Unsurprising lack of consistency

[givememychoice]

Well, given the mess that UEFA have got itself in by letting Celtic back in (keeping in mind that Sion have said they will appeal to UEFA, CAS AND their local courts - that wont all happen within the next 13 days), we should look at the background to the case.

It stems back, bizarrely, to uncle Vlad.

You seen, he insisted on meddling in team affairs (and im not whinging, but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.

Thus he invoked what is now known as the webster ruling.

This indicated that if a player had played 3 years or more, he could "buy out" the remainder of his contract by paying the remaining wages he would have received (bizarre way of working out the worth).

Wigan did not receive any major punishment, even though webster was found to have broken his contract "without just cause", although only on a technicality; he and his agent were late informing the club of his intention to leave.

So, what part does this play?

Well, Sion were punished for signing a player who invoked the webster ruling. Punished with a significant transfer ban. It was this transfer ban that meant that players like goncalves were inelligble for the games v Celtic.

 

Why were Sion punished so much more harshly than Wigan?

[itsnomarooned]

Hello Arse .... meet Elbow.

[2NaFish]

harsh to blame it on vlad, he's just a bit part player. by that logic, its pieman's fault because he sold the club to vlad.

[givememychoice]

harsh to blame it on vlad, he's just a bit part player. by that logic, its pieman's fault because he sold the club to vlad.

 

I wasnt really blaming him, just pointing out how it linked back to us.

 

(the slant certainly wasnt meant to be anti-vlad)

[Coburg Hearts]

, we should look at the background to the case.

It stems back, bizarrely, to uncle Vlad.

You seen, he insisted on meddling in team affairs (and im not whinging, but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.

Thus he invoked what is now known as the webster ruling.

 

 

What a load of garbage.

[2NaFish]

I wasnt really blaming him, just pointing out how it linked back to us.

 

(the slant certainly wasnt meant to be anti-vlad)

 

fair enough, i'll take you at your word. its just it seemed that

 

It stems back, bizarrely, to uncle Vlad.

 

was an overt dig at Vlad. perhaps poorly worded then, but it's no biggie.

[givememychoice]

What a load of garbage.

which bit?

as you have quoted only a certain section, i assume its with the bits included. some of it provably isnt garbage - webster did invoke the "webster ruling"

[givememychoice]

fair enough, i'll take you at your word. its just it seemed that

 

 

 

was an overt dig at Vlad. perhaps poorly worded then, but it's no biggie.

 

Im reasonably pro vlad. I do wish he would alter his ways some times, but i wish most people would!

It was meant in a familiar way (literally being part of the family, hence the word uncle).

If it was anti vlad, i would gladly admit it, but this genuinely wasnt anti vlad, so i apologise for any confusion.

[The Gasman]

Anti Vlad & Uncle Vlad - I'm confused?

[givememychoice]

Anti Vlad & Uncle Vlad - I'm confused?

hows yer daughter?

[shaun.lawson]

Embarrassing reaction by most to a good, interesting OP which makes an important point. Why the double standard?

[Coburg Hearts]

which bit?

as you have quoted only a certain section, i assume its with the bits included. some of it provably isnt garbage - webster did invoke the "webster ruling"

You are correct, I should have made it clearer and perhaps I was a bit harsh. I meant this bit................but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.............

Now, unless Webster was psychic, he wanted away before he knew what Vlad was like, good or bad.

You made an excellent point otherwise and I thought it was a shame you spoiled it by having an unnecessary dig at Vlad.

[Dean Winchester]

So was their transfer ban really down to someone invoking the Webster ruling? If so then I think the OP has a valid point. Why was Wigan not at all punished for their part in the Webster saga? Wasn't Webster the only one really punished in that saga? (2 weeks suspended and the 600k I think?)

 

Why is it different this time round and Sion have been punished as opposed to the player?

[hughesie27]

Why is nobody discussing the actual point of the OP?

