I really, really hope that turns out to the case, mate. If so, we could both lose AND win the game 3-0. As could Leeds. Fucking FIFA.
Pre Match - Leeds (A) - Sun 16:30
- Thread starter Brizzle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I really, really hope that turns out to the case, mate. If so, we could both lose AND win the game 3-0. As could Leeds. Fucking FIFA.
Our Brazilians are that good they can beat Leeds a whole day before kick off.
And so they/we all should, if players and clubs are in agreement it's better not to travel then surely it's their right?
Are they under contract to play for the country or something? No, last time I check the club pay the wages, the club holds the contracts.
If Alisson starts tomorrow, I guess that means we are saddled with Adrian on Sunday
They are governed by the rules of the game. FIFA is the highest authority within the sport.
Aren’t CAS a court service to adjudicate on decisions and whether they are within the law/regulations of whatever sport?
Weren’t both???
Precisely, which is what we would have here if the premier league were to appeal against any decision, no?
The rules are clear and CAS would side with FIFA.
I'm not sure they would. We've already seen illogical rules, during a pandemic, being overturned in courts.
It’s clear, in black and white what the rules are. The players should report for international duty and if they don’t there is a 5 day suspension.
I may not agree with it, but it’s clear.
What rules have been overturned?
I may not agree with it, but it’s clear.
What rules have been overturned?
Might scrape a draw now that the Brazilians can play
And it's more than likely that during a global pandemic those rules are not applicable - as FIFA have now indeed agreed.
Laws in abeyance, I'm talking about in general not football specifically.
Had it been pushed there is no way CAS would overrule the consequences of playing an illegible player. Rules/laws have been temporarily changed due to the pandemic. That particular rule hasn’t.
FIFA haven’t agreed anything. Mediation happened between all parties and the relevant football associations are not applying their right to ask for that suspension.
FIFA haven’t agreed anything. Mediation happened between all parties and the relevant football associations are not applying their right to ask for that suspension.
Racist
I think they’ve agreed how to solve this for the next international break, thats why they backed down.
So in other words the rule was put into abeyance because of the pandemic, no matter how it's phrased. You're welcome 😉
It wasn’t. The federation can request the suspension to be implemented. They decided against implementing it. Had they requested it and the club appealed they’d lose.
We do not know the exact reason why they decided against it but they are peddling the line good faith, goodwill and cooperation. That’s not the same as putting the rule into abeyance.
We do not know the exact reason why they decided against it but they are peddling the line good faith, goodwill and cooperation. That’s not the same as putting the rule into abeyance.
We know the reason! The pandemic and respective countries' immigration policies. Take that to court and it's a slam dunk. FIFA and the Brazilian FA know it too.
Now why they agreed could have gone two ways a) an agreement re. October/November or b) the clubs effectively threatened legal action and / or to sue for compensation.
It doesn't matter that It's there in black and white for a sport when Governmental policies preclude it. .
Agreed. It's one thing to say the player shouldn't be ineligible. Once he is declared ineligible and you play him there's no saving that.
The slam dunk would be for Brazil. The courts would look at the facts of the case and the rules applied. The fact is the players didn’t turn up. The rules state they have the right to apply for a 5 day suspension. The UK’s policies have no bearing on Brazil trying to win their fixtures.
An agreement was only reached because they’ll be released for future fixtures because the government will make sportsmen exempt from quarantine rules.
Err no. Whatever gives you the idea that sporting laws take precedence over national laws - especially during a pandemic? The courts would say "hang on your regulation contravenes the laws of the land ... on your way FIFA".
I'll clarify for your sake : Brazil fucked themselves. You can't on the one hand say "we're arresting the Argentians for illegal entry from the UK without quarantine" and on the other "we want a 5 day ban because our players weren't allowed to travel ... from the UK and enter without quarantine".
It's either racism or the Argentinians didn't contravene the regulations (they did) or twisting the rules to suit themselves (our players from the UK are OK but the Argentinians aren't allowed to play). FIFA aren't going to have that ... and didn't.
Oh and here is the dictionary definition of 'abeyance' which is what I said happened : a state of temporary disuse or suspension.
Last edited:
What laws would be contravened? The persons involved would be inconvenienced by quarantining. Not breaking any laws.
Article 22 still stands. It is neither disused or suspended.
Article 22 still stands. It is neither disused or suspended.
Think back to when we first signed matip. He’d retired for international football yet we didn’t play him during/after Cameroon fixtures. We didn’t even know we could play him because of article 22 even though he was retired from international football.
It doesn’t account for mitigating circumstances. Even injured players can be called up for assessment by federation’s doctors. The rule is simple. If called up they need to be released or there are consequences if the federation requests them.
It doesn’t account for mitigating circumstances. Even injured players can be called up for assessment by federation’s doctors. The rule is simple. If called up they need to be released or there are consequences if the federation requests them.
Last edited:
Fuck me Momo. Read what I said again regarding Brazilian Immigration law. And yes Article 22 was in abeyance as it was withdrawn (again - just for you - a state of temporary disuse).
Completely different scenario. I'm not even sure how you think that is pertinent !
- Status
Similar threads
