January 2016 - Transfer Rumours, Speculation & Suggestions

[Dave]

Going back to the keeper. Was it just his lack of senior caps that stopped it going through or his lack of national caps at every level?

From the looks of the report that was posted it was nothing like that, it was that the panel decided he wasn't good enough on the basis that he didn't play in a good enough league.

If that's the case, the like of Seamus Coleman shouldn't have been allowed to join Everton.

Not really. Irish people don't need work permits to live and work in the UK, Croatians do.

We could bring in somebody from say, the Bulgarian third division if we wanted without any problems.

[Richard E]

We could bring in somebody from say, the Bulgarian third division if we wanted without any problems.

Don't go giving them ideas...

[Ron Manager]

I have a growing and totally irrational feeling that we might have dodged a bullet with that keeper.

I think Bunn will be fine for the championship if it comes to it. I think's he's done ok since he's been in.

About the level of John Dunn. Which was OK.

[Clampy]

Going back to the keeper. Was it just his lack of senior caps that stopped it going through or his lack of national caps at every level?

From the looks of the report that was posted it was nothing like that, it was that the panel decided he wasn't good enough on the basis that he didn't play in a good enough league.

If that's the case, the like of Seamus Coleman shouldn't have been allowed to join Everton.

Not really. Irish people don't need work permits to live and work in the UK, Croatians do.

We could bring in somebody from say, the Bulgarian third division if we wanted without any problems.

So it was based on the amount of caps he'd got?

[Ron Manager]

Me too.  Silly point, hold my hand up, but like others before him who have done okay for us like Barry Hole, his name detracts from his actual ability.

Barrie Hole was a top class Welsh International who spent too much in the Rose and Crown...as the song goes.

[Dave]

I assume that it was a combination of factors rather than one specific thing. As I think peter w posted at the time, it could have been down to something as simple as his English not being good enough.

[cdbearsfan]

In the first instance it seems to be mostly based on international caps (and the rank of the country in the FIFA rankings, Croatia are in the second tier as they're ranked between 11 and 20). I don't think he met the criteria based on that as he hasn't played many.

The appeal stage allocates a point system based on factors such as appearances in a "top league"... I guess the Croatian League doesn't count. They also award points for matches played in UEFA competitions from the Group Stage onwards. Hajduk were knocked out of the Europa League the round before the Group Stage so no points there.

Where it gets more complicated is the awarding of points based on the transfer free compared to recent transfers in the league and the proposed wage compared to wages at the club.

It's quite difficult to work out whether he would have passed under these rules. I think if he did meet these rules, and was still rejected, we've been unfairly treated. If he didn't meet these rules, we probably haven't.

[ClaretAndBlueBlood]

Going back to the keeper. Was it just his lack of senior caps that stopped it going through or his lack of national caps at every level?

From the looks of the report that was posted it was nothing like that, it was that the panel decided he wasn't good enough on the basis that he didn't play in a good enough league.

If that's the case, the like of Seamus Coleman shouldn't have been allowed to join Everton.

Not really. Irish people don't need work permits to live and work in the UK, Croatians do.

We could bring in somebody from say, the Bulgarian third division if we wanted without any problems.

didn't we try that with Tonev?

[paul_e]

I assume that it was a combination of factors rather than one specific thing. As I think peter w posted at the time, it could have been down to something as simple as his English not being good enough.

I doubt it, he was refused a governing body endorsement not a work visa so I don't think we were even at a stage of things like language coming into it, this is an FA decision so it's fair to say it will be football based criteria.

I think the conflict of interests bit is a bit misleading, the key part of the complaint seems to be the next bit

The Club’s submission is that at the primary review stage the relevant circumstances
which the Panel may take into account must exclude factors which relate to the
criteria on the basis of which points are awarded. The interpretative basis for the
argument is that the statement that the Panel “may take into account other
circumstances or facts that, even though the player has achieved four (4) points or
more, suggest that a GBE should not be granted” can only extend to circumstances
and facts which are “other” than the criteria on the basis of which the points are
awarded. The logic of the argument must therefore be that although the Panel is
expressly stated not to have an obligation to recommend a GBE, in deciding whether
or not to recommend a GBE at the primary stage it may not take into account any
factors which relate to the experience and financial value of the Player.

To me this reads as if he actually got enough points but the panel decided the way he got the points wasn't good enough for them, we complained and the arbitrator said "there's nothing in the rules to say they can't do this" and we lost.


If this is right then the criticism that someone on the board should've known the rules is unfair and we've not got him because we've been dealt a particularly shitty hand by the FA.


I may be misunderstanding something though so if anyone can make more sense of it I'd be intrigued to hear how this can be justified.

[Dave]

Interesting. When you get into the technicalities of it, it certainly makes Garde's "not happy" comments a bit more open to interpretation than the assumption that it was directed at the club.

[Phil from the upper holte]

I'm not arsed about that keeper, we've got Steer, it wasn't the priority a striker was !

[edgysatsuma89]

I assume that it was a combination of factors rather than one specific thing. As I think peter w posted at the time, it could have been down to something as simple as his English not being good enough.

I doubt it, he was refused a governing body endorsement not a work visa so I don't think we were even at a stage of things like language coming into it, this is an FA decision so it's fair to say it will be football based criteria.

I think the conflict of interests bit is a bit misleading, the key part of the complaint seems to be the next bit

The Club’s submission is that at the primary review stage the relevant circumstances
which the Panel may take into account must exclude factors which relate to the
criteria on the basis of which points are awarded. The interpretative basis for the
argument is that the statement that the Panel “may take into account other
circumstances or facts that, even though the player has achieved four (4) points or
more, suggest that a GBE should not be granted” can only extend to circumstances
and facts which are “other” than the criteria on the basis of which the points are
awarded. The logic of the argument must therefore be that although the Panel is
expressly stated not to have an obligation to recommend a GBE, in deciding whether
or not to recommend a GBE at the primary stage it may not take into account any
factors which relate to the experience and financial value of the Player.

To me this reads as if he actually got enough points but the panel decided the way he got the points wasn't good enough for them, we complained and the arbitrator said "there's nothing in the rules to say they can't do this" and we lost.


If this is right then the criticism that someone on the board should've known the rules is unfair and we've not got him because we've been dealt a particularly shitty hand by the FA.


I may be misunderstanding something though so if anyone can make more sense of it I'd be intrigued to hear how this can be justified.

Nope that's pretty much what I got from it. I guess all the points system does is make the application clearer to the panel. Most would at least get 4 points looking at the criteria.

[paul_e]

I'm not arsed about that keeper, we've got Steer, it wasn't the priority a striker was !

but with a club in the situation we're in getting the first one in place was always going to be important because it shows that we're trying to do something, getting to the last day or 2 with nothing having happened will have worked against us with Doumbia I think, we were competing with a team that's thrown money around, was easy for them to say "at least we're giving it a go, Villa aren't bothering, they look like they're already planning for relegation".

[Marlon From Bearwood]

Steer is arguably our best keeper and he's out on loan! I work with a Huddersfield fan who rates him very highly.

[paul_e]

Interesting. When you get into the technicalities of it, it certainly makes Garde's "not happy" comments a bit more open to interpretation than the assumption that it was directed at the club.

Yep, it's also why I think all the 'considering his future' comments about Garde are pure guesswork. As I said earlier I wouldn't be surprised if the club overruled him on one of the signings (I'd guess debuchy as I suspect Wenger wanted a big loan fee and a commitment to buy him in the summer if we stayed up and the club have looked at Sinclair and thought 'fuck that') but I don't think he was completely screwed over as some have suggested.