The intention was that the new club would be unable to register players until January 2014 (albeit after giving them the summer 2012 window to build up their squad for the assault on Division 3).
We have since been treated to the unedifying sight of The Rangers gloating about an alleged loophole in the rules that allows them to register free agents on September 1st, and they have this week unveiled Cammy Bell and Jon Daly, whom they intend to register on September 1st. There has even been speculation that they can play as trialists from the start of the new season.
The basis for this belief is that clubs can register "free agents" from September 1st, and that as Bell and Daly's contracts with their previous clubs expire on June 30th, they will be free agents.
But let's look at what the SFA's registration procedures actually say.
The key point is article 1.2,
-
"A professional player who has failed to find employment during a registration
period may sign and be registered for a club outwith the registration periods."
The rule applies not to "free agents," but to players who have failed to find employment in the registration period.
We must assume that any player signed by The Rangers before 1st September has found employment in the registration period therefore should not be able to be registered outside of the registration period.
Over to you, SFA.
Although it should not be beyond Sandy Bryson to come up with a labyrinthine explanation as to why Daly and Bell can play from September 1st...
Not particularly water-tight, is it? Any player will simply state that no other offer they received, or would have received, would have been acceptable to them. Therefore they did not find employment in the registration period.
ReplyDeleteThere is a moral question around whether Sevco should be announcing these "signings", which strictly speaking should not happen until 1st Sept, as it makes it so obvious they are at least "bending" the rules, but I think this one just boils down to semantics.
Much as I'd like to slaughter Sevco, I think on this one they are simply acting as any other club in their position would act, and it is debatable whether they have actually broken an rule.
The players have signed for Sevco, therefore they have found employment.
DeleteREALLY splitting hairs, I think. Next you'll be telling us other sides don't tap up players while they're still under contract..
DeleteI'm afraid you come across as rather juvenile here. There are plenty of ways you can have a dig at Sevco; I enjoy many of them myself; but this is nothing more than twisted wishful thinking.
You come across like one of those "Celtic fans" who call Radio Clyde to say how much they miss Rangers.
DeleteAlthough players have been "signed" by Rangers now, it is of course a mistake - one you sadly seem to be making - to assume that also means they've been registered as Rangers FC players.
ReplyDeleteProvided they are not REGISTERED with any clubs by the end of the transfer/registration window, then they qualify as free agents and can then - in line with the rules - sign register as Rangers Fc players from then onwards. No rulebreaking - no "loopholes".
U seem to be in a mess of confusion with the SEPARATE issue of playing unregistered players prior to sep 1st, which may well be a loophole but is an entirely separate issue - even though you confusingly conflate the two.
I don't misunderstand at all. The players cannot be registered until after the registration period because that is when Sevco's registration embargo ends.
ReplyDeleteAs they have found employment, they cannot be registered until the next registration period.
No! Players who are not already registered with a club (free agents) can be registered OUTSIDE a registration period ie. Sept 1st onwards.
ReplyDeleteYou are misinterpreting the phrase "found employment" when its actual meaning is to be registered to play for a team.
I see McConville has also shown your position to be in error - we all mistakes, time to stop digging on this one mate!
Who says that's the definition of "failed to find employment?"
ReplyDeleteNobody says it because some things, no offence intended, are so obvious they don't - or shouldn't - need to be spelled out.
ReplyDeleteIn a set of football rules, relating specifically to professional football PLAYERS, "employment" could only mean being registered to play for a football team - if your job is playing football, if you CAN'T play football, *by definition* you haven't got a job!
Look at this extract from the SFL rules:
"A bona fide player.. is one who has signed the necessary Registration Documents.. and has been registered and approved by the League before playing."
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__SFL_Constitution__Rules__1346425915.pdf
If a professional footballer is not registered to play professional football - they are not "employed" as a professional footballer.
That's one way of interpreting it, but not definitive.
ReplyDelete