Farrelly and Healy cleared - Rumour from Stupidity Central

Printable View

01/04/2007, 10:07 AM
A face

Farrelly and Healy cleared - Rumour from Stupidity Central

Just as it says .... Farrelly and Healy cleared - Rumour

Nothing on the FAI or League site about it though.
01/04/2007, 11:21 AM
adamcarr

If it was any other day of the year then Id be delighted but today I just don't believe it!
01/04/2007, 11:57 AM
adamcarr

Nothing on Red FM at 12:45 like we were told, I doubt theres any truth to this rumour.
01/04/2007, 1:34 PM
razor

King of the WUM's, Dunnocks, strikes again.
Shame on ye all for believing him.
01/04/2007, 5:46 PM
micls

Rico on Redfm. Fifa contacted him earlier to tell him they had made a decision but wont tell him til tomorrow.

What the hell!!!
01/04/2007, 6:26 PM
ccfcgirl

The day thats in it I wouldnt believe a word....
01/04/2007, 6:31 PM
Peadar

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccfcgirl

The day thats in it I wouldnt believe a word....

You're very cynical! :p
02/04/2007, 11:00 PM
Mr A

The appeals are rejected according to EL weekly.
02/04/2007, 11:01 PM
James

looks like they werent cleared in the end

disgraceful decision!!!
03/04/2007, 12:37 AM
Risteard

Tut tut.
You should know better Face.
03/04/2007, 10:31 AM
Tir Oilean

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

looks like they werent cleared in the end

disgraceful decision!!!

How the fcuk do they let some players through and then stop Farrelly and Healy? Are these guys trying to make some work for themselves to do with appeals etc.? Looks to me like its not just the FAI that need a good shake up:mad:
03/04/2007, 11:57 AM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tir Oilean

How the fcuk do they let some players through and then stop Farrelly and Healy? Are these guys trying to make some work for themselves to do with appeals etc.? Looks to me like its not just the FAI that need a good shake up:mad:

I was prepared for Healy to be rejected as he wouldn't be allowed to play for another team in the UK either. I don't understand the Farrelly decision.

Obviously the club knew this could happen but I think they were right to sign the players. If the FAI had just kept its head down FIFA wouldn't have known or cared about the situation.

:mad:
03/04/2007, 10:02 PM
Fair_play_boy

Does anybody on this message board know what the purpose of the rule is? I have been in sports admin for years (different code) and it seems like a funny rule to have unless there was a really good reason why it is there.
03/04/2007, 10:36 PM
Student Mullet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair_play_boy

Does anybody on this message board know what the purpose of the rule is? I have been in sports admin for years (different code) and it seems like a funny rule to have unless there was a really good reason why it is there.

I presume it's to stop players acting as contractors, hiring themselves out to different clubs when they have a big game.
03/04/2007, 10:41 PM
Poor Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

I presume it's to stop players acting as contractors, hiring themselves out to different clubs when they have a big game.

Oh, you mean like Romario signing on for one month at Adelaide in Australia playing 4 games for AUS$1m and then moving back to Brazil for his third club in a year?:p
03/04/2007, 10:44 PM
Student Mullet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Oh, you mean like Romario signing on for one month at Adelaide in Australia playing 4 games for AUS$1m and then moving back to Brazil for his third club in a year?:p

That sounds like what I mean, yes.
04/04/2007, 11:29 AM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Oh, you mean like Romario signing on for one month at Adelaide in Australia playing 4 games for AUS$1m and then moving back to Brazil for his third club in a year?:p

FIFA is as corrupt as the IOC in making special deals. What happened to to one game for all?

:( :confused:
04/04/2007, 11:37 AM
Poor Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

FIFA is as corrupt as the IOC in making special deals. What happened to to one game for all?

:( :confused:

Pete, I've seen a lot of ire from Cork fans since the announcement but does anyone know the technical reason offered for the rejection of this appeal? RRS jokes aside, there must be some reason why this case has been viewed differently to the others.
04/04/2007, 8:57 PM
Fair_play_boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

I presume it's to stop players acting as contractors, hiring themselves out to different clubs when they have a big game.

Thanks SM. That does sound plausible as a reason for having the rule. However, if that is the reason, then the person who enforced it has made a monumental horlicks of it, IMHO. The purpose behind any rule is what should be looked at before it is used.
05/04/2007, 7:52 AM
Hitman

You'd think at the very least they could come to some arrangement for the two boys to cover for Billy when he needs time off work, at least there'd be some benefit to the team that way.
05/04/2007, 11:50 AM
DmanDmythDledge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Pete, I've seen a lot of ire from Cork fans since the announcement but does anyone know the technical reason offered for the rejection of this appeal? RRS jokes aside, there must be some reason why this case has been viewed differently to the others.

http://unison.ie/sportsdesk/stories....=12&si=1805995

Quote:

Cork would be the third club in this period for both Healy (Barnsley, Bradford) and Farrelly (Bohemians, Blackpool). However, seven other Eircom League players have been successful in appealing their cases on the basis that they are entitled to seek employment with new clubs as free agents.
However, FIFA rejected the case of the two former British based players on technicalities which prevents them from lining out for Richardson's side until July.
While Cork's legal team were examining the case yesterday, the prospect of appeal is unlikely given that they would be working off the same evidence.

Were Healy and Farrelly not free agents too?
08/04/2007, 9:28 AM
CollegeTillIDie

There is an option of going via the FA in England and the PFA at this stage, it was mentioned on Newstalk 106. Because certainly in Farrelly's case he was only on a short term contract in England when he was there . This MAY provide a route out of the problem. I still believe that Mascherano set a precedent and that Cork are being very badly treated here, but then again they brought a case separately to the FAI bringing the others and they got the others through. Perhaps Merrion Square has it's act together on this issue.
08/04/2007, 11:21 AM
GavinZac

Quote:

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

but then again they brought a case separately to the FAI bringing the others and they got the others through. Perhaps Merrion Square has it's act together on this issue.

our problem became obvious before any of the other players. our club responded to the communication from FIFA, providing it with the information it requested. FIFA then seperately contacted the FAI regarding players in a similar situation. the idea that we "chose to go it alone" is rubbish and we also worked in conjunction with the FAI, as was constantly repeated by the FAI themselves.