Joseph Ndo - Work permits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de bowez

Would this not have been noticed when a special visa was obtained for the game in Salzburg? Or by the tax office?

---

No such thing as a special visa.

Non nationals living and working in Ireland with a work permit have a number of obligations. Once they receive the work permit, they must register with these people http://www.inis.gov.ie/ who will then give them "permission to remain" in Ireland. This takes the form of a stamp in their passport, and an Immigration card. it is valid until the end of their work permit.

If they wish to leave the country an re-enter (for whatever reason holiday, work abroad, trip "home") they must have a re-entry visa given to them by the same people. All re-entry visas are issued until the date of their permission to remain expires. Most non nationals living in Dublin get their Immigrattion stamp and visa sorted on the same day. If he had a 2 year work permit (which is possible after initial one year is issued), then the immigration authorities would not have any dealings with him.

Before his first job he'd apply for PPS number (He'd need to show work permit, immigration stuff etc). As long as tax is beeing paid on each employmee, that Department would not be alerted to where the employee is from, or what his status is. its all just fed into a system.

Joseph would've needed a Schengen visa issued to him to play in Austria but as long as he had his Irish immigration details as above, that wouldn't have been a problem

Deportivo Sligo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Deportivo Sligo.

---

Ha ha :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Defo one year. Work permit is a standard document. It can't reference anything

---

Dodge is correct with regard to work permits almost always operating on a one year basis and on the point that each change of employer requires a new work permit - permits are issued to the employer to employ a non national not to the non national - this is not most peoples view but true none the less. When he transferred to Bohs a new work permit should have been sought by the new employer (not sure on his loan spell at shams as Pats may well have continued to be his primary employer, this would also negate any need for pats to reapply when his loan period expired)
If he did not have a valid work permit then both he (emplyee) and the employer(s) involved are in breach of the legislation and liable for prosecution should the department decide to pursue the matter. Given the fact that there was no intent to breach the legislation (PAYE, PRSI etc paid) and given the high profile of the case (hardly working under cover or illegally) the department may not pursue retrospectively.
I presume the League accepted and ratified his registration at each club and therefore see it as unlikely that they will go back on the issue - they were wrong not to check at the time.
Unfortunate that Sligo end up getting the worst deal as they were in no way responsible for the debacle. I would suggest in future that all applications to League for ratification of contracts of overseas players attach a copy of the work permit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Given the fact that there was no intent to breach the legislation (PAYE, PRSI etc paid) and given the high profile of the case (hardly working under cover or illegally) the department may not pursue retrospectively.
I presume the League accepted and ratified his registration at each club and therefore see it as unlikely that they will go back on the issue - they were wrong not to check at the time.

---

Echos of 2002 there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdjaC

So just to be sure on this Pats are the only team who registered and employed Ndo properly during his 7 year stay here.

Shels Bohs and Rovers didnt check that he was properly able to work here. Is 3 points per game still the going rate?

Swings and roundabouts :D

---

Club A
32 registration forms sent
2 with faxed copy
2 with no players date of birth
1 with no address for player
2 forms with no end of contract details
19 forms with no professional cintract details

Club B
50 players registered
Majority have no fax copies
Some forms signed by person other than secretary
1 form with no players date of birth
Couple of forms came in envelopes
No financial details on forms for three players
One form registered in August 1999 - no indication form was sent by registered post

Club C
38 registration forms sent
Only 10 have faxed copies

Club D
66 players registered 1 has faxed copy
11 players forms have no witness address on them
1 player form has no address, no place of birth, no date of birth
7 forms for professionals have no contract details
Forms for 6 players registered in July 2000 were posted by Swiftpost, not registered post

Club E
52 players registered 10 forms have no fax copies
2 forms sent in May 2001 have no registered post stickers and no envelope to indicate they came by registered post
1 form not signed by secretary although witness section filled in
1 form has no player date of birth
1 form has no previous club entered
Number of forms sent in envelopes

Club F
39 registration forms sent
36 fax copies
1 form with no address of witness
1 player registered as an amateur with contract details filled in

Club G
41 players registered
23 forms have fax copies
19 forms show no last club
1 form has no player date of birth
3 forms have no date of player signature

Club H
55 registration forms sent
11 forms have no fax copies
10 forms have no name completed for the player consent section and no date for the season being registered
1 form has no address of witness to player signature

Club I
41 registration forms sent
4 from August 2000 are not stamped by registered post
4 other forms sent June 2000 have a photocopy of the same registered post envelope attached
7 forms have faxed copies
2 forms do not have contract details on them
8 forms list no previous club
1 form not signed by by club secretary although witness ssection complete
No original form can be found for one player

Club J
54 registration forms sent
16 with faxed copies

Club K
60 registration forms sent
21 were posted individually to the League in August 2001 by unregistered post
10 forms have faxed copies
No date of birth for any player

Club L
46 registration forms sent
27 have faxed copies
1 professional form does not have contract details

Club M
42 registration forms sent
6 with faxed copies
2 forms with no professional details
5 forms with no date of players signature

