Work permits

[Professor.Arturo]

Maybe someone could explain this to me, I feel really stupid.

 

My understanding of someone coming from outwith the EU would have to apply to the British home office for a work permit, no?

 

In the case of players coming to the SPL (Obua) this does not seem to be the case (if I picked the other thread up right), WTF have Billy McNeil and Murdo Macloed got to do with the home office???

[Peebo]

Maybe someone could explain this to me, I feel really stupid.

 

My understanding of someone coming from outwith the EU would have to apply to the British home office for a work permit, no?

 

In the case of players coming to the SPL (Obua) this does not seem to be the case (if I picked the other thread up right), WTF have Billy McNeil and Murdo Macloed got to do with the home office???

 

I think your understanding is correct. For players who don't meet the criteria, their fate can then be decided by a panel of "experts". They then decide that if Celtic want to sign someone, the permit is granted. If not, the appeal is turned down.

[Professor.Arturo]

I think your understanding is correct. For players who don't meet the criteria, their fate can then be decided by a panel of "experts". They then decide that if Celtic want to sign someone, the permit is granted. If not, the appeal is turned down.

I see, silly me

[Jambof3tornado]

The panel of experts decide based on whether the player can offer something to the scottish game. Absolutely ludicrous and in no way fair. Has anyone ever threatened court action over a failed appeal that the panel has said no to???

[coppercrutch]

I have copied in a post I made on this a while back. Don't think the thread is still available. Hope this helps to explain things.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Been searching and found some very interesting reading. As part of a Government review into Work Permits for overseas footballers they asked for evidence(Publicly available) of review panel hearings for the season. They also defined the criteria for applicants.

 

This was done in 1999 but as far as I can see this has not been updated since. (So these are the criteria at present unless anyone can correct me.)

 

(1) Most interesting thing I found. A lot of people think the fact that we wanted Gogua on loan would have worked against us. NOT TRUE:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021604.htm

 

"Loan deals will not be treated any differently to other contractual arrangements which form part of a work permit application for a footballer"

 

So this means that our hearing was held with the same criteria as, for example Benji of Hibs. Both players failed under the 2 MANDATORY criteria set aside re. their country being in the top 70 and them playing in the required number of games. Both were taken to appeal. Benji was granted, Gogua was not.

 

How a player who was voted the best newcomer to the Russian league will not "Be of the highest calibre and able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in the UK" baffles me.

 

It really does. According to the Home Office themselves this is the ONLY criteria for deciding upon when an appeal is heard.

 

(2)Next I have a few examples of these panels meetings in 1999. They give you an idea of what is talked about etc...

 

Celtic for Petrov

Partick Thistle for Jacobs.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021619.htm

 

D Utd for Telesnikov

Thistle again for Jacobs

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021621.htm

 

D Utd for Patrick Onstad

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021623.htm

 

Aberdeen for Zerouli

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021625.htm

 

Celtic for Scheidt

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021627.htm

 

Rangers for Rozenthal

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021629.htm

 

(3) Another very intersting thing is to see the make up of these 'Panels'. AN example is the one that was in place for the Rozenthal hearing:

 

PANEL MEMBERS

 

 

Pat Stanton?Independent expert;

 

Willie Miller?Independent expert;

 

Billy McNeil?Independent expert;

 

Fraser Wishart?Scottish Professional Footballers Association;

 

Iain Blair?Scottish Premier League Limited;

 

Frank Coulson?Scottish Football Association.

 

It seems that there is one person from the SFA, the SPL and the SPFA. The rest is made up of 'Experts'. Some other notable 'Experts' are Bob Crampsey and Ernie Walker.

 

(4) One interesting thing to note. This season in question there were 8 appeals. Three for the OF. Five for other clubs. Remember some of these players were clearly not anywhere near the standard that the best newcomer to the Russian League would be at.

 

OF success - 3 out of 3.

Other clubs success - 5 out of 5.

 

EVERY SINGLE HEARING ENDED IN A SUCCESSFULL APPLICATION.

