Nemesis Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 OK folks, we have done the bitching over who is wrong or more wrong on the other thread, lets get this one going... Scrap The 7 Day Rule - Bring In Transfer Windows ? So what are your thoughts ? I'm all for it, it would make August and January fun locally, and might stop some from going on holiday at the start of the football season ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieS Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Good shout, that would surely help clubs. Only problem I could see with this is what if a club had no option but to cut their budget inbetween windows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Pethick Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Can see several reasons for and against this ; For - Would help to stop illegal approaches during the season (although they would probably still happen in December as the window approaches). Might make players think through who they sign for in the summer as they would have to live with their decision until January . Managers would have to think carefully about their recruiting policy in the summer . Could have the effect of bringing first and second teams at some clubs closer together , they would have to use all resources at the club instead of drafting in replacements . This forum would be white hot on January 31st Against - If a club suffered an injury crisis ( goalkeeper for instance) they would not be able to bring anybody in . They would not be able to make an inspired signing to turn the season around,especially in the event of a managerial change . Agree to the point about a club having to cut the budget mid season , would they be able to draft in "cheaper" players if that happened ? Would there be a danger that clubs with a larger budget would hoard players at the start of the season , thus denying them to others . How would it apply to players who are not registered with SWPL clubs ? Certainly an idea worth discussing though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberfalman Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Against - If a club suffered an injury crisis ( goalkeeper for instance) they would not be able to bring anybody in . At 'European level' UEFA allow emergency loans in those circumstances. The CFA could do something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dev Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Not sure if this could work,what if a player was regularly on the bench and not getting many minutes?at the end of the day it is still a hobby and this ruling would prevent players going somewhere they could play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted December 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 A few questions raised - Loans in emergencies are permitted - players would sign for a club, if not selected for the 1st XI, he would be available for 2nd XI thus promoting some sort of club loyalty and stability - Players not signed onto SWPL clubs could be transferred in during the Transfer Window only - Clubs with budgets should be able to do exactly that until January at least, if they have to cut at that point, so be it - Clubs hoarding players is a tough one, I look forward to hearing views on that subject. I seriously believe that The FA must look at this problem, I'm not sure if a league or local FA could implement such a plan unilaterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Darren Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 You're missing the point that the CCFA make money from transfers and from re-registrations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mead Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Rules relating to approaching players registered with other Clubs are F.A. Rules, apply to all Clubs and there is no provision for changes which could be implemented "locally". Incidentally St Darren, the CCFA do not make money from transfers or re-registrations - any fees payable for such things go directly to the League involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek martyn Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 A good idea in principle but I cannot see it working outside pro football.It wouldn't be fair, if for example when a player finds himself out of the squad or starting line up for weeks on end and unable to move on. He would effectively be frozen out of football for what could amount to 4 months. Not too bad for premiership players still collecting their 200k per week but not acceptable at our level. I much prefer Kevin's idea of perhaps 4 matches or a 4 week period before you can move again, this makes much more sense and I feel it would nip certain dubious practices in the bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Darren Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Cheers for that John, I didn't realise that. Is the fee to the league for administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kempy Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 A good idea in principle but I cannot see it working outside pro football.It wouldn't be fair, if for example when a player finds himself out of the squad or starting line up for weeks on end and unable to move on. He would effectively be frozen out of football for what could amount to 4 months. Not too bad for premiership players still collecting their 200k per week but not acceptable at our level. I much prefer Kevin's idea of perhaps 4 matches or a 4 week period before you can move again, this makes much more sense and I feel it would nip certain dubious practices in the bud. I think no player could be transfered more than once in 28 days as you said would be the easiest way to police this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadcert Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 I think you should be allowed to transfer as many times as you like, and as many players can transfer from the same club to wherever they like when they like. Then the club with the biggest budget will have the best team Probably win everything. BUT all the lower league teams who have no budgets will all have a great bunch of local plyers and they will all be happy play football have a drink and a great xmas HO HO HO HO HO BRING ON SANTA????