• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Pre Match - Leeds (A) - Sun 16:30

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frogfish said:
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 And yes Article 22 was in abeyance as it was withdrawn (again - just for you - a state of temporary disuse).
Click to expand...
It has not been withdrawn. That’s why the associations withdrew their complaint. It is an associations prerogative to request the ban and that is why they didn’t want action taken against Everton.

What you’ve done is brought in something which isn’t in the clubs reasoning for refusing the release of the players. They’ve stated it is based on the 10 day quarantine when arriving back in the UK. Nothing in any of the statements relate to the quarantine period in Brazil or Chile. If there is a blanket ban, that would’ve come up and been central to any argument. Could there dispensation for vaccinated/negative professional sports like we had in Europe for periods? Even the most recent statements mention “The UK government is now open to find a reasonable solution with the three organisations, who are working closely together in a spirit of mutual understanding, in the interests of everyone.” so nothing about quarantine periods in South America.

The rules require an agreement with the relevant association. No agreement had been reached. That’s why the Brazilian FA wanted to take action.

Had it gone that far, CAS would conclude FIFA and the associations acted as per the rules based on what was provided by the clubs. They did not act outside their rules.
 
Frogfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

You would first have to argue, in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, that the Brazilian law requiring foreigners to quarantine but not Brazilians, is discriminatory and a breach of Brazil's constitution - a near impossible especially in a pandemic - and then argue why their potential quarantine in Brazil should affect your decision not to release the players.

So it goes back to the UK quarantine laws. And the question is why should the fact that they would be quarantined after returning to the UK from Brazil exempt u frm releasing them? That's a UK govt decision, which is out of FIFA's control.

Finally, if Brazil did trigger the complaint, the players would be ineligible to play. There's no way the case could be heard by the CAS before the Leeds game, so we would have played an ineligible player, which result in a forfeit. Breaking the rules in the hope the rules get overturned would be just asking for it
 
momoWASboss said:
It has not been withdrawn. That’s why the associations withdrew their complaint. It is an associations prerogative to request the ban and that is why they didn’t want action taken against Everton.

What you’ve done is brought in something which isn’t in the clubs reasoning for refusing the release of the players. They’ve stated it is based on the 10 day quarantine when arriving back in the UK. Nothing in any of the statements relate to the quarantine period in Brazil or Chile. If there is a blanket ban, that would’ve come up and been central to any argument. Could there dispensation for vaccinated/negative professional sports like we had in Europe for periods? Even the most recent statements mention “The UK government is now open to find a reasonable solution with the three organisations, who are working closely together in a spirit of mutual understanding, in the interests of everyone.” so nothing about quarantine periods in South America.

The rules require an agreement with the relevant association. No agreement had been reached. That’s why the Brazilian FA wanted to take action.

Had it gone that far, CAS would conclude FIFA and the associations acted as per the rules based on what was provided by the clubs. They did not act outside their rules.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ. You clearly did not go back and read what I said. Nobody is talking about the UK immigration rules (unless the clubs wanted to sue for compensation). It's the Brazilian immigration rules under discussion so you've typed out a huge paragraph for nothing.

You have rule 22 in your head and nothing can dislodge it.

CAS could well have adjudicated that FIFA is not within its rights to force clubs to adhere to 22 in the middle of a pandemic and contrary to national laws. If they did side with 22 then clubs could have then taken that to a court of law. So you're making far from proven assumptions.

And yes, 22 is in abeyance. Withdrawing is cessation. Though I may be verging on pedantism here. However if you don't, or refuse to, comprehend the dictionary definition (temporary inactivity, cessation, suspend, disuse or suspension) that's not my fault.
 
Last edited:
Hyena said:
You would first have to argue, in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, that the Brazilian law requiring foreigners to quarantine but not Brazilians, is discriminatory and a breach of Brazil's constitution - a near impossible especially in a pandemic - and then argue why their potential quarantine in Brazil should affect your decision not to release the players.

So it goes back to the UK quarantine laws. And the question is why should the fact that they would be quarantined after returning to the UK from Brazil exempt u frm releasing them? That's a UK govt decision, which is out of FIFA's control.

Finally, if Brazil did trigger the complaint, the players would be ineligible to play. There's no way the case could be heard by the CAS before the Leeds game, so we would have played an ineligible player, which result in a forfeit. Breaking the rules in the hope the rules get overturned would be just asking for it
Click to expand...
Actually you wouldn't need to prove it ... it's de facto based on their actions against the Argentinians and then insistence on Brazilians being released to play in that game (which under the law wouldn't have been possible) so why are they invoking (now withdrawn) Rule 22? So their players can spend 10 days in quarantine and miss the match?