 

(5) I sent an email to the Home Office body that deals with this and got a very swift reply. They stated they could not give me details of an individual panel meeting but gave me some background information.

 

"Where an application has been refused, as it does not meet these published criteria, a club may seek a review against the decision which is considered by an independent review panel who then recommend to the Department whether a permit should be issued. This was the case with Heart of Midlothian's application for Gogita Gogua. The panels' remit is to consider whether the player is of the highest calibre and able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in the UK. The panel normally consists of representatives from the relevant football governing bodies (The Scottish League, the Scottish Football Association and S.P.F.A.) together with up to three independent football experts. The club are given the opportunity to present a case to demonstrate that the player, although failing to meet the published criteria, is of the highest calibre and will contribute significantly to the development of the game. For the application to be successful at this stage, a majority of panel members must make a positive recommendation.

 

The panel's deliberation is impartial and judged on the evidence presented to

them. Therefore, although individual Clubs may go through the application and

panel process, each outcome is a subjective one based on the merits of the particular case in question and, crucially, the evidence submitted for

consideration to the independent panel.

 

We are unable to provide detailed information about individual panels"

 

 

Very interesting. Only a majority of panel members needs to make a positive recommendation for it to be successful. So this looks like at least 3 voted against it. Now either HMFC did a very bad job of this appeal and that is why it failed or we were done over for some reason.

 

Gogua is a regular for Georgia and was voted the best newcomer to the Russian League. I find it very difficult to believe that putting this argument forward would be in any way tricky. Even for HMFC.

[Auldreekie1874]

After a Jason Scotland goal had emptied Hibs out of the cup yet again the WP panel consisted of 5 hobo's, Tony Higgins, Pat Stanton, Peter Cormack, Murdo MacLeod and Tommy McIntyre along with SPL secretary Iain Blair.

 

Laughable.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050703/ai_n14681535

[Peebo]

The panel of experts decide based on whether the player can offer something to the scottish game. Absolutely ludicrous and in no way fair. Has anyone ever threatened court action over a failed appeal that the panel has said no to???

 

I have never heard of anyone threatening court action. They would have a very, very weak case.

[rudi must stay]

I have copied in a post I made on this a while back. Don't think the thread is still available. Hope this helps to explain things.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Been searching and found some very interesting reading. As part of a Government review into Work Permits for overseas footballers they asked for evidence(Publicly available) of review panel hearings for the season. They also defined the criteria for applicants.

 

This was done in 1999 but as far as I can see this has not been updated since. (So these are the criteria at present unless anyone can correct me.)

 

(1) Most interesting thing I found. A lot of people think the fact that we wanted Gogua on loan would have worked against us. NOT TRUE:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021604.htm

 

"Loan deals will not be treated any differently to other contractual arrangements which form part of a work permit application for a footballer"

 

So this means that our hearing was held with the same criteria as, for example Benji of Hibs. Both players failed under the 2 MANDATORY criteria set aside re. their country being in the top 70 and them playing in the required number of games. Both were taken to appeal. Benji was granted, Gogua was not.

 

How a player who was voted the best newcomer to the Russian league will not "Be of the highest calibre and able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in the UK" baffles me.

 

It really does. According to the Home Office themselves this is the ONLY criteria for deciding upon when an appeal is heard.

 

(2)Next I have a few examples of these panels meetings in 1999. They give you an idea of what is talked about etc...

 

Celtic for Petrov

Partick Thistle for Jacobs.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021619.htm

 

D Utd for Telesnikov

Thistle again for Jacobs

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021621.htm

 

D Utd for Patrick Onstad

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021623.htm

 

Aberdeen for Zerouli

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021625.htm

 

Celtic for Scheidt

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021627.htm

 

Rangers for Rozenthal

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021629.htm

 

(3) Another very intersting thing is to see the make up of these 'Panels'. AN example is the one that was in place for the Rozenthal hearing:

 

PANEL MEMBERS

 

 

Pat Stanton—Independent expert;

 

Willie Miller—Independent expert;

 

Billy McNeil—Independent expert;

 

Fraser Wishart—Scottish Professional Footballers Association;

 

Iain Blair—Scottish Premier League Limited;

 

Frank Coulson—Scottish Football Association.