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Odgers Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Rules relating to approaching players registered with other Clubs are F.A. Rules, apply to all Clubs and there is no provision for changes which could be implemented "locally". Incidentally St Darren, the CCFA do not make money from transfers or re-registrations - any fees payable for such things go directly to the League involved. In the old days the CCFA held the player registration and sanctioned transfers for its competitions (Senior Cup-Junior Cup-Charity Cup)-Not now Registration Secretary -Terry Williams Now they have it easy and any player irregularity will only be flagged up when a complaint is made by an opposing club . They then enquire with the relevant league that the club plays in. I bet there are loads of inelegible players who have not been detected in County competitions-especially with this 'unique to Cornwall' rule-No player can make his debut in any Round of any County competition. sorry its a bit off topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted December 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 If for example when a player finds himself out of the squad or starting line up for weeks on end and unable to move on. He would effectively be frozen out of football for what could amount to 4 months. Can't agree with this point. If a player signs for a CLUB, he should play for whichever side he his picked for, be it First XI or Reserves. Now I understand this causes problems when the Reserves are a 'Junior' club but there must be ways and means of agreeing how this can be done. If we are to show we are serious about addressing problems, we should be looking for solutions rather than finding ways not to implement progressive ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek martyn Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 If for example when a player finds himself out of the squad or starting line up for weeks on end and unable to move on. He would effectively be frozen out of football for what could amount to 4 months. If a player signs for a CLUB, he should play for whichever side he his picked for, be it First XI or Reserves. I agree on this point Mark, it is our policy at Godolphin, but I just think a transfer window is unpractical. A minimum of 4 weeks/matches is a far simpler and more practical way to make progress from the current rules in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusty Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 It's ruined pro football, why would you want to inforce it at this level. All it encourages is panic buys and massive squads incase of an injury. Without a window teams could run a tighter ship, in the past without the window English football produced more players, because if there was an injury you could atleast look at the young player to fill his boots in th first team and evaluate before you buy rather than already have a international from another country as back up. Like a few of you have said just limit the transfers per season or just stick a nice big fee on any player which will be making another transfer over 2/3 per season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naholliday Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I think there does need to be careful consideration with transfers for a season. Particularly as if one team cannot sign a second player from the same club for a period of time, they can ask another club to "do them a favour" with 7 days and before you know it 7 days are waived and the players is quickly in the original team. Transfer windows, I agree, are too far between each other to make a significant impact and a player could rightly be out of football for quite some time. However, if a club operates an honest policy and original dialect with the player, what would the problem be? If the rules brought in suggested that there has to be a minimum of 28 days between transfer to any club in the same step, that is not a long time to wait to move in the worst case scenarios. The manager should be saying to players when he wants to sign them "you are playing for the club, which means you get first or second team matches depending on what you deserve"....a player then has to decide if he is able to do that or not. If ALL clubs abided by this, then the power would be taken from players who occasionally throw toys out of the prams. It could also build stability between the first and second teams of clubs, as, quite rightly, any players needing minutes after suspension, injury etc go to to the seconds and any player deserving a chance goes to the firsts. If all clubs abide by this, then perhaps they will look after their finances better in these diffucult times. Not many clubs can pay endless transfer fees and a healthy budget and I anticipate the financial difficulties will only get worse. You then put the emphasis on the infrastructure of the club, how well the club is run and the "family feel" around the place not the issues between firsts and seconds that have been previously bounded about. I think that a transfer limit of some degree would be great but would need to look further into it when transfers between steps happen. It woudl give power back to the clubs and managers and if a player doesn't like it, he can go and play by the same rule at another club! It will be up to the player to prove themselve worthy of playing in training and with their attitude etc, not sulk and move clubs in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druth1966 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 The current system just needs to be tweaked to add a 4 week period between transfers. If some clubs/managers had some morals this wouldn't be a problem. Glynn Hooper/Newquay and morals dont really go hand in hand :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little fella Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 The current system just needs to be tweaked to add a 4 week period between transfers. If some clubs/managers had some morals this wouldn't be a problem. Glynn Hooper/Newquay and morals dont really go hand in hand Agreed a longer period between transfers is needed. Is it morally right for a player to be refused a transfer to a particular club and so being forced to do the only thing possible to be able to play for his preferred club? Think you need to look at the powers that be at Falmouth if you are talking about morals!