[Del1812]

Embarrassing reaction by most to a good, interesting OP which makes an important point. Why the double standard?

 

Agreed. The OP has only pointed out a link back to Romanov, and has stated himself it is in no-way an anti-Romanov stance.

 

In 2006, Romanov did interfere in team selection for an away tie against Dundee United. One of the players to be left out was Andy Webster due to the player's refusal to sign a new contract. Something which occurred several more times before that season finished. This more than likely contributed to the player's decision to leave his exit his contract a year early.

 

I don't get why anyone would argue with any of that. I like Vlad as well but I'm not letting personal feelings cloud what actually happened.

[Paolo]

Why is nobody discussing the actual point of the OP?

Because it is kickback and on here it does not matter what the topic is, it has to be established if a poster is a sheep or a hat kicker.

[Del1812]

You are correct, I should have made it clearer and perhaps I was a bit harsh. I meant this bit................but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.............

Now, unless Webster was psychic, he wanted away before he knew what Vlad was like, good or bad.

You made an excellent point otherwise and I thought it was a shame you spoiled it by having an unnecessary dig at Vlad.

 

How's it an unnecessary dig? Vlad did influence team selection back in 2006.

 

Webster did not want to play for Hearts past 2007, but nobody knows for sure whether he would have opted out of his contract a year early if he wasn't excluded from possible selection.

[givememychoice]

You are correct, I should have made it clearer and perhaps I was a bit harsh. I meant this bit................but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.............

Now, unless Webster was psychic, he wanted away before he knew what Vlad was like, good or bad.

You made an excellent point otherwise and I thought it was a shame you spoiled it by having an unnecessary dig at Vlad.

 

well, rix who was the manager stated at the time that he was not choosing the team, and romanov has strongly hinted that he was influencing things...corroborative evidence...

Where is any evidence to the contrary?

Well, webster had his head turned by rangers, but it was only at feb that he refused a new contract. By this stage he did know what vlad was like.

I think its a reasonable surmise that a footballer would be disappointed to go from being a regular to not getting to play.

Then its pretty clear that he sought a way out his contract, or is it normal to go to a legal precedent to break a contract?

 

As for having a dig against vlad....ive been accused of being too pro vlad before. this is why kickback is getting shit. Ignore any real point and jump on sub plots with false accusations.

 

post is pro vlad: anti vlad brigade whinge

post is anti vlad: pro vlad brigade whinge

post is not entirely pro hearts: get declared a hobo.

Any post whatsoever: a load of smilies that dont really mean anything.

 

Wasnt JKB voted as best fans forum a few years back? is it still? thought not.

[speedbump]

I've seen vlad get blamed for all manner of things but this takes the cake!

[Coburg Hearts]

How's it an unnecessary dig? Vlad did influence team selection back in 2006.

 

Webster did not want to play for Hearts past 2007, but nobody knows for sure whether he would have opted out of his contract a year early if he wasn't excluded from possible selection.

 

I don't want to turn what could be a good thread into a Webster one, so all I'll say is he made it pretty clear in July 2005 he wanted to go to Rangers.

[Dean Winchester]

 

 

Turning into an absolute train wreck of a thread because people are skipping past the OP's main point.

[marcus]

I've seen vlad get blamed for all manner of things but this takes the cake!

 

No-one is blaming vlad of anything...the OP said it stems back to him, which in a round-about way, it does have a little to do with him...there was no "Vlad GTF" intention here.

[speedbump]

No-one is blaming vlad of anything...the OP said it stems back to him, which in a round-about way, it does have a little to do with him...there was no "Vlad GTF" intention here.

 

So he was blaming vlad in a round about fashion.

[Coburg Hearts]

well, rix who was the manager stated at the time that he was not choosing the team, and romanov has strongly hinted that he was influencing things...corroborative evidence...

Where is any evidence to the contrary?

Well, webster had his head turned by rangers, but it was only at feb that he refused a new contract. By this stage he did know what vlad was like.

