Mollo Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Sorry all if already raised and covered.. But has any light been shone on what makes this sanction fair? Some hint early on it could be deemed ageism. Just curious as I've seen no explanation. Not arguing for or against the sanction, just the legality that covers the u21 bit in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Basically it's anyone as long as they are younger than Peter Enckelman as he's the player that left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaka Demus & pliers Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Basically it's anyone as long as they are younger than Peter Enckelman as he's the player that left. Shakes head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Basically it's anyone as long as they are younger than Peter Enckelman as he's the player that left. Unfortunately not - players signed must be under 21, regardless of age of player that left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 It's called a punishment for not abiding by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCGilmour Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Would guess if tested in court a la bosman it wouldn't hold up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Would guess if tested in court a la bosman it wouldn't hold up And if hearts took the league to court then Uefa would get involved and the club would be in shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachearts Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Can't believe this question is still being asked, got to be a piss take surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Unfortunately not - players signed must be under 21, regardless of age of player that left. Not true mate its been confirmed on the other thread we can def sign players younger than encks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam_Tart Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 It basically means the SFA saw clearly that hearts had their eyes firmly on signing a lithuanian striker that scored 41 in 38 games and also the king Rudi Skacel and had to make up something to avoid hearts signing either of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Not true mate its been confirmed on the other thread we can def sign players younger than encks. What thread is that mate - "Striker In" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 And if hearts took the league to court then Uefa would get involved and the club would be in shit. But the Huns wurnae punished for taking the league to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 And if hearts took the league to court then Uefa would get involved and the club would be in shit. No the league would, therefore i'd wager the league would fold and admit defeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 It basically means the SFA saw clearly that hearts had their eyes firmly on signing a lithuanian striker that scored 41 in 38 games and also the king Rudi Skacel and had to make up something to avoid hearts signing either of them... Defo. Anti hearts SPL, scared shitless we where going to win the league etc etc. Total conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 No the league would, therefore i'd wager the league would fold and admit defeat Uefa give the national bodies the power to run there own associations. The SFA give the SPL the power to rule the premier league. Challenging them would piss of Uefa. Especially the club broke the rules and deserve a punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 But the Huns wurnae punished for taking the league to court. Was that not the old huns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollo Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 It's called a punishment for not abiding by the rules. No????!! Really??!! In other news: grass is green! I know it's a punishment - it helps to read the OP before answering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 No????!! Really??!! In other news: grass is green! I know it's a punishment - it helps to read the OP before answering I was replying to the "fair" part mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Uefa give the national bodies the power to run there own associations. The SFA give the SPL the power to rule the premier league. Challenging them would piss of Uefa. Especially the club broke the rules and deserve a punishment. Exactly and Uefa would be annoyed at the SFA allowing punishments that arent valid being brought in and could take action against the lot of us for the SFA not keeping its house in order, Its a case of if im going down im taking you all with me (Well to an extent, i suffer you suffer) To be honest its ridiculas and i cannot see any point in the under 21's rule other than to hinder us in the league, A one in one out rule with the incomming player on a lower wage than the outgoing player is more than acceptable and completely fair ALL IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Disregarding the Rudi and Rimmy factor, give us a couple more signings like Wilson and they can keep their ******* signing restrictions. I like the thought of Serge, Southern and Doncaster outwitting Doncaster, Johnston and their self-interested cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Exactly and Uefa would be annoyed at the SFA allowing punishments that arent valid being brought in and could take action against the lot of us for the SFA not keeping its house in order, Its a case of if im going down im taking you all with me (Well to an extent, i suffer you suffer) To be honest its ridiculas and i cannot see any point in the under 21's rule other than to hinder us in the league, A one in one out rule with the incomming player on a lower wage than the outgoing player is more than acceptable and completely fair ALL IMO The rule is in place as a punishment for us failing to pay wages and bonus more than once. They could have banned us completely from signing anyone. The transfer embargo is part of the rules so that's why that came to fruition, this part of the ban is punishing us. The league needed to do something and hopefully now they have it will stop this happening again in the future as now we know we will be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_vlad Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Was that not the old huns? No action was ever taken against rangers when they went to court, because just like now there is no appeal body apart from the sfa. If there is no where for us to solve the problem then its perfect right for us to go to civil courts! \ The FA & EPL went to courts after sheffield Utd sued them over the tevez thing, no punishment from uefa for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balmain Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Hearts said they were taking legal advice on this with a view to an appeal. Obviosly the advice was that the punishment was legal and within the rules or it would have been challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 It's called a punishment for not abiding by the rules. Even if the "punishment" as you love to call it is against European employment law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The rule is in place as a punishment for us failing to pay wages and bonus more than once. They could have banned us completely from signing anyone. The transfer embargo is part of the rules so that's why that came to fruition, this part of the ban is punishing us. The league needed to do something and hopefully now they have it will stop this happening again in the future as now we know we will be punished. I do not agree with the under 21's aspect of it, they gave us a ban, then decided we had shown ourselves competetent(?) financially to lift it, Whilst i agree with the one in one out to avoid another repeat i do not believe the league has any right to dictate what age of players we sign, Anyway as someone said hearts were seeking legal advice so obviously there is nothing wrong here besides what i feel is a deliberate attempt to hinder our progress (with inexperianced players) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The rule is in place as a punishment for us failing to pay wages and bonus more than once. They could have banned us completely from signing anyone. The transfer embargo is part of the rules so that's why that came to fruition, this part of the ban is punishing us. The league needed to do something and hopefully now they have it will stop this happening again in the future as now we know we will be punished. So you think it is right that we can sign an under 21 player for ?10K a week if someone on more has left, but we can not sign a 25 year old for ?500 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I'm just waiting on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 So you think it is right that we can sign an under 21 player for ?10K a week if someone on more has left, but we can not sign a 25 year old for ?500 a week. So you think it is right that we can sign an under 21 player for ?10K a week if someone on more has left, but we can not sign a 25 year old for ?500 a week. This i'm not one of the paranoid they are all out to get us brigade but this U21 ruling makes no sense The only logical conclusion you can draw is that they deliberately stopped us resigning Rudi and bringing in Rimmer its not a financial ruling as we could pay an U21 more than a 25 year old what is it all about if not that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phage Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Did Old Rangers not go to court to challenge something without UEFA, SFA or anyone being all that bothered that they had the ruling over turned. I guess they are no longer in exsistance otherwise something might have happened.... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Hearts said they were taking legal advice on this with a view to an appeal. Obviosly the advice was that the punishment was legal and within the rules or it would have been challenged. Hearts could have appealed to the SFA, then appealed to the CSA, then gone to court. I don't think the punishment was legal, but was most likely within the rules, so the SFA would have upheld the SPL's ruling, then the CSA would have upheld the SFA's ruling. My guess would be that the legal advice was just to let it go, as it would take months, and money we just don't have, to probably eventually win a very empty "victory" at some point way down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Hearts could have appealed to the SFA, then appealed to the CSA, then gone to court. I don't think the punishment was legal, but was most likely within the rules, so the SFA would have upheld the SPL's ruling, then the CSA would have upheld the SFA's ruling. My guess would be that the legal advice was just to let it go, as it would take months, and money we just don't have, to probably eventually win a very empty "victory" at some point way down the line. And yet,at that time the club had the money to have paid what was due and avoid giving the opportunity for the spl to dish out this punishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Beni of Gorgie Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Even if the "punishment" as you love to call it is against European employment law? Yes but as mentioned this would deem a court action which UEFA would then tell us to pack our bags and leave football as we are no longer welcome. Great system eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 This i'm not one of the paranoid they are all out to get us brigade but this U21 ruling makes no sense The only logical conclusion you can draw is that they deliberately stopped us resigning Rudi and bringing in Rimmer its not a financial ruling as we could pay an U21 more than a 25 year old what is it all about if not that? That is what I find curious. I have no dispute about the earnings restriction, but the age one does not make sense and does cause conspiracy theories. I wonder if The Rangers have the same restriction when their embargo ends. I do not recall this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 That is what I find curious. I have no dispute about the earnings restriction, but the age one does not make sense and does cause conspiracy theories. I wonder if The Rangers have the same restriction when their embargo ends. I do not recall this. The Rangers can sign under 18s right now. The under 21 restriction is a blatant attempt to hamstring our team by direct competitors, you'd have to be pretty dumb to see it as anything else. Oh but wait, it's to encourage youth development. Because we haven't been doing that all season The SPL are dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollo Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 So all in all nobody knows of any just reason why there is a clause differentiating between U21 and over 21? In which case - why has the club not challenged this part? Sanction - fine, unfair odd terms - not so fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinJambo Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I would think that the U21 rule still allows Hearts to bring in young players and develop them, which has been their forte throughout the years. It is better than an embargo across the board when the Club needs to sell players in January but can bring in 21 and under players to keep the team going until the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Banker Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 kenny miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 kenny miller Has he signed yet?