Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players

[Lazarus 0]

Been reading a few things on this:

 

“Protected Period: a period of three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, if such a contract was concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the Professional, or to a period of two entire seasons or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, if such contract was concluded after 28th birthday of the Professional.”

 

A player under 28 can 'buy out' the last 3 years of his contract. a player 28 and over can 'buy out' the last 2 years.

 

Article 17(3):

 

(i) IN ADDITION to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall also be imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract during the Protected Period. These sanctions are:

 

(a) a restriction of four months to play in Official Matches; ( in the case of aggravating circumstances, six months (e.g. where there had been a previous breach) and © in ALL cases, these sporting sanctions shall take effect from the start of the following Season of the New Club; (d) disciplinary measures may be imposed outside the Protected Period for failure to give due notice of termination (i.e. within 15 days following the last match of the Season) and (e) Protected Period starts again when, while renewing the contract, the duration of the previous contract is extended.

 

Article 17(4):

 

IN ADDITION to the obligation to pay compensation, (i) sporting sanction shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the Protected Period; (ii) it shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a Professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that Professional to commit a breach and (iii) any club found to have induced breach shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two Registration Periods.

 

The club in breach will be unable to buy players for 2 transfer windows. Also - does this mean the 'buying' club has to prove they did not induce the breach?

[zico martin 94]

mallorca aren't accussing us in any way though are they? Hasnt Jonas ( sorry i cant spell his surname yet) talked about buying out his contract for quite a while now, long before we got involved?

[Lazarus 0]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footbal...tem-436166.html

[Park Life 71]

What's the gist of all this?

[Lazarus 0]

mallorca aren't accussing us in any way though are they? Hasnt Jonas ( sorry i cant spell his surname yet) talked about buying out his contract for quite a while now, long before we got involved?

 

Doesnt matter by the sounds of it.

 

When it goes to the fifa tribunal the decide the compensation i think the toon will have to prove that they didnt induce the breach.

 

Also - there will no doubt be appeals and the transfer will drag on for months.

[Lazarus 0]

http://www.runofplay.com/2008/01/31/footba...change-forever/

 

The rules behind the Webster ruling have been in effect since 2001, first under Articles 21 and 22 (if I remember correctly) of FIFA’s transfer regulations, then under Article 17 after the 2005 revisions. As I understand it, the transfer regulations always represented a somewhat uneasy truce between FIFA and the European Commission, rhetorically upholding both the principle of contractual stability (as FIFA wanted) and the contradictory principle of economic freedom for players (as the EC wanted).

 

Blatter has argued that the CAS’s ruling “distorts” Article 17 by disregarding what the regulations say about contractual stability and the exceptional nature of sport. Had the ruling gone the other way, I think the EC would have argued that it disregarded what the regulations said about freedom of movement for players.

 

In other words, I think there was always going to be a conflict between FIFA and the EC over Article 17 as soon as it was invoked and interpreted, which is one reason it took so long for anyone to try it—no one wanted to take the first step into the legal minefield.

 

The other reason it took so long is that clubs have been diligent over the last few years about renewing the contracts of players they want to keep before the players became eligible for an Article 17 move.

 

So the deeper question here is why FIFA and the EC signed off on transfer regulations that they understood in fundamentally different ways and were predestined to disagree about. I guess it’s just the nature of political compromise. Anyway, it should be interesting this summer to see whether any of the Webster-eligible players (Michael Owen, et. al.) try to follow in Webster’s footsteps, or whether the dramatic interpretation of the CAS ruling that I came to in the post above turns out to be a bit exaggerated.

[Park Life 71]

Yes but what does it all mean in a small bite sized sentence?

[Lazarus 0]

Yes but what does it all mean in a small bite sized sentence?

 

Its means viana is a defensive midfielder.

[Park Life 71]

Yes but what does it all mean in a small bite sized sentence?

 

Its means viana is a defensive midfielder.

 

 

Basically none of you really know and are just quoting bit bits of legalese to look smart.

[bassplayerjj 0]

it's a shame morty boy didn't stick about for this one, he would have sorted it right out

[Happy Face 29]

it's a shame morty boy didn't stick about for this one, he would have sorted it right out

 

 

I fail to see how a beltless raincoat could help the situation.

[AmericanMag 0]

it's a shame morty boy didn't stick about for this one, he would have sorted it right out

 

I am willing to bet that he is still on the books in some capacity.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Basically, it means Champ Manager 01/02 is finally in date

[TheMoog 0]

Lol, I was under the impression this 'Webster' ruling really was just a joke about Jonas' spiderman antics

 

Seeing as it's true though, I'd think Mallorca won't get anywhere with their complaints - and even if they did they won't get anywhere near their valuation of the player.

[zico martin 94]

To me it seems that we have agreed some compensation with the club ( although we dont need to legally) and because Jonas has been aware of this get out clause for a while, Newcastle can not be seen to have 'induced the breach'. Obviously Mallorca are pissed off for losing Jonas on the cheap but that aint our fault is it?

 

anyone agree or is this gonna come back and bite us on the arse?

[JawD 99]

Well, there is added confusion as the player was part owned by the argentinian outfit?

[Park Life 71]

Well, there is added confusion as the player was part owned by the argentinian outfit?

 

I've got 10% of him.

[zico martin 94]

Well, there is added confusion as the player was part owned by the argentinian outfit?

 

isn't that just the usual sell on clause?

[Fop 1]

Well, there is added confusion as the player was part owned by the argentinian outfit?

 

I've got 10% of him.

Not going to be of much use to him now after where you've kept it.