McClaren at it again

[Rambler]

I've just looked at what I believe are the relevant rules on this and unless I'm missing something, I cannot believe what Maclaren has done doesn't constitute a breach of the rules. It shouldn't make any difference that Martin's here on a loan rather than perm contract - all that matters is he's registered for us, and not for Derby. Yes Derby would be permitted to talk to him about certain things on the basis that his registration may transfer back to them at the end of the season, but if they induce him to break the current registration with us then that's tapping up.

"Clubs, Officials, Players shall not (and shall procure that their respective employees, agents or Intermediaries shall not) directly or indirectly induce or attempt to induce a Registered Player of another Club or a Premier League club to leave for any purpose whatsoever the employment of the Club with which he is registered or cease to be so registered.  Any penalty imposed on a Club may include the refusal to register for the Club, guilty of the infringement, any Player whom they consider has been so induced."

"Public statements by Clubs, Officials or Intermediaries of their interest in Registered Players of other Clubs shall be regarded as inducements within the meaning of this Regulation."

Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#GMu1kQsCZOcVTo3r.99

So it is a form of 'tapping up'?!!

[f321ffc]

"Public statements by Clubs, Officials or Intermediaries of their interest in Registered Players of other Clubs shall be regarded as inducements within the meaning of this Regulation."

Sounds like tapping up to me, Mo would have had in in court by now.

[westcliff white]

I've just looked at what I believe are the relevant rules on this and unless I'm missing something, I cannot believe what Maclaren has done doesn't constitute a breach of the rules. It shouldn't make any difference that Martin's here on a loan rather than perm contract - all that matters is he's registered for us, and not for Derby. Yes Derby would be permitted to talk to him about certain things on the basis that his registration may transfer back to them at the end of the season, but if they induce him to break the current registration with us then that's tapping up.

"Clubs, Officials, Players shall not (and shall procure that their respective employees, agents or Intermediaries shall not) directly or indirectly induce or attempt to induce a Registered Player of another Club or a Premier League club to leave for any purpose whatsoever the employment of the Club with which he is registered or cease to be so registered.  Any penalty imposed on a Club may include the refusal to register for the Club, guilty of the infringement, any Player whom they consider has been so induced."

"Public statements by Clubs, Officials or Intermediaries of their interest in Registered Players of other Clubs shall be regarded as inducements within the meaning of this Regulation."

Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#GMu1kQsCZOcVTo3r.99

Sadlt, even though that doesn't say it, the rule isn't relevant to players on loan, as they are the parent club. They can even call I'm up and have a chat if they wish too.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Earlier this afternoon when the quote was first put up I e-mailed the EFL asking them to investigate under rule 23 listed above.

I have no idea if they will respond to supporters or if they just respond to complaints from clubs. We will see.

I would hope that the rule is open to interpretation, that a loan is a registration especially if we have an option to buy.

[westcliff white]

I've just looked at what I believe are the relevant rules on this and unless I'm missing something, I cannot believe what Maclaren has done doesn't constitute a breach of the rules. It shouldn't make any difference that Martin's here on a loan rather than perm contract - all that matters is he's registered for us, and not for Derby. Yes Derby would be permitted to talk to him about certain things on the basis that his registration may transfer back to them at the end of the season, but if they induce him to break the current registration with us then that's tapping up.

"Clubs, Officials, Players shall not (and shall procure that their respective employees, agents or Intermediaries shall not) directly or indirectly induce or attempt to induce a Registered Player of another Club or a Premier League club to leave for any purpose whatsoever the employment of the Club with which he is registered or cease to be so registered.  Any penalty imposed on a Club may include the refusal to register for the Club, guilty of the infringement, any Player whom they consider has been so induced."

"Public statements by Clubs, Officials or Intermediaries of their interest in Registered Players of other Clubs shall be regarded as inducements within the meaning of this Regulation."

Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#GMu1kQsCZOcVTo3r.99

Sadlt, even though that doesn't say it, the rule isn't relevant to players on loan, as they are the parent club. They can even call I'm up and have a chat if they wish too.

What's all that based on?

Let's remember Managers are free to call up and have a chat with any player. If Cairney happened to be mates with Benitez, no one could stop them having a beer together... unless the topic of conversation Was Cairney joining Newcastle, at which point it becomes tapping up.

Also this idea that Derby still own the player is misleading. All a club ever "owns" is the registration of a player. A loan is the temporary transfer of that registration, a perm move is the transfer of that indefinitely. So whether it's a loan move or perm, Martin is currently registered to Fulham and fulham only.

All loan players ownership remains with the parent club that's clear. For me the confusion lies around if there is a recall clause as for me if not then they should not speak to them.

I do agree with you 100%, but look at the history of loans, Fergie sent his to Preston a lot of the time because he could stay in contact with them personally so he said, when we loaned Wayne Bridge Jose said it was perfect as he would still be bale to talk to him and watch him.

All loan players ownership remains with the parent club that's clear. For me the confusion

[westcliff white]

All loan players ownership remains with the parent club that's clear.

I think this is where we differ. I don't think that's clear at all. In fact I think the opposite is true - a player can only be registered at one club at a time.