Club N
31 players registered
None accompanied by fax copy of form
Most forms not individually registered post-marked
1 player [reg August 1999], 1 Player [reg June 1998], ome player [reg October 1999] - form not stamped by registered post
and no envelope
8 forms from season before this season not registered with the League within four days of the player signing as the rule then required

Club O
43 players registered
9 forms had faxed copies

Club P
55 registration forms sent
14 have faxed copies
8 professional forms do not have contract details on them
3 forms have no end of contract details on them

Club Q
48 players registered
1 form with fax copy

Club R
54 players registered
All with registered post mark on form
2 forms with fax copy
5 professional forms do not have contract details on them

Club S
50 players registered
4 forms with fax copy

Club T
37 registration forms sent
4 forms with fax copies
2 forms with insufficient place of birth details

Club U
59 registration forms sent
23 with fax copy
25 professional forms do not have contract details on them
5 forms not registered with the League within the four days of the player signing as the rule then required

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Echos of 2002 there...

---

Eh no, Bohs fulfilled all the requirements put forward by the FAI at the time. My point is that they cannot now add additional requirements not sought then. on that basis what rules have Bohs breached ?(all of this is predicated on the accuracy of the original claims RE work permit).
I presume your reference to 2002 is the marley affair where St Pats did not fulfill the requirements.
Comment RE "intent" related to the possibility of Dept ET&E pursuing the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

I presume your reference to 2002 is the marley affair where St Pats did not fulfill the requirements.
Comment RE "intent" related to the possibility of Dept ET&E pursuing the matter.

---

My comment was that intednig to do the right thing is not the same as doing the right thing. Rules are rules and all that. As i said if Bohs illegally employed him, his contract is null & void. Lots of ifs there, obviously and too messy for the FAI to deal with

Cheers Reitoir. Remember Roy Dooney's report well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

My comment was that intednig to do the right thing is not the same as doing the right thing. Rules are rules and all that. As i said if Bohs illegally employed him, his contract is null & void. Lots of ifs there, obviously and too messy for the FAI to deal with

Cheers Reitoir. Remember Roy Dooney's report well.

---

Agree with you that Bohs may have issues with Dept ET&E if no work permit but doubt the FAI will be chasing up. as mentioned here in other context the relationship between employer/employee contracts and registration with the FAI/League is complex and not always the same.
Glad to see Pats fan accepting "rules are rules" concept - not what the club claimed in 2002 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

I presume they've already been through this with Boco?

---

He's from France, has French and Benin passport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Glad to see Pats fan accepting "rules are rules" concept - not what the club claimed in 2002 !

---

Well some always did. I know we got shafted in 2002 (not everything came out in the public domain), and despite these posts I'd hate to see Bohs lose the league for off field admin errors.

On the other hand the Shelegation made me laugh solidly for 3 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Well some always did. I know we got shafted in 2002 (not everything came out in the public domain), and despite these posts I'd hate to see Bohs lose the league for off field admin errors.

On the other hand the Shelegation made me laugh solidly for 3 days.

---

What goes around........? Cant see the FAI looking too hard as this if for no other reason than the league needs more controversy like a hole in the head. Expect tighter regulation in the future (and probobly rightly ) but a "blind eye" to things retrospectively (after all that is their forte :))

Hope we have moved on from the Ollie Byrnesque carry on of 2002 :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

and despite these posts I'd hate to see Bohs lose the league for off field admin errors..

---

its not going to happen so dont worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'm pretty sure there was a case in England where a player played for a club while in jail; he was tagged and released for match days.

Not sure if anyone's managed to play for a club while deported though...

---

Arrah, we've had several of those down the years. They weren't coming from jail, mind you.

jermaine pennant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acornvilla

jermaine pennant

---

Pennant did indeed play with an electronic tag but I think that was after he was released (early) from prison. One the release conditions was that he wear the tag for the duration of the original sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Pennant did indeed play with an electronic tag but I think that was after he was released (early) from prison. One the release conditions was that he wear the tag for the duration of the original sentence.

---

There was talk of tagging Tony Kelly (superman) when he played withThe Rovers so that they would know what pub to pull him out of for the match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avvenalaf

There was talk of tagging Tony Kelly (superman) when he played withThe Rovers so that they would know what pub to pull him out of for the match.

---

Ya. But then they realised there was no need as Jimmy Mullen was bound to be with him in the the pub anyway.

Comedy gold from Paul Cook yesterday saying Ndo would've got more money with us but he chose Sligo instead. Looks like the chip most Sligo fans have on their shoulders re us has finally infected him also. I'm sure, seeing as Ndo was only offered a pay as you play deal with us, even the most anti Hoop among the Sligo breathern will realise Cook's spoofing big time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoopy

Comedy gold from Paul Cook yesterday saying Ndo would've got more money with us but he chose Sligo instead. Looks like the chip most Sligo fans have on their shoulders re us has finally infected him also. I'm sure, seeing as Ndo was only offered a pay as you play deal with us, even the most anti Hoop among the Sligo breathern will realise Cook's spoofing big time.

---

No! I don't accept he was spoofing!