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madnessjambo Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Not quite sure I get this ruling either as signing an under 21 is likely to incur a development fee payable to the players current club when signing someone over 21 who is out of contract will cost nothing. Salaries now offered by Hearts will be significantly reduced due to them now trying to work within their own financial means. So this ruling does not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollo Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 Not quite sure I get this ruling either as signing an under 21 is likely to incur a development fee payable to the players current club when signing someone over 21 who is out of contract will cost nothing. Salaries now offered by Hearts will be significantly reduced due to them now trying to work within their own financial means. So this ruling does not make sense. Exactly, add in the 'ageism' angle and fact this was brought about by not paying folk - ie the '1 in 1 out' rule makes sense, I cannot fathom why the club hasn't challenged this part of the rule. I can only guess those in power, Vlad, Sergi etc either haven't got anyone lined up anyway, or just have gotten to the point where they don't care anymore. Perhaps both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Hearts could have appealed to the SFA, then appealed to the CSA, then gone to court. I don't think the punishment was legal, but was most likely within the rules, so the SFA would have upheld the SPL's ruling, then the CSA would have upheld the SFA's ruling. My guess would be that the legal advice was just to let it go, as it would take months, and money we just don't have, to probably eventually win a very empty "victory" at some point way down the line. But does the club actually have to challenge them in court Gas? Why not challenge them in the media, at pre-match press conferences etc as to the legitimacy of the U21 clause in the embargo. Perhaps a long shot but maybe they'll panic a little at the thought of being outed as breaking EU law and back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvatori5 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 But does the club actually have to challenge them in court Gas? Why not challenge them in the media, at pre-match press conferences etc as to the legitimacy of the U21 clause in the embargo. Perhaps a long shot but maybe they'll panic a little at the thought of being outed as breaking EU law and back down. Does the club want to challenge them?? Rudi could have been signed May-Oct but wasn't and the club took a bit flack not the ready made excuse is there as soon someone says sign a certain player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 So all in all nobody knows of any just reason why there is a clause differentiating between U21 and over 21? In which case - why has the club not challenged this part? Sanction - fine, unfair odd terms - not so fine. They had to punish us in some way, they could probably have given us points reduction or a fine or even kept the full transfer ban in place for this window which = no Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinJambo Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Does the club want to challenge them?? Rudi could have been signed May-Oct but wasn't and the club took a bit flack not the ready made excuse is there as soon someone says sign a certain player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson's Willie Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 They probably didn't imagine we would go down the loan route I can understand to an extent the one in one out but not fair we could lose zaliukas for example but replace 2 or 3 with that money regardless of age.It stops is being more competitive think that's the real agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Herbertson Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Possibly wrong but I think sport is exempted in the ageism rulings. Probably because theoretically an old bloke could argue he shouldn't be disallowed for the under 21's which would make it all ridiculous. So perhaps for the wrong reasons its not worth pursuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 They had to punish us in some way, they could probably have given us points reduction or a fine or even kept the full transfer ban in place for this window which = no Wilson. They did punish us, with the embargo (which was tougher than The Rangers' one in that they can still sign under 18s - also when the embargo ends, they can sign anyone), and are punishing us again, with a punishment that makes no sense, if it is genuinely a financial restriction. I will point this out again - if we were to lose a player on ?12K a week, we could replace him with an under 21 in ?9K a week (and have to pay a development fee) but we could not sign a 25 year old on a free transfer for ?500 a week or even on loan with us footing none of the wage. The financial argument is a red herring, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansel Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Take it folk are trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson's Willie Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 New to this please explain the term trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 New to this please explain the term trolling Deliberately winding others up for the sake of it by saying stupid/controversial things. Unless you're trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.