 

It seems that there is one person from the SFA, the SPL and the SPFA. The rest is made up of 'Experts'. Some other notable 'Experts' are Bob Crampsey and Ernie Walker.

 

(4) One interesting thing to note. This season in question there were 8 appeals. Three for the OF. Five for other clubs. Remember some of these players were clearly not anywhere near the standard that the best newcomer to the Russian League would be at.

 

OF success - 3 out of 3.

Other clubs success - 5 out of 5.

 

EVERY SINGLE HEARING ENDED IN A SUCCESSFULL APPLICATION.

 

(5) I sent an email to the Home Office body that deals with this and got a very swift reply. They stated they could not give me details of an individual panel meeting but gave me some background information.

 

"Where an application has been refused, as it does not meet these published criteria, a club may seek a review against the decision which is considered by an independent review panel who then recommend to the Department whether a permit should be issued. This was the case with Heart of Midlothian's application for Gogita Gogua. The panels' remit is to consider whether the player is of the highest calibre and able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in the UK. The panel normally consists of representatives from the relevant football governing bodies (The Scottish League, the Scottish Football Association and S.P.F.A.) together with up to three independent football experts. The club are given the opportunity to present a case to demonstrate that the player, although failing to meet the published criteria, is of the highest calibre and will contribute significantly to the development of the game. For the application to be successful at this stage, a majority of panel members must make a positive recommendation.

 

The panel's deliberation is impartial and judged on the evidence presented to

them. Therefore, although individual Clubs may go through the application and

panel process, each outcome is a subjective one based on the merits of the particular case in question and, crucially, the evidence submitted for

consideration to the independent panel.

 

We are unable to provide detailed information about individual panels"

 

 

Very interesting. Only a majority of panel members needs to make a positive recommendation for it to be successful. So this looks like at least 3 voted against it. Now either HMFC did a very bad job of this appeal and that is why it failed or we were done over for some reason.

 

Gogua is a regular for Georgia and was voted the best newcomer to the Russian League. I find it very difficult to believe that putting this argument forward would be in any way tricky. Even for HMFC.

 

"After considering all of the evidence the Panel unanimously agreed that Rafael was a player of the highest calibre and would make a significant contribution to the Scottish game. Accordingly, they recommended that a work permit be issued."

 

Hope the guys on that panel were sacked

[The Old Tolbooth]

After a Jason Scotland goal had emptied Hibs out of the cup yet again the WP panel consisted of 5 hobo's, Tony Higgins, Pat Stanton, Peter Cormack, Murdo MacLeod and Tommy McIntyre along with SPL secretary Iain Blair.

 

Laughable.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050703/ai_n14681535

 

Exactly!

 

One of the biggest travesties ever to disgrace Scottish football, how the hell they could stop him playing for Utd and then let him play for St J is a joke!

 

Still, looking on the bright side, Jason was part of the history which keeps their embarrassing, laughable, pathetic 107 years in a row record intact, and he will always be a hero of mine

[Jambof3tornado]

I have never heard of anyone threatening court action. They would have a very, very weak case.

 

I didnt think anyone would have a strong case,just wondered if there was anyo european laws to allow an appeal of the appeal so to speak. Big money to be made and lost on getting or not getting a wp for a player.

[TheBigO]

Exactly!

 

One of the biggest travesties ever to disgrace Scottish football, how the hell they could stop him playing for Utd and then let him play for St J is a joke!

 

Still, looking on the bright side, Jason was part of the history which keeps their embarrassing, laughable, pathetic 107 years in a row record intact, and he will always be a hero of mine

 

The Jason Scotland case is the best example i can think of showing how amateur/biased/ridiculous (take yer pick) this panel is. Felt bad for Dutd when this happened but worse for him.

 

Fingers crossed for Obua!

