Looks as though there may still be a few issues with the Kane Hemmings transfer

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/f...-kane-hemmings-row-reaches-stalemate-1.522537

Perhaps the Danny Rose fee will be needed towards paying an unexpected fee to Cowdenbeath? I thought the compensation issue had been long since sorted but going by this article it clearly hasn't. I wonder if this might hamper our plans to bring in a target man.

Sorry if already posted.

 

I'd have thought the transfer would have been conducted under the auspices of the Scottish FA not English FA

 

Heard at reserve game today that he's not yet registered for us, was one of the 1st summer signings so something amiss

 

Is he injured or daren`t we play him?

 

Not sure I like how we're conducting our business if that article is what's really happening.

 

Let's just give them the £9 we owe them and we can all move on.

 

Call it a tenner and let them keep the change.

 

I just wished we'd got a sports lawyer who we'd seen down at Oakwell who could help with this matter! Ni mind.......

 

Ben said a few weeks ago that Watkins was confident we owed them nowt.

Is this the real reason he isn't playing? They haven't released his registration yet over this payment? I wonder if we are paying him?

 

We can't afford him

 

Nice to see us being hard b*stards in regards to transfer dealings for a change. Been powder puff for too long, and in this day and age of ruthless moneyball that approach doesn't get you anywhere.

 

I like this! On one hand we use a ruling to our benefit.... (We will probably end up paying however) and the sell a young striker for the same money as one we bought

Business sense and Barnsley in the same sentance, who'd have thought it

 

No, if we end up paying it isn't going to show us in a good light. Then again, the compensation rule was brought in to prevent a big club coming in and nicking a player that a smaller club has spent the past five or ten years putting through their academy, for example, to prevent teams like us losing someone like Jacob Butterfield for nowt. Cowdenbeath, in demanding the fee, are trying to tell us that it was the 12 months he spent with them between the ages of 22 and 23 that developed him into the player he is today (rather than the 5 years he spent with Rangers!).

I understand their disappointment at losing their leading scorer for nowt, but they only brought him to the club at age 22 and even then only gave him a one year deal, so how much development compensation do they think they deserve. I actually felt the same way when it looked like we were trying to wrangle a similar sort of fee for Jacob Mellis and was glad to see us simply get shut of him. Maybe that's because Mellis' development seems to have gone backwards over the past two years though!

 

To be fair we might have had to accept a penalty rather than a fee for our 'development' of Mellis.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Am I a mile off here?!? Is the discrepancy that the SFA and us have different age rules?!? And/or that no one knows how old he actually is? I'm confuddled.

In Mo we trust. Cant believe him and Ben would let or put us in a position where we'll get 'turned over'?!?

 

"Barnsley are saying that we are not entitled to compensation, quoting a Fifa rule that a player who is going to be out of contract has to be informed 60 days prior to the end of the season that his club wishes to retain him.

“We complied with the SFA and SPFL instruction, in relation to the under-23 rule, that the notice period involved has to be within 30 days"

Sounds like we're perfectly in the rules. Surely we should conform to FIFA rules and not SFA rules?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

We should, but surely it's what Cowdenbeath did that's in question. The lad is playing in Scotland for a Scottish club and they offer him a new contract within the laws set out by their own FA. Later, we discover that he wasn't offered a contract in the rules set out by FIFA so we try to get him for nowt. Is that right, considering Cowdenbeath followed the rules of their own governing body?

I dunno. I want us to play hard-ball in transfer dealings, but I'm not sure I want us to be looking for legal loop holes so we can get players for nowt from small clubs struggling to survive.

 

I bet our Mo loves a loop hole Jay!

 

I guess that's the problem when players transfer between governing bodies, as Cardiff found out when they lost Joe Ledley to Celtic for nowt. If Hemmings had been signed by another Scottish team the Scottish FA would have had jurisdiction and a fee would have been due. I would suggest that the Scottish FA review their policies and bring them in line with FIFA regulations.

 

Agree with this, 30 day rule must only apply to internal transfers, as this is technically an international deal the 60 day fifa rule is invoked.