As I said above, the UK immigration laws aren't relevant.

Your point re. the timing of the case going before CAS is relevant but FIFA/Brazilian FA have already seen the error of their ways (or come to an agreement re. future matches, whether that involves relocating matches to a non-Red List country or not we'll have to wait and see).

It wouldn't surprise me if FIFA pointed out to the BFA that there could be repercussions/penalties for them (re. the Argentina game) if they do not withdraw their claim, as other countries have done (I speculate that is almost certainly based on the fact their claims would not be upheld in a court of law under the current circumstances).
 
Frogfish said:
Jesus Christ. You clearly did not go back and read what I said. Nobody is talking about the UK immigration rules (unless the clubs wanted to sue for compensation). It's the Brazilian immigration rules under discussion so you've typed out a huge paragraph for nothing.

You have rule 22 in your head and nothing can dislodge it.

CAS could well have adjudicated that FIFA is not within its rights to force clubs to adhere to 22 in the middle of a pandemic and contrary to national laws. If they did side with 22 then clubs could have then taken that to a court of law. So you're making far from proven assumptions.

And yes, 22 is in abeyance. Withdrawing is cessation. Though I may be verging on pedantism here. However if you don't, or refuse to, comprehend the dictionary definition (temporary inactivity, cessation, suspend, disuse or suspension) that's not my fault.
Click to expand...
Again. The issue is not Brazilian quarantine rules. It centred round the uk. That is what every single statement by the league talks about. Nothing to do with Brazil.

You do not even understand your own definition. The rule exists. The rule can be applied. The rule can only be enforced at the request of the associations. The rule has not, NOT, been withdrawn, suspended or disused. The request to apply the rule has been withdrawn.

I’m walking away from this. Not because you’re right, but because you’re boring me.
 
momoWASboss said:
Again. The issue is not Brazilian quarantine rules. It centred round the uk. That is what every single statement by the league talks about. Nothing to do with Brazil.

You do not even understand your own definition. The rule exists. The rule can be applied. The rule can only be enforced at the request of the associations. The rule has not, NOT, been withdrawn, suspended or disused. The request to apply the rule has been withdrawn.

I’m walking away from this. Not because you’re right, but because you’re boring me.
Click to expand...
Fuck me. Bangs head against wall for the last time.

You don't know what was said at the meeting, I don't know. But very very clearly Brazil's complaint was contrary to their actions and their own country's immigration rules. Get it yet? Thought not.
 
Frogfish said:
Fuck me. Bangs head against wall for the last time.

You don't know what was said at the meeting, I don't know. But very very clearly Brazil's complaint was contrary to their actions and their own country's immigration rules. Get it yet? Thought not.
Click to expand...
I’m not getting into this. You’re boring me.
 
If only we had some sensible posters with a legal background on here that could clear this up.

Unfortunately it appears that it’s part of a plot to install the new world order and you’re all leftie woke snowflakes.
 
StevieM said:
If only we had some sensible posters with a legal background on here that could clear this up.

Unfortunately it appears that it’s part of a plot to install the new world order and you’re all leftie woke snowflakes.
Click to expand...

Don’t be bringing in our own skynet poster into it.
 
If we're the only game on today why couldn't it have been moved to the earlier kick off slot?

In this context "If" meaning "so yeah."
 
binomial said:
If we're the only game on today why couldn't it have been moved to the earlier kick off slot?

In this context "If" meaning "so yeah."
Click to expand...
Two reasons. First, Sky will get the maximum number of viewers at 4:30. Second, I get to watch the F1 before the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Brizzle
    • Like
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Man Utd (H) - Sun 16:30
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
316
Views
5K
My_Blood_Bleeds_Red
My_Blood_Bleeds_Red
Brizzle
    • Like
Pre Match Pre Match - Man City (H) - Sun 16:00
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Replies
674
Views
11K
rubans
rubans
Brizzle
    • Like
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Arsenal (a) - Sun 16:30
2 3
Replies
74
Views
2K
binomial
binomial
Brizzle
    • Like
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Spurs (A) - Sun 16:30
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
SummerOnions
SummerOnions
Brizzle
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - West Ham (A) - Sun 17:15
2
Replies
56
Views
899
DHSC
DHSC
Back
Top Bottom