[Jambof3tornado]

The Jason Scotland case is the best example i can think of showing how amateur/biased/ridiculous (take yer pick) this panel is. Felt bad for Dutd when this happened but worse for him.

 

Fingers crossed for Obua!

 

The fact that there appears to be nothing that you can do if the panel dont find in your favour(even in the Jason scotland case),seems ridiculous to me. A panel of a***holes can decide whether or not a player gets a permit.

Would we not expect Vlad to start pointing out who at the old firm has been given a WP,without justification,if David O doesnt get a wp.

 

Maybe,just maybe our leader is too loud for a panel to say NO to.

[Rudolf's Mate]

Thanks for posting that coppercrutch. Never seen that before and very informative.....

 

IMO this just makes out league even more of a joke. How on earth they get away with this is beyond me. Surely they must be answerable to Uefa or Fifa for actions???

 

It makes my blood boil

[ToadKiller Dog]

Looking at Obua's career path a proper impartial panal could only say yes on you go.

At 24

His Career has clearly progressed from Uganda to the US to become the player of the year at south africas leading club and a full international also gaining interest from West ham and other european clubs so is clearly ready for a step up and would be an assett to the SPL.

I see no provision in the panels requirments to take the running of the club into account (might be wrong on that).

So to me any negative decision could only be based on the panels prejudice to either Uganda as a developing football nation or hearts as a football club.

 

If as Drylaw argued we can get a hearts friendly journo onside and make it high profile it will be hard for them to refuse .It wont be an easy job given the crazy bias shown in the Scotland and Gouga decisions.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Id be quite surprised if he doesnt get one at appeal stage

 

He has a pretty good pedigree, and has other clubs in for him and if CO does his job properly I think it will be very hard for the expert panel to claim there is better available in the EU, especially on a free.

 

Situations like these are exactly why you dont wind up the SFA and SPL because you get nowhere and just balls up permits etc

 

I would hope CO is on the phone to west hams coaches/scouts soon to ask them to back up the fact he is a quality player as independent backing like that would seal it

[DC_92]

(1) Most interesting thing I found. A lot of people think the fact that we wanted Gogua on loan would have worked against us. NOT TRUE:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021604.htm

 

"Loan deals will not be treated any differently to other contractual arrangements which form part of a work permit application for a footballer"

 

So this means that our hearing was held with the same criteria as, for example Benji of Hibs. Both players failed under the 2 MANDATORY criteria set aside re. their country being in the top 70 and them playing in the required number of games. Both were taken to appeal. Benji was granted, Gogua was not.

 

 

"(ii) Loan deals will not be treated any differently to other contractual arrangements which form part of a work permit application for a footballer. However, permits would not be issued to clubs for the purpose of having players on trial."

 

According to the poster who said that it was because he was on loan, it was because this particular loan was said to be something of an extended trial period because it was only a 5 month loan with the option of a permanaent contract.

 

Edit to add that I don't agree with that reasoning. At least they can't use that one on Obua!

[Only a Game]

"(ii) Loan deals will not be treated any differently to other contractual arrangements which form part of a work permit application for a footballer. However, permits would not be issued to clubs for the purpose of having players on trial."

 

According to the poster who said that it was because he was on loan, it was because this particular loan was said to be something of an extended trial period because it was only a 5 month loan with the option of a permanaent contract.

 

Edit to add that I don't agree with that reasoning. At least they can't use that one on Obua!

 

I think its fair enough that Gogua got turned down if thats the rule. We specifically said that he was here to the end of the season with a view to a permanent deal (a trial period in other words). Had we said that he was on loan for a year and just worded it slightly differently we probably would have got a WP for Gogua.

 

Reading this gives me a bit more hope that we will actually get one for Obua.