I think its a reasonable surmise that a footballer would be disappointed to go from being a regular to not getting to play.

Then its pretty clear that he sought a way out his contract, or is it normal to go to a legal precedent to break a contract?

 

As for having a dig against vlad....ive been accused of being too pro vlad before. this is why kickback is getting shit. Ignore any real point and jump on sub plots with false accusations.

 

post is pro vlad: anti vlad brigade whinge

post is anti vlad: pro vlad brigade whinge

post is not entirely pro hearts: get declared a hobo.

Any post whatsoever: a load of smilies that dont really mean anything.

 

Wasnt JKB voted as best fans forum a few years back? is it still? thought not.

 

You know what kickback is like, and I know if I started a thread I wanted taken seriously and not get side-tracked, I would make sure I made no mention of VR, whether good or bad. unless he was central to the debate, of course. I don't think he was in this case.

Hopefully this thread can now get back on track. :-)

[speedbump]

Right what is the OP's point? Wigan at no point were told not to play Webster, Sion were warned not to play the 5 players, they broke the rules.

[marcus]

So he was blaming vlad in a round about fashion.

 

No debate needed here, the OP stated an interesting view on a topical matter which involved, but was neither for nor against, Vlad....and offered it for discussion, hopefully back on topic...

[ivanhoe]

Webster did not create a new rule he used a rule that was already in place.He is not like bosman and there is no" webster ruling."

[Del1812]

I've seen vlad get blamed for all manner of things but this takes the cake!

 

Are you mental?!

 

The OP is not blaming Vlad in any way. He is merely pointing out a link between the two situations.

 

Jeez.

[Dean Winchester]

Right what is the OP's point? Wigan at no point were told not to play Webster, Sion were warned not to play the 5 players, they broke the rules.

But why did Wigan not get a transfer ban and Sion did is the point I think he's trying to make? They completely ignored the decision against Webster/Wigan when making their decision against Sion.

[givememychoice]

Right what is the OP's point? Wigan at no point were told not to play Webster, Sion were warned not to play the 5 players, they broke the rules.

 

So did wigan, by signing somebody who hadnt notified the club in due time. this was found to be the case when the CAS banned webster for 2 weeks.

FIFAs viewpoint argued for Hearts and against Webster. While FIFA wants its own rules, it can not simply bypass european laws.

Sion were also told they could play the players. by the court and the swiss FA.

[givememychoice]

Webster did not create a new rule he used a rule that was already in place.He is not like bosman and there is no" webster ruling."

 

 

here you go

 

 

and Bosman did not create a new law, he merely used the law vs Football rules.

[speedbump]

But why did Wigan not get a transfer ban and Sion did is the point I think he's trying to make? They completely ignored the decision against Webster/Wigan when making their decision against Sion.

 

Presumably cause Wigan weren't playing in a European competition.

[speedbump]

Are you mental?!

 

The OP is not blaming Vlad in any way. He is merely pointing out a link between the two situations.

 

Jeez.

 

The phrase it all stems back to uncle vlad, would indicate a portion of blame being shoved vlad's way IMO.

[Dean Winchester]

Presumably cause Wigan weren't playing in a European competition.

But Sion where banned from playing them in their league as well which they sucessfully appealed through their local court/FA. I don't recall Wigan having to go through that.

[givememychoice]

The phrase it all stems back to uncle vlad, would indicate a portion of blame being shoved vlad's way IMO.

 

light hearted humour...get a sense of it.

[colinmaroon]

Embarrassing reaction by most to a good, interesting OP which makes an important point. Why the double standard?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed!

 

 

There is a certain amount of "irony" in the OP's post (the use of which is a gift that seems to have passed many by) but, notwithstanding that, the logical connection is "Clear", as Jock Gibbering Brown would say, "for all to see!"

[speedbump]

But Sion where banned from playing them in their league as well which they sucessfully appealed through their local court/FA. I don't recall Wigan having to go through that.

