this to drag out though. Either they grant further exemptions here, or they'll get whacked in court.
Its fine for Liverpool with their resources but its a lot for an LOI club to be expected to take this to the EU courts. Hopefully it just requires Fifa red tape to be completed though. I wonder if FIfpro (http://www.fifpro.org/index.php) have any opinion.
paudie
02/03/2007, 8:03 AM
How so?
Farrelly was a player manager, and has been released by his club. Mascherano was a player, still under contract. Healy was out of contract too, right?
I think Liverpool got an exemption from the rule because Mascherano had played in the Brazilian 2006 season, which runs in the calendar yeat like ours.
For that reason they seem to have disregarded his time with Corinthians in calculating whether he played for 3 clubs since July.
Since Farrelly played for Bohs in our 2006 season it follows that Bohs shouldn't be counted in his case.
A face
02/03/2007, 11:53 AM
How can they be playing for a third club in one season when our season hasn't even started yet ??
endabob1
02/03/2007, 12:07 PM
I think Liverpool got an exemption from the rule because Mascherano had played in the Brazilian 2006 season, which runs in the calendar yeat like ours.
For that reason they seem to have disregarded his time with Corinthians in calculating whether he played for 3 clubs since July.
Since Farrelly played for Bohs in our 2006 season it follows that Bohs shouldn't be counted in his case.
That's my basic understanding, Mascherano's stint at Corinthians was in a country where the Season runs on a similar timescale to the EL and FIFA basically ruled that because of this allowances had to be made, I would expect the same would have to be the case for both Healy & Farrelly although with FIFA you can never be sure of anything....
The FIFA rule is illegal & won't stand up to any challenge outside football. The disappointing thing is this could drag on for too long :(
Risteard
02/03/2007, 1:38 PM
Common sense and everything else indicates this will be sorted.
The only thing i'd be worried about was that I remember UEFA stating that Corinthians ran on a different season to the "UEFA season".
The only thing i'd be worried about was that I remember UEFA stating that Corinthians ran on a different season to the "UEFA season".
A few years ago Blatter spoke about all countries moving to Feb-Nov season with WC i between.
Risteard
02/03/2007, 3:12 PM
Well the way i understood this was that it was the administrative season of August/ September to May.
Irrespective of what league you were in.
Still, utterly illegal though.
I thought it was a calendar year tbh
Schumi
02/03/2007, 6:56 PM
What's the point of this rule anyway?
A face
03/03/2007, 12:06 AM
What's the point of this rule anyway?
I suppose to stop all the shady stuff going on. But it is clearly effecting other situations as well.
SligoBrewer
03/03/2007, 12:40 AM
What's the point of this rule anyway?
was jus thinking of that myself.
A face
03/03/2007, 1:02 AM
Article 6, section 1 (http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/manuals/95)
Student Mullet
03/03/2007, 1:04 AM
What's the point of this rule anyway?I presume it's to stop players hiring themselves out to different clubs when their big match comes around. There is\was a similar rule in the LoI that said if you go to a foreign club you must wait 8 weeks before playing LoI again, to stop player swapping with IL clubs.
Poor Student
04/03/2007, 8:03 AM
Well Romario pimped himself out to Adelaide United in Australia for one month, just 4 games for $1m and he's had an exception made for him.
galway-united5
11/03/2007, 11:19 AM
bad buzz i wanted to see healy play this season.
Well Romario pimped himself out to Adelaide United in Australia for one month, just 4 games for $1m and he's had an exception made for him.
If FIFA make exceptions it undermines the rule. How can you make exceptions for individual cases? I rule for big names & another for the rest?
Mascherano case:
The Single Judge's ruling was that 'upon registration for Liverpool FC during the present registration period, the player Javier Mascherano is eligible to play in official matches with the said club with immediate effect.'
After careful study of the case put forward by the Anfield club, the conclusion was reached that it would not be justifiable to prevent Mascherano from moving to Merseyside during the current transfer window and being eligible to play in official matches.
Particular emphasis was given to the safeguarding of sporting integrity and the crucial element of overlapping seasons between the relevant associations.
The Single Judge made it clear, however, that such permission can only be granted under very strict preconditions. In particular, he stressed that, "a series of elements related, on the one hand, to the duration and the positioning of the relevant sports seasons as well as to the respect of the registration periods and, on the other hand, to the duration and respect of the employment contracts concerned, need to be cumulatively met."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.