[CJGJ]

The overriding rule is that work permits will only be issued to 'international players of the highest calibre who will make a significant contribution in footballing terms to the development of the United Kingdom game at the highest level.' Not every player clearly reaches these heady heights and so the panel is asked to sit in judgment, and the subjective decisions do not always go down well with the clubs. Even so, the indignant anger which followed the rejection of Jason Scotland's application a while back was hard to fathom for anyone who had even the most basic knowledge of the criteria. He had spent most of the previous season on the bench for Dundee United so it was difficult, nigh impossible, for the panel of football folk to sit in front of a group of Government officials and reasonably argue that he was of the highest calibre ready to make that telling significant contribution to the national game the next season. The fact he was allowed to play in a lower league by the same committee made perfect sense in that there was a reasonable chance he could be a first pick top player at that level. Not surprisingly many decided to suggest the system was a joke, but within the Government's rules it had in fact worked perfectly on that occasion.

 

The panel has to include people who have played at the top level and some must have worked in various organisations within the game. That would mean a current players' union man and a league or SFA official as well as the sundry ex players and coaches. In all my time on these committees I have rarely come across a difficult case. In the early days clubs would chance their arm with a cheap, unknown import but they stuck out a mile, usually as the club could produce little or no useful information on their greatness in either recommendation or video/DVD form.

 

The panel changes regularly with a rota of members and I wasn't involved in the infamous Hibs mafia incident when Hearts failed to secure yet another new player from abroad while that particular panel consisted of four ex-Hibernian players. As the brouhaha grew I checked his qualifications and they weren't even close to being good enough; a panel consisting of Gary Mackay, Donald Ford and the chairman of the Hearts supporters' club would have turned him down as well, given the full facts.

 

There was one hilarious occasion when the tables were turned, much to the amusement of all concerned. The club can't be named but they were a major British name. The date for the meeting was set but the club had a European qualifier they were expected to win the night before. They unexpectedly lost the tie and it was quite clear that they could no longer afford to buy the player in question. A group of officials from the club had to turn up on the day and argue that he wasn't in fact any good after all and the panel really ought to dismiss their case out of hand. The problem was that the player had a World Cup winner's medal in his back pocket and was a cast iron cert to get the nod. They simply didn't want to own up to their fans and face the embarrassment of not being able to afford the player everyone knew they wanted. The meeting descended into farce with both sides laughing at the situation and the work permit was duly granted. The club then scuppered the deal as quickly and as quietly as possible.

 

Usually, however, it is far more serious as players' livelihoods are at stake and arguably the future prospects of managers into the bargain. Some bosses do not believe there should be a need for work permits and that there should be free movement from anywhere in the world. I can see the point as other countries have less stringent ? bordering on non-existent ? controls on young players coming into their clubs.

 

Even so I think it is on balance a good thing that the policies are in place. Just like any other job the temptation to ship in very cheap foreign labour, which would swamp our domestic game, would be almost impossible to resist. It is one of the very few occasions where I would not be on the side of managers having a bigger say in the workings of the game. Most of the time I think their expertise is criminally overlooked but in this case self-interest as opposed to interest in the greater good of the game would colour their views.

 

It would also be a huge temptation in the boardroom. It would arguably be cheaper and definitely quicker to source youngsters from around the globe than develop our own homegrown lads for six to eight years. This is why it is imperative that players developed at our clubs only move on for what is a reasonable fee when they finally make a step up in class.

 

After years of too many good and bad foreign imports which left us in the international wilderness, the development of talent in our domestic game is in a healthier state than it has been for over a decade, so why change something that doesn't need to be fixed? The work permits system works, it has the flexibility to allow great players and potentially great players in while providing a check from a mass invasion. In many ways it is the best of all possible worlds, no matter how many Hibees there are on the panel.

[DC_92]

The overriding rule is that work permits will only be issued to 'international players of the highest calibre who will make a significant contribution in footballing terms to the development of the United Kingdom game at the highest level.' Not every player clearly reaches these heady heights and so the panel is asked to sit in judgment, and the subjective decisions do not always go down well with the clubs. Even so, the indignant anger which followed the rejection of Jason Scotland's application a while back was hard to fathom for anyone who had even the most basic knowledge of the criteria. He had spent most of the previous season on the bench for Dundee United so it was difficult, nigh impossible, for the panel of football folk to sit in front of a group of Government officials and reasonably argue that he was of the highest calibre ready to make that telling significant contribution to the national game the next season. The fact he was allowed to play in a lower league by the same committee made perfect sense in that there was a reasonable chance he could be a first pick top player at that level. Not surprisingly many decided to suggest the system was a joke, but within the Government's rules it had in fact worked perfectly on that occasion.