 

Or the fact the FA didn't think it was a big issue at the time? Who knows really this is a cross border, cross cort and footballing regulators mess. No simple answers.

[speedbump]

light hearted humour...get a sense of it.

 

Oh you were trying to be funny

[Dean Winchester]

Or the fact the FA didn't think it was a big issue at the time? Who knows really this is a cross border, cross cort and footballing regulators mess. No simple answers.

 

Which is exactly the point the OP was making in regards to lack of consistency...

[speedbump]

Which is exactly the point the OP was making in regards to lack of consistency...

 

It will lack consistency due to each individual FA having their own take on it, not really that hard to work out. Although it is frustrating.

[Chris Benoit]

A precedent was set with Webster and FIFA didn't follow that with the punishment handed out to Sion.

 

They then didn't properly state when the transfer ban would run to, I can see Sion's appeal being upheld

[Dean Winchester]

It will lack consistency due to each individual FA having their own take on it, not really that hard to work out. Although it is frustrating.

 

I don't mean the individual FA's though. The English FA never had to decide anything in regards to Wigan because Wigan never got a transfer ban or had anything to appeal. Yet Sion did. One team gets off scot-free and another gets a transfer ban for 2 years and kicked out of Europe as a result?

 

Now the consistency would be slightly more understandable if they where 2 organisations making seperate decisions but both the Webster ruling and the Sion one went through the CAS if I'm not mistaken.

[The Old Tolbooth]

Embarrassing reaction by most to a good, interesting OP which makes an important point. Why the double standard?

 

That's what I was thinking too, I thought it was a very interesting point he brought up for discussion

[Sandy's sock]

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thaught a fool than have to back pedal for everyone to see Very good op givememychoice

[mayfield]

Why have 90% of replies been farkin stupid. Have a think about the main point of the OP ffs.

[7628mm]

Well, given the mess that UEFA have got itself in by letting Celtic back in (keeping in mind that Sion have said they will appeal to UEFA, CAS AND their local courts - that wont all happen within the next 13 days), we should look at the background to the case.

It stems back, bizarrely, to uncle Vlad.

You seen, he insisted on meddling in team affairs (and im not whinging, but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.

Thus he invoked what is now known as the webster ruling.

This indicated that if a player had played 3 years or more, he could "buy out" the remainder of his contract by paying the remaining wages he would have received (bizarre way of working out the worth).

Wigan did not receive any major punishment, even though webster was found to have broken his contract "without just cause", although only on a technicality; he and his agent were late informing the club of his intention to leave.

So, what part does this play?

Well, Sion were punished for signing a player who invoked the webster ruling. Punished with a significant transfer ban. It was this transfer ban that meant that players like goncalves were inelligble for the games v Celtic.

 

Why were Sion punished so much more harshly than Wigan?

 

I will reply to your very thought provoking post without mentioning Vlad again as I think some have gone off the deep end, as they do, as soon as he is mentioned.

 

I think that because this was the first instance of the rule being used (by Webster) the powers that be made a decision, which in retrospect was perhaps wrong.

The Sion case comes a good deal later and as appears the case with Football associations they tend to make up the punishment as they go along.

 

An example being Livingston sent to the bottom of the Scottish League but Dundee recieving a fine and remaining in the First division. Essentially the same "crime" but completely different sentences.

Until there is a defined structure to the punishment in relation to the crime the system is open to inconsistentency on a vast scale.

 

What I find upsetting about the whole saga is that the governing body (UEFA or FIFA etc.) should be responsible for punishing Sion without the intervention of another club bleating on that they have been cheated (as usual).

The fact that Sion appear to be getting punished purely on the intervention of Celtic is complete bollocks IMHO.

Celtic should have no involvement in this case whatsoever as it is not their responsibility.

Because Celtic played Sion they are the party that may benefit, which is fine by me (well sort of), and replace Sion in the Europa league.

 

If we were in the same position as "them" I would like to think that we would have left it up to the governing bodies to deal with rather than attemting to play the victim card.