As for talking to loan players, again, that doesn't mean you can induce them to come back. You can't bribe a police officer, but that doesn't mean you can't talk to them at all, does it. Having a general chat with someone, and inducing them to do something in a way specifically proscribed by law, are two different things. 

Apprentice to the Maestro i was looking at rule 73 for what it's worth. Rule 23 seems primarily focused on the tapping-up of managers, although both mention players and the language is largely duplicative so I couldn't really see much difference.

We have differing opinions on what's what, but generally agree that it shouldn't be aloud

[Fulham Tup North]

The way I interpreted the rule: Derby hold the Registration of the player, not us. We only 'Loaned' him and as such he is still their 'Registered Player'.
Obviously, you cannot 'Tap-Up' your own player, but if his loan clearly states he is at Fulham for the 2016/17 Season, and there is no 'Recall' option inthe Loan agreement, then there is no reason for them to contact him regarding going back to Derby.

[davew]

I think we shouldn't waste any more time on this topic, just pour some more tonic!!

[Woolly Mammoth]

The Brolly thought he was being cute at mischief making. But Jok is a different kettle of fish.

[Grumpy Worthing White]

He really  is a Wally

and has a worse haircut than mine.

[win-dup]

.@Jokanovic: "I bought a house in Putney 15 years ago and then sold it. That doesn't mean I can just ask for it back now."

:Haynes The Maestro:

My father in law bought a house in Finlay St for £3500 in 1962 I wish he'd kept that!

[Logicalman]

Whats so interesting is that the Derby fans couldn't wait to offload him when he came to us. I recall getting the text from a Derby fan over here extracting the urine out of Fulham for even agreeing a loan deal for the guy! He appears to have changed his tune of late now though, and says he isn't that bad of a player.

[NogoodBoyo]

Is this not the same as 'tapping up'. Although he is technically their player he has a contract with us and yet derby are openly talking about our contracted player.

Gives ground for taking this to the FA

No such case, as his parent club they can't talk to and about him as much as they like.

Firstly, I went to go on record to say that I do love you, Westfield White and I love everything you do for this Board - except for the crucial lack of clarity in the sentence above.  Not to pick the knitting or knit the picking, but it's as charmingly ambiguous a sentence as I have ever seen.
Do you mean to say Derby "CAN'T talk to and about him as much as they like" or "CAN talk to him and about him as much as they like?"
Nogood "grammar and proof-reading like what I does reduces the confusion no end, see" Boyo

[NogoodBoyo]

Well, I guess I have to go to my bed in a state of confusion.
Nogood "what a state to get into too, like" Boyo

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Earlier this afternoon when the quote was first put up I e-mailed the EFL asking them to investigate under rule 23 listed above.

I have no idea if they will respond to supporters or if they just respond to complaints from clubs. We will see.

I would hope that the rule is open to interpretation, that a loan is a registration especially if we have an option to buy.

I have had a response from EFL:

"Thank you for your email.

EFL regulations regarding approaches for players are detailed here (reg 63) http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx . However Chris Martin is owned by Derby County with a deal in place with Fulham until the end of the season. It would be for the two clubs in question to mutually agree any loan termination. Should either club wish to raise any registration matter with the EFL they are entitled to do so. Ultimately the activity of agents ultimately falls under their jurisdiction of The Football Association (www.thefa.com) who is responsible for ensuring that "the international Laws of the Game are applied on the field, and that the rules and regulations concerned with running football in England are observed by officials, clubs and players off the pitch as well as on it".

You can further your query with the FA via [email protected]. "

It looks as if they are interpreting the rule (not 23 but a similar one) as someone on here suggested as though he is still a Derby player although we apparently have an option to buy meaning that even if they did not want him back that they can freely mess with the head of a player from a competitor.

Can anyone see a way forward?

[westcliff white]

thats exactly as i thought the rules were to be fair, if anyone loans anything it is still the property (therefore ownership) of the person / organisation loaning.

The way forward is for me, Martin commits or we say we want to make it permanent.

[Holders]

If we have the contractual option to buy as part of the loan agreement it follows that, even if Derby want him back and he wants to go back, we can still force a purchase through. Not that it would make sense to do that if he didn't want to play for us but that's the logical conclusion of such a clause. That still doesn't stop a club talking to a player whose formal registration they still hold, however inappropriately or harmfully (intentionally or otherwise), to the principle of the loan they freely entered into.

[gang]

He is playing with the players mind, Fergerson was very good at it.
All down to strength of mind and character. He's at Fulham until we say he can go.

[toshes mate]

As the EFL know the terms of the contract agreement with Derby - full season loan with option to buy and terms agreed and signed by all parties (Derby, Fulham, and Martin) - then 'any' interference with that contract by the parent club appears to be an infringement of its terms and in contradiction of the EFL's rules about players under contract negotiating new terms with a.n.other while the season is running.  As far as I can see Fulham would have been required to give permission for Derby to make such an approach (it wasn't an enquiry as to his welfare but a reported attempt to offer a new deal) since he is currently under contract to Fulham.  As Statto says the EFL are a joke.

[FFCpmd]

Just spotted the typo in the Topic Heading. Should of course read,

"McClaren a tit again"