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druth1966 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 The current system just needs to be tweaked to add a 4 week period between transfers. If some clubs/managers had some morals this wouldn't be a problem. Glynn Hooper/Newquay and morals dont really go hand in hand Agreed a longer period between transfers is needed. Is it morally right for a player to be refused a transfer to a particular club and so being forced to do the only thing possible to be able to play for his preferred club? Think you need to look at the powers that be at Falmouth if you are talking about morals!! The rules are there for a reason: to protect the club against losing half their team when a manager leaves for another club. Simple really, karma will come around to bite Newquay in the backside. I have no connection to either club, just my opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted December 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 The current system just needs to be tweaked to add a 4 week period between transfers. If some clubs/managers had some morals this wouldn't be a problem. Glynn Hooper/Newquay and morals dont really go hand in hand Knock the manager if you feel he deserves it, but to question the morals of a whole club is plain disrespectful to everyone at Mount Wise. As with every club, there are many, many hardworking volunteers who put in hours of thankless work, your comment is unwarranted and unjustified. I suggest that we get back to the actual subject in hand, there have been calls for a 28 day non-movement clause between transfers, this could work and perhaps the SWPL might consider it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say 42 days would be more realistic, if we serious in attempting to stop players moving too often. Perhaps if clubs were more stable, the managers may not have to dip in and out of transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druth1966 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 The current system just needs to be tweaked to add a 4 week period between transfers. If some clubs/managers had some morals this wouldn't be a problem. Glynn Hooper/Newquay and morals dont really go hand in hand Knock the manager if you feel he deserves it, but to question the morals of a whole club is plain disrespectful to everyone at Mount Wise. As with every club, there are many, many hardworking volunteers who put in hours of thankless work, your comment is unwarranted and unjustified. I suggest that we get back to the actual subject in hand, there have been calls for a 28 day non-movement clause between transfers, this could work and perhaps the SWPL might consider it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say 42 days would be more realistic, if we serious in attempting to stop players moving too often. Perhaps if clubs were more stable, the managers may not have to dip in and out of transfers. My apologies, I didnt mean to tar the whole club with the same brush, I agree there are some wonderful people at Newquay. Shame the current manager isn't of the same ilk :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegrose Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 2 b fair druth 1966 its not just newquay n glynn hooper that bends the rules,several others r at it as well through out the leagues in cornwall!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mead Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Neither SWPL nor CCFA can make any changes to rules relating to transfers or the approaching of players; they are F.A. Rules which all sanctioned competitions have to follow. (I assume they would be FIFA Rules as well, but I haven't tried reading them yet!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted December 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I have read the SWPL response to the situation... http://www.swpleague.co.uk/swpforum/viewtopic.php?t=4475 and was not aware that this is an FA rule. So why is it that top level football has transfer windows and lower level has a far more complicated system ? I am totally persuaded by the comments and suggestions of a 28 or 42 day rule that a player may not transfer again within that period. If as it seems, that this is common sense, is there not ambition enough to have the local Leagues and DFA + CCFA take the matter to Wembley for consideration ? I would imagine the matter would need further discussion and agreement, but until such a rule is made, the current transfer rules set out by The FA are not going to satisfy those who think what has happened recently is wrong. Keep the discussion going folks, spread the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin McHugh Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Most rule changes in football have been made to make the game more entertaining, bring more supporters in and therefore bring in more money etc so here's one for you, follow hockey's example and abolish the offside rule, follow rugby and update laws regarding discipline and foul language! MQx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheolderIgetthebetterIwas Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I agree with the 28/42 day rule, but I would include a set number of games to be played in that period as well. Otherwise some would just sit it out and transfer after that period. How would the clubs existing players handle being dropped to accommadate a rule bend, not happy I would think, end of problem I would imagine. Of course the way some players are today they would just pack in altogether if they can't get what they want !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadcert Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 at the end of the day we all play for the fun of it.i feel no one should be stopped from playing football .NO club owns anyone so why should any club stop any players from playing.most of work all week and football a release from that. so we are not a dictatorship so let any player leave when they like this is all to serious end of the day we play to enjoy it and if we are not enjoying it just move on happy xmas dyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheolderIgetthebetterIwas Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 at the end of the day we all play for the fun of it.i feel no one should be stopped from playing football .NO club owns anyone so why should any club stop any players from playing.most of work all week and football a release from that. so we are not a dictatorship so let any player leave when they like this is all to serious end of the day we play to enjoy it and if we are not enjoying it just move on happy xmas dyl That would lead to anarchy, and lead very quickly to the demise of many clubs. You are seeing this happen at Falmouth right now, right in front of your eyes. No player loyalty anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadcert Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 i agree with you but whos fault is that its been a cut throat culture for so long with the money clubs walking over others smaller clubs did they care ?no the money drys up and they talk about loyalty. did they all think there money was buying loyalty? i think not they was all buying someone who just wanted more money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheolderIgetthebetterIwas Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 i agree with you but whos fault is that its been a cut throat culture for so long with the money clubs walking over others smaller clubs did they care ?no the money drys up and they talk about loