*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[marc71178]

In any case, it makes sense to give big clubs some leeway when it come to work permit applications since it's extremely likely that they really are sufficiently good at their profession that they're not taking the work of similar-quality locals.

What, like Manucho and that other one who signed in January, Diouf?

I would argue that if they don't meet the criteria then there's no way they're good enough for a top side.

 

[The Sean]

What, like Manucho and that other one who signed in January, Diouf?

I would argue that if they don't meet the criteria then there's no way they're good enough for a top side.

United did actually have work permit problems with Manucho - I think we had to send him out on loan for six months until he'd played a few more games for Angola.

 

[Loony BoB]

To be fair, young players of exceptional talent are supposed to get given more leeway, and if he's a young player who is, going by (all pre-United talk) reports...
- The best rated player in all four matches he's played in, including when he came on as a substitute
- Scored in three of the four matches and got an assist in the fourth.
- Considered to be definitely ahead of Arsenal's Vela and possibly also ahead of Blanco in the running to be striker-of-choice for the Mexican national team, even after just four matches.

...he's arguably worth qualifying on that alone. However, Mexico have a busy schedule coming up, and are due to play seven internatonal friendlies before the World Cup and three games at the World Cup, If he plays in most of those games, I can't see the work permit application failing. I'd see it as harsh to say "but that's not 75% of the past two years!" when he was 19 at the time those two years began, especially if he manages to continue his current form (and obviously I'm praying he does!).

I dare say being a highly rated player for the Mexican team (17th in world by FIFA) is probably a bit better than being a highly rated player for the Angolan(86th)/Chinese (84th) team, who couldn't even manage top 70 and therefore wouldn't make any of the requirements at all.

 

[Ikki]

YouTube - Benitez tests reporters' memories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7rFjPohp-g

 

[Uppercut]

No it doesn't, rules should either be obeyed or discontinued

It isn't a set-in-stone rule. You simply have to prove you're a labourer skilled enough that you're not taking the place of an equally adept national. This can be done by showing that you've played the majority of games for your country, or it can be done by other means. If they're going to suggest that someone being offered 50k+ a week to play for one of the biggest clubs in the world probably isn't skilled enough to warrant a work permit then they're just neglecting common sense. And in recognition of this, they often grant a permit.

No one would complain if it was a specialist engineer offered large amounts of money to work in the UK for Arup. But because this is football, and we all have our predetermined allegiances, people like to object.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah I agree there.

I despise long sleeve shirts though. Short sleeves+skins is too ***y to pass up.

Yeah, agreed. Love skins.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The UEFA coefficients are based on the last five years of performance. So I would imagine that Germany's score for this year's performance will be superior to Italy's, but when you add the last five years together Italy will still outrank the Germans.

In fact, this year's ratings - Germany 17.083; England 17.071; Spain 16.928; France 15.000; Italy 14.714.

The overall (five-year) ratings are: Eng 80.999; Spa 78.757; Ita 63.624; Ger 63.207; Fra 53.740.

Germany could overhaul the Italians here, but will be needing a lot of results to go their way if they are to climb to third in the club rankings. If they were to achieve this, they would gain a fourth CL spot for 2011/12.

 

[GIMH]

It isn't a set-in-stone rule. You simply have to prove you're a labourer skilled enough that you're not taking the place of an equally adept national. This can be done by showing that you've played the majority of games for your country, or it can be done by other means. If they're going to suggest that someone being offered 50k+ a week to play for one of the biggest clubs in the world probably isn't skilled enough to warrant a work permit then they're just neglecting common sense. And in recognition of this, they often grant a permit.

No one would complain if it was a specialist engineer offered large amounts of money to work in the UK for Arup. But because this is football, and we all have our predetermined allegiances, people like to object.

LOL no, you said "In any case, it makes sense to give big clubs some leeway" which is of course nothing to do with your own allegiances. Giving big clubs leeway is not really about allegiances, it is something that happens in a lot of cases where it frankly shouldn't. You can put forwards reasoning as to why in this case it's legitimate but quite frankly it's an attitude which is in general grating.

 

[Uppercut]

LOL no, you said "In any case, it makes sense to give big clubs some leeway" which is of course nothing to do with your own allegiances. Giving big clubs leeway is not really about allegiances, it is something that happens in a lot of cases where it frankly shouldn't. You can put forwards reasoning as to why in this case it's legitimate but quite frankly it's an attitude which is in general grating.