 

The panel has to include people who have played at the top level and some must have worked in various organisations within the game. That would mean a current players' union man and a league or SFA official as well as the sundry ex players and coaches. In all my time on these committees I have rarely come across a difficult case. In the early days clubs would chance their arm with a cheap, unknown import but they stuck out a mile, usually as the club could produce little or no useful information on their greatness in either recommendation or video/DVD form.

 

The panel changes regularly with a rota of members and I wasn't involved in the infamous Hibs mafia incident when Hearts failed to secure yet another new player from abroad while that particular panel consisted of four ex-Hibernian players. As the brouhaha grew I checked his qualifications and they weren't even close to being good enough; a panel consisting of Gary Mackay, Donald Ford and the chairman of the Hearts supporters' club would have turned him down as well, given the full facts.

 

There was one hilarious occasion when the tables were turned, much to the amusement of all concerned. The club can't be named but they were a major British name. The date for the meeting was set but the club had a European qualifier they were expected to win the night before. They unexpectedly lost the tie and it was quite clear that they could no longer afford to buy the player in question. A group of officials from the club had to turn up on the day and argue that he wasn't in fact any good after all and the panel really ought to dismiss their case out of hand. The problem was that the player had a World Cup winner's medal in his back pocket and was a cast iron cert to get the nod. They simply didn't want to own up to their fans and face the embarrassment of not being able to afford the player everyone knew they wanted. The meeting descended into farce with both sides laughing at the situation and the work permit was duly granted. The club then scuppered the deal as quickly and as quietly as possible.

 

Usually, however, it is far more serious as players' livelihoods are at stake and arguably the future prospects of managers into the bargain. Some bosses do not believe there should be a need for work permits and that there should be free movement from anywhere in the world. I can see the point as other countries have less stringent ? bordering on non-existent ? controls on young players coming into their clubs.

 

Even so I think it is on balance a good thing that the policies are in place. Just like any other job the temptation to ship in very cheap foreign labour, which would swamp our domestic game, would be almost impossible to resist. It is one of the very few occasions where I would not be on the side of managers having a bigger say in the workings of the game. Most of the time I think their expertise is criminally overlooked but in this case self-interest as opposed to interest in the greater good of the game would colour their views.

 

It would also be a huge temptation in the boardroom. It would arguably be cheaper and definitely quicker to source youngsters from around the globe than develop our own homegrown lads for six to eight years. This is why it is imperative that players developed at our clubs only move on for what is a reasonable fee when they finally make a step up in class.

 

After years of too many good and bad foreign imports which left us in the international wilderness, the development of talent in our domestic game is in a healthier state than it has been for over a decade, so why change something that doesn't need to be fixed? The work permits system works, it has the flexibility to allow great players and potentially great players in while providing a check from a mass invasion. In many ways it is the best of all possible worlds, no matter how many Hibees there are on the panel.

 

What qualifications could that be?

[DC_92]

What qualifications could that be?

 

Think it was maybe Pat Nevin who edited this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gogita_Gogua

 

[DC_92]

Think it was maybe Pat Nevin who edited this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gogita_Gogua

 

 

Something people may not have known: as well as Georgia's average ranking over the previous 2 years not being under 70, Gogua had only played 69% of the 75% required in competitive games. Perhaps this is what Nevin is referring to.

[nanananananana-angus]

Something people may not have known: as well as Georgia's average ranking over the previous 2 years not being under 70, Gogua had only played 69% of the 75% required in competitive games. Perhaps this is what Nevin is referring to.

 

I think Nevins perspective is that of a panel member,who are asked to decide,after the Home Office criteria you have stated haven't been met,whether a player is good enough or not.

