Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Its a sad day when playing for your country is ever considered 'employment' It's a privelage, and should be treated with respect, by all parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Its a sad day when playing for your country is ever considered 'employment' It's a privelage, and should be treated with respect, by all parties He could take a leaf out of Drogba's book tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty 0 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Would be great news if he retired from international football though. Especially when you think that the African Nations takes place half way through our domestic season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) It's to stop clubs stopping players from being released for internationals. Not particularly applicable in this case. Aye I can see if it is the club saying no you cannot play against the players wishes, but that's a different situation. But in the context of the club being fine and the player just not turning up, anything other than a fine or something that directly impacts the guilty party is just plain barmy (and as I said probably illegal anyway). Edited February 7, 2007 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13915 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I HOPE YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION, MICHAEL OWEN. THIS IS COMMITMENT TO THE TOON CAUSE. I CAAAANT HEEAR YOU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It's to stop clubs stopping players from being released for internationals. Not particularly applicable in this case. Aye I can see if it is the club saying no you cannot play against the players wishes, but that's a different situation. But the rule has to be the same across the board, otherwise (as long as the player is complicit in this) a club could just say: it's down to the player not wanting to play, nothing to do with us. I'd love to know what Martins is playing at btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3284 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Would be great news if he retired from international football though. Especially when you think that the African Nations takes place half way through our domestic season. That may look a little suss what with him only being 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It's to stop clubs stopping players from being released for internationals. Not particularly applicable in this case. Aye I can see if it is the club saying no you cannot play against the players wishes, but that's a different situation. But the rule has to be the same across the board, otherwise (as long as the player is complicit in this) a club could just say: it's down to the player not wanting to play, nothing to do with us. I'd love to know what Martins is playing at btw. But that's just basically saying everyone gets punished because we can't be 100% sure of who is guilty (there's plenty of words for systems like that)... again I'm fairly sure that would not stand up if challenged, and simply re-enforces how badly FIFA is run. Anyway I'll shut up unless he does get a ban, but it he does and we lose points etc., I'll expect there'll be a LOT of whining on here (although it'll probably all be Roeders fault ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It's to stop clubs stopping players from being released for internationals. Not particularly applicable in this case. Aye I can see if it is the club saying no you cannot play against the players wishes, but that's a different situation. But the rule has to be the same across the board, otherwise (as long as the player is complicit in this) a club could just say: it's down to the player not wanting to play, nothing to do with us. I'd love to know what Martins is playing at btw. He's at a bar near Stamford Bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It's to stop clubs stopping players from being released for internationals. Not particularly applicable in this case. Aye I can see if it is the club saying no you cannot play against the players wishes, but that's a different situation. But the rule has to be the same across the board, otherwise (as long as the player is complicit in this) a club could just say: it's down to the player not wanting to play, nothing to do with us. I'd love to know what Martins is playing at btw. But that's just basically saying everyone gets punished because we can't be 100% sure of who is guilty (there's plenty of words for systems like that)... again I'm fairly sure that would not stand up if challenged, and simply re-enforces how badly FIFA is run. Anyway I'll shut up unless he does get a ban, but it he does and we lose points etc., I'll expect there'll be a LOT of whining on here (although it'll probably all be Roeders fault ). Not really, just stopping clubs exploiting potential loop holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It's to stop clubs stopping players from being released for internationals. Not particularly applicable in this case. Aye I can see if it is the club saying no you cannot play against the players wishes, but that's a different situation. But the rule has to be the same across the board, otherwise (as long as the player is complicit in this) a club could just say: it's down to the player not wanting to play, nothing to do with us. I'd love to know what Martins is playing at btw. But that's just basically saying everyone gets punished because we can't be 100% sure of who is guilty (there's plenty of words for systems like that)... again I'm fairly sure that would not stand up if challenged, and simply re-enforces how badly FIFA is run. Anyway I'll shut up unless he does get a ban, but it he does and we lose points etc., I'll expect there'll be a LOT of whining on here (although it'll probably all be Roeders fault ). Not really, just stopping clubs exploiting potential loop holes. By saying we will punish everyone no matter who is guilty, yes. Effective? Probably. Legal if challenged? Unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Er, Martins is guilty, is he not? There's no other effective way to punish clubs/players who break the rule tbh. The club may be innocent in this case, but it's then up to the club to discipline the player and try and ensure this doesn't happen again if there are any repurcussions, seen as it would seem the club was led to believe he was away on international duty. It'll probably all get brushed under the carpet anyway though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Er, Martins is guilty, is he not? There's no other effective way to punish clubs/players who break the rule tbh. The club may be innocent in this case, but it's then up to the club to discipline the player and try and ensure this doesn't happen again if there are any repurcussions, seen as it would seem the club was led to believe he was away on international duty. It'll probably all get brushed under the carpet anyway though. For what you've done, Obafemi, we're going to punish you by taking away the highest honour a player can have; you're banned, henceforth, by the management of Newcastle United, from playing for Nigeria for 5 matches. I hope you learn your lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I reckon he got lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Er, Martins is guilty, is he not? There's no other effective way to punish clubs/players who break the rule tbh. The club may be innocent in this case, but it's then up to the club to discipline the player and try and ensure this doesn't happen again if there are any repurcussions, seen as it would seem the club was led to believe he was away on international duty. It'll probably all get brushed under the carpet anyway though. As I said FIFA fining the player himself directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I HOPE YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION, MICHAEL OWEN. THIS IS COMMITMENT TO THE TOON CAUSE. I thought his name was England's Michael Owen ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) As I said, I would imagine that would be ineffective (i.e. fining the individual) especially to big clubs (thus making it unfair), as they could use it as an excuse (i.e. it was the player's decision) and easily pay the fines on their behalf. Edited February 7, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Has anything else been reported apart from the quotes from the Nigerian manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) Has anything else been reported apart from the quotes from the Nigerian manager? He isn't really 'missing' though is he? Edited February 7, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Hog 360 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=11716 In the article that SM posts Roeder says that he will ask Martins not to play in the friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 As I said, I would imagine that would be ineffective (i.e. fining the individual) especially to big clubs (thus making it unfair), as they could use it as an excuse (i.e. it was the player's decision) and easily pay the fines on their behalf. Which again makes it effective, but not legal. As I said shooting them would be VERY effective (both for the club and the player, although more the player of course ) but effective action doesn't necessarily make it legal. You can see this with the recording industry who not only do completely amoral things to defend their product, but even illegal things at times, the ends may justify the means if £££'s are the only grounds to judge things on, but thankful Law at least pays lip service to other ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Has anything else been reported apart from the quotes from the Nigerian manager? He isn't really 'missing' though is he? So no then? No other quotes to go on? And this means...? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/6332423.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 "It is only a friendly and Nigeria cannot insist on Oba playing, and because he has had so much football this season, I will be asking him not to play against Ghana," Roeder said last week. GR seems to think there is no legal re-course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 statement made by club on monday in link above. Anyway, anyone else tried to get to Griffin Park? Its a fucking nightmare, trains are shit from Waterloo and that stretch of the M4 is mental in rush hour. I reckon he couldnt believe they were playing in the shit hole that is Brentford and went off to find a proper ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 As I said, I would imagine that would be ineffective (i.e. fining the individual) especially to big clubs (thus making it unfair), as they could use it as an excuse (i.e. it was the player's decision) and easily pay the fines on their behalf. Which again makes it effective, but not legal. As I said shooting them would be VERY effective (both for the club and the player, although more the player of course ) but effective action doesn't necessarily make it legal. You can see this with the recording industry who not only do completely amoral things to defend their product, but even illegal things at times, the ends may justify the means if £££'s are the only grounds to judge things on, but thankful Law at least pays lip service to other ideals. I ignored that originally as I thought it was so stupid but since you insist, that's a great example I wouldn't have a clue about the legal ramifications of a domestic ban though tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now