Farrelly and Healy Hearings Rejected by FIFA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

no-one's saying he's not being paid. however, the only reason he's being paid is as a gesture of good faith by cork city fc. that is enough for him to base a legal case upon, because legally his contract is not binding at the moment.

---

Not true I'm afraid. He is being paid because Cork City gave him a legally binding contract of employment. There is no goodwill or faith here, you must legally pay him. Stop paying him and you are in breach of your licence as well as permitting him to take a claim for constructive dismissal.

He was not entitled to play competitively for Cork City until July 1 when the contract from Cork City was offered. This information was known to Cork City, if not then your board do not understand the laws of the game.

He can do all other tasks required of footballers, training, promotional work, friendlies etc. If in his first competitive match he gets a red card then he is not entitled to play in the next competitive match either.

Its weird that FIFA have not cleared both of them and raises questions as to why the appeal was different to the other players, but Cork have declined to enlighten us all as to these reasons. All we have is fans, understandably, screaming for them to be allowed play and giving out about miscarriages of justice, but let me ask again.
Why was their appeal different to the other 10?

I be pretty annoyed if it happened to two Drogs players but I would demand answers from the club before I went and blamed FIFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celdrog

He can do all other tasks required of footballers, training, promotional work, friendlies etc. If in his first competitive match he gets a red card then he is not entitled to play in the next competitive match either.

---

I'd love to give you all the reason's you're wrong, but they've been done to death in the second section of the case of Jean-Marc Bosman, whereby a player's main duty of, well, playing, was set in stone as the defining factor regarding the eligibility of European Union nationals in European Union nations. UEFA themselves would have argued the same flawed logic as yourself, impressing that nothing was stopping the clubs from employing the players to train, but were met with the undeniable truth that training in football is essentially the same as training in any job - the means to an end, with a lack of training being not a breach of terms of employment but a lack of suitability to work - that is, to play.

Quote:

---

Its weird that FIFA have not cleared both of them and raises questions as to why the appeal was different to the other players, but Cork have declined to enlighten us all as to these reasons. All we have is fans, understandably, screaming for them to be allowed play and giving out about miscarriages of justice, but let me ask again.
Why was their appeal different to the other 10?

---

We don't know. It appears our club does not either - at least not those before the mouthpiece. At first it appeared to be the case that the differentiating factor was the seasonal differences between the UK leagues and Ireland (which seemed at first to be the very reason they were more entitled to play - given that this was the explanation given for the Mascherano leniency).
Now it appears that it is somehow a disadvantage.

Another issue surrounding our players that has subsequently arisen is the short-term loan deals involving other clubs, eg Brentford and Bradford. These deals should not have gone through, given the 6 month lower limit on loan deals, and the English FA is at fault for this.

In the past Cork City have been impacted by this relatively new rule, during the crisis of availability of a goalkeeper for the European campaign of 2005, Birmingham's Colin Doyle having agreed to join City but being refused clearance because the deal was too short, and Birmingham's reluctance to lose a player for 6 months. That particular ruling came under fire because it involved a goalkeeper, a situation that has been subject to leniency many times, famously including Jimmy Glass, the goalkeeper that scored to keep Carlisle (open to correction here) in the football league, on a short term loan.

That again we are faced with a situation where loopholes, vagaries and leniency are the issues, one has to wish for a little consistency one way or the other from the governing bodies.

Read in the Indo their cases were rejected because the English clubs they signed for didn't follow all FIFA/UEFA Rules or something strange like that. Will try find a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celdrog

Why was their appeal different to the other 10?

I be pretty annoyed if it happened to two Drogs players but I would demand answers from the club before I went and blamed FIFA.

---

Good interview with RIco on redfm clearing this up a bit. Not anywhere online yet though.

Apparently the problem was the length of the contracts with their previous clubs. FIFA claim a contract(even loan) is a minimum of 6 months but the FA cleared Healy for a 2 month(or so?) loan deal and Farrelly was on a week to week not for the required time.

That seems to be the problem and the difference from the others. The FA claim the deals were legal under their rules yet FIFA disagree.

The problem is no fault of City or the 2 lads really and its a bit ridiculous IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

The FA claim the deals were legal under their rules yet FIFA disagree.
The problem is no fault of City or the 2 lads really and its a bit ridiculous IMO.

---

So if FIFA say the deals were not legal then they effectively did not play for their previous clubs (in FIFA's eyes) and are free to play for Cork.
But then again Rico always tells the truth:rolleyes:

I don't know which is funnier, the lads not being allowed to play or the langers
logic (not directed at you Micls - you appear to be normal):D

That's pretty unusual. Surely the clubs and/or the FA should be sanctioned or whatever. Although if you look at it from a legal perspective, Cork are only seeking an exemption in the first place, not a rule change, and this other development further complicates an already complicated matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celdrog

So if FIFA say the deals were not legal then they effectively did not play for their previous clubs (in FIFA's eyes) and are free to play for Cork.
But then again Rico always tells the truth:rolleyes:I don't know which is funnier, the lads not being allowed to play or the langers
logic

---

Im not pretending to know the details....this has been reported as the reason by many people and Im pretty sure the clubs lawyers have a better understanding of it than you do.....no offense. Fact is that is the situation whether you think its logical or not :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Im not pretending to know the details....this has been reported as the reason by many people and Im pretty sure the clubs lawyers have a better understanding of it than you do.....no offense. Fact is that is the situation whether you think its logical or not :rolleyes:

---

celdrog seems pretty well informed, sure he quoted the exact salaries of the players in question earlier in the thread. with such detail of the case we can't even be sure he is not sepp blatter himself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risteard

Rico just on the radio there saying we're seeking a high court injunction to let them play while other avenues are explored.

---

RULE 4. MEMBERS’ OBLIGATIONS
The Members of the Football Association of Ireland have the following obligations

...

d) To adopt a statutory clause specifying that any dispute requiring arbitration involving itself or one of its
members and relating to the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the Football
Association of Ireland or the League(s) shall come solely under the jurisdiction of the appropriate Arbitration
Tribunal of FIFA, UEFA or the Football Association of Ireland and that any recourse to Civil Courts is
prohibited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

RULE 4. MEMBERS’ OBLIGATIONS
The Members of the Football Association of Ireland have the following obligations

...

d) To adopt a statutory clause specifying that any dispute requiring arbitration involving itself or one of its
members and relating to the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the Football
Association of Ireland or the League(s) shall come solely under the jurisdiction of the appropriate Arbitration
Tribunal of FIFA, UEFA or the Football Association of Ireland and that any recourse to Civil Courts is
prohibited.

---

Which, of course, is about as legally watertight as wooly socks.

Cork signed up to this. If they disregard it after only a few months, they rightfully will be fined.


One of the best rules the league has come up with IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

One of the best rules the league has come up with IMO

---

really? "thou shalt not question the FAI"? wait til it affects your lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Cork signed up to this. If they disregard it after only a few months, they rightfully will be fined.


One of the best rules the league has come up with IMO

---

I presume you're only saying "rightfully" because it's in the rules.
While dragging issues through the court relating to the administration of the eL (often rightfully) undermines the FAI, I don't see who would be hindered by this injunction.
The FAI supported Citys measures thus far and I'd imagine City would let them know before going down this road.

If the threat of points deduction remained at that stage, City would probably cut their losses and restrict themselves to the UEFA appeal.

Its not looking good though in all honesty.
On the other hand, it'll be exciting times if we're no more than 7 or 8 points off the pace come July.

15 rubbish posts binned.