Nevin states in the first paragraph what qualifications/criteria the panel look for when making their decision,apparently

"international players of the highest calibre who will make a significant contribution in footballing terms to the development of the United Kingdom game at the highest level."

Seems to me the so-called football experts who sit on our appeals panels aren't quite the experts they'd like to think they are.

[DC_92]

I think Nevins perspective is that of a panel member,who are asked to decide,after the Home Office criteria you have stated haven't been met,whether a player is good enough or not.

Nevin states in the first paragraph what qualifications/criteria the panel look for when making their decision,apparently

"international players of the highest calibre who will make a significant contribution in footballing terms to the development of the United Kingdom game at the highest level."

Seems to me the so-called football experts who sit on our appeals panels aren't quite the experts they'd like to think they are.

 

I know, but I was thinking that he maybe meant that Gogua wasn't even close to qualifying automatically.

[coppercrutch]

"(ii) Loan deals will not be treated any differently to other contractual arrangements which form part of a work permit application for a footballer. However, permits would not be issued to clubs for the purpose of having players on trial."

 

According to the poster who said that it was because he was on loan, it was because this particular loan was said to be something of an extended trial period because it was only a 5 month loan with the option of a permanaent contract.

 

Edit to add that I don't agree with that reasoning. At least they can't use that one on Obua!

 

Interesting. Would be nice if the reasons were given behind these individual WP decisions. If it was for this reason then a definition of exactly what a football 'trial' constitutes would be required.

 

Did a search on UEFA and nothing, so not sure if there is such a thing. Grey area I think....

[coppercrutch]

Interesting. Would be nice if the reasons were given behind these individual WP decisions. If it was for this reason then a definition of exactly what a football 'trial' constitutes would be required.

 

Did a search on UEFA and nothing, so not sure if there is such a thing. Grey area I think....

 

In fact I just looked at the initial link again. The area of loan/trial is only relevant to the initial application.

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmeduemp/218/0021604.htm

 

Unless the rules have changed, and nothing has been released to say they been, then there is only one thing the review board has to consider:

 

"Where an application does not meet the published criteria a club may, if they wish, seek a review against the decision not to issue a work permit....... They will consider whether the player is of the highest calibre and able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in the UK"

 

Now clearly when coming to this decision a look at how the player fared in the initial application would make sense. However according to their own rules this should have little, if anything, to do with the appeal verdict.

 

It all makes the acceptance of Mizuno and the rejection of Gogua look far from reasonable...

[CornhillHearts]

Jake Duncan (Mr Africa himself) sticks the knife in in the NOW typical bet he does not get a WP.

[Charlie-Brown]

Jake Duncan (Mr Africa himself) sticks the knife in in the NOW typical bet he does not get a WP.

 

What does this story say CH?

[Dazo]

What does this story say CH?

 

 

Basically that the criteria should be adhered to with no right off appeal. If a player does not meet the criteria then they should not be allowed to play in the UK. He fears a influx of crap non-EU players coming over and stifling the young UK talent.

[Charlie-Brown]

Basically that the criteria should be adhered to with no right off appeal. If a player does not meet the criteria then they should not be allowed to play in the UK. He fears a influx of crap non-EU players coming over and stifling the young UK talent.

 

Cheers Dazo - who is this Jake Duncan guy?

[Dazo]

Cheers Dazo - who is this Jake Duncan guy?

 

Described as a veteran agent who is a hearts fan. Personally never heard of him.

[Dazo]

Here is his website.

 

http://www.showtimerocks.com/

[Famous Hearts]

Here is his website.

 

http://www.showtimerocks.com/

 

Jake looks like a small time gangster.I'm sure his opinion isnt remotely based on his own financial gain.

[JamboJen]

Jake Duncan (Mr Africa himself) sticks the knife in in the NOW typical bet he does not get a WP.

 

So in Mr Duncan's expert opinion, players such as Sun Jihai, Dong Fangzhou, Ricardo Fuller, Marlon King, Dwight Yorke, Kenwyne Jones and Shaka Hislop should never have been allowed to ply their trade on these shores (going by today's standing anyway).

 

What a fandango.