 

Now I seem to have lost my elbow, perhaps it is up my arse.

[2NaFish]

Why have 90% of replies been farkin stupid. Have a think about the main point of the OP ffs.

 

there have been more replies about the replies than have actually interacted with the OP's main point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is another.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Whatever the eventual outcome, I would be glad to see Celtic get a very undeserved place in the Europa League. With Rangers looking set to struggle a bit, it can only help everyone else to close the gap if Celtic have 6 extra games in which to be demoralised, pick up injuries and take their eye off the SPL ball. They are, after all, the team that never gets any luck nor help from officials, aren't they?

As to the OP, I think the difference might be that Wigan weren't involved in Europe, with no real likelihood to be either, so UEFA just weren't interested. In Sion they found a very uninfluential team on which on exercise their power. Not so much inconsistency, but, in fact, they are very consistent, with their double standards.

[givememychoice]

I will reply to your very thought provoking post without mentioning Vlad again as I think some have gone off the deep end, as they do, as soon as he is mentioned.

 

I think that because this was the first instance of the rule being used (by Webster) the powers that be made a decision, which in retrospect was perhaps wrong.

The Sion case comes a good deal later and as appears the case with Football associations they tend to make up the punishment as they go along.

 

An example being Livingston sent to the bottom of the Scottish League but Dundee recieving a fine and remaining in the First division. Essentially the same "crime" but completely different sentences.

Until there is a defined structure to the punishment in relation to the crime the system is open to inconsistentency on a vast scale.

 

What I find upsetting about the whole saga is that the governing body (UEFA or FIFA etc.) should be responsible for punishing Sion without the intervention of another club bleating on that they have been cheated (as usual).

The fact that Sion appear to be getting punished purely on the intervention of Celtic is complete bollocks IMHO.

Celtic should have no involvement in this case whatsoever as it is not their responsibility.

Because Celtic played Sion they are the party that may benefit, which is fine by me (well sort of), and replace Sion in the Europa league.

 

If we were in the same position as "them" I would like to think that we would have left it up to the governing bodies to deal with rather than attemting to play the victim card.

 

Now I seem to have lost my elbow, perhaps it is up my arse.

 

 

Yeah, I find this weird. When we complained about mallorca, we hadnt written down the complaint. When Maribor complained against rangers, their complaint came out of time. (how are they supposed to know the visa status of an oppositions player).

 

This is stuff the governing bodies officials should deal with themselves.

 

If I went and burgled somebody's house while they were on holiday, and was seen by the police leaving with the goods, i would expect them to arrest me, not wait until the holidayers got back and complained (who then get told it was more than 24 hours after the event, so it doesnt count)

[world_3]

Well, given the mess that UEFA have got itself in by letting Celtic back in (keeping in mind that Sion have said they will appeal to UEFA, CAS AND their local courts - that wont all happen within the next 13 days), we should look at the background to the case.

It stems back, bizarrely, to uncle Vlad.

You seen, he insisted on meddling in team affairs (and im not whinging, but it is a fact that romanov in 2006 influenced team selection).

Andy webster was upset and sought a way out of his contract.

Thus he invoked what is now known as the webster ruling.

This indicated that if a player had played 3 years or more, he could "buy out" the remainder of his contract by paying the remaining wages he would have received (bizarre way of working out the worth).

Wigan did not receive any major punishment, even though webster was found to have broken his contract "without just cause", although only on a technicality; he and his agent were late informing the club of his intention to leave.

So, what part does this play?

Well, Sion were punished for signing a player who invoked the webster ruling. Punished with a significant transfer ban. It was this transfer ban that meant that players like goncalves were inelligble for the games v Celtic.

 

Why were Sion punished so much more harshly than Wigan?

 

It's hardly Vlad's fault that Webster is a grasping Hun scumbag, and that UEFA are a bunch of clueless no-marks. Sion were punished more because UEFA are now running scared of the big clubs..