Just because it's legitimate practice here isn't to say it's acceptable in general. There's a number of examples of football's governing bodies giving preferential treatment to big clubs- Liverpool being allowed to break a rule regarding playing for three clubs in a season in order to sign Mascherano, for instance, when smaller clubs had been forced to work within those rules for years. It's just that this isn't really one of those cases where a double standard is being applied unfairly.

 

[Matteh]

Is HRMC a footballing governing body? Depends entirely on the allegiance of the pen pusher/form stamper behind the desk in cases like these.

 

[GIMH]

Just because it's legitimate practice here isn't to say it's acceptable in general. There's a number of examples of football's governing bodies giving preferential treatment to big clubs- Liverpool being allowed to break a rule regarding playing for three clubs in a season in order to sign Mascherano, for instance, when smaller clubs had been forced to work within those rules for years. It's just that this isn't really one of those cases where a double standard is being applied unfairly.

That was my point - big clubs always get preference. At the end of the day, though, the crux of your argument seems to be that if a big club is signing them they must be good enough to be worth the work permit. But at the end of the day, "small clubs" don't sign players that they think won't benefit their team. What's the actual difference?

 

[Loony BoB]

Is HRMC a footballing governing body? Depends entirely on the allegiance of the pen pusher/form stamper behind the desk in cases like these.

Actually, work permit issues can be appealed and go to a panel of three representatives of football bodies and three independent panelists. You need a majority (4-2 minimum, obviously) of votes to get through. Well, that is, according to memory...

I'd expect that Hernandez would probably require an appeal as most initial applications are very much "by the book", in other words they don't take into account anything such as youth/exceptional talent/experience/whatever.

EDIT: And I see what GIMH is getting at and agree. However, I think that rather than less leeway being given to 'big clubs', it should be a case of equal leeway being given to smaller clubs. Basically, if a player is good enough, he's good enough, it shouldn't matter who is appealing for the permit. I dare say most PL sides get away with things more often than not, though. Hernandez would be considered a walk in the park compared to getting a few of the past work permits we've seen accepted for players now in the PL.

 

[Uppercut]

That was my point - big clubs always get preference. At the end of the day, though, the crux of your argument seems to be that if a big club is signing them they must be good enough to be worth the work permit. But at the end of the day, "small clubs" don't sign players that they think won't benefit their team. What's the actual difference?

The difference is that smaller clubs have other options. Why buy a Latvian second division midfielder when you could buy a superior player in Gareth Barry? Well, Gareth Barry costs too much. So what you're essentially doing is importing workers from overseas because they'll work for less than the British equivalent, flooding the market with cheap foreign labour. That's the type of exploitation the laws are there to prevent.

Or, "Why we let in Indian doctors but not Indian bin men".

But yes, what Loony said. If you want to buy a highly skilled footballer that's better than the vast majority of UK options, then you're absolutely free to. The fact that small clubs can't afford to is not due to anything wrong with the law.

 

[GIMH]

The difference is that smaller clubs have other options. Why buy a Latvian second division midfielder when you could buy a superior player in Gareth Barry? Well, Gareth Barry costs too much. So what you're essentially doing is importing workers from overseas because they'll work for less than the British equivalent, flooding the market with cheap foreign labour. That's the type of exploitation the laws are there to prevent.

Or, "Why we let in Indian doctors but not Indian bin men".

But yes, what Loony said. If you want to buy a highly skilled footballer that's better than the vast majority of UK options, then you're absolutely free to. The fact that small clubs can't afford to is not due to anything wrong with the law.

Except that a footballer in the second division is still plying a skilled trade so it's not akin to your binman analogy. And why can't United buy a striker other than this Mexican. SOrry, not gonna buy why it should be any different.

FTR, I agree with Towns too. The club signing the player should not, under any circumstances, be a consideration. It should merely be a case of who the player is and their calibre.

 

[Loony BoB]

And why can't United buy a striker other than this Mexican.

Huh? Well, if you're going to put it that way, why couldn't Liverpool buy a striker other than that Spanish guy?

I don't really get what you're getting at in that end. *confused*

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. We got a distinctly dodgy work permit for Santos Gaia several years back, not least through Ben Bradshaw pulling a few strings.

 

[Jarquis]

Arshavin on Question of Sport

 

[Prince EWS]

Handcock is the worst name.

DWTA.
z

 

[Jarquis]

DWTA.
z

Arshavin > Handcock > ****burn

 

[GIMH]

Huh? Well, if you're going to put it that way, why couldn't Liverpool buy a striker other than that Spanish guy?

I don't really get what you're getting at in that end. *confused*

I don't think United should have to sign another striker, FTR. It was in response to UC's point about clubs buying Gareth Barry instead of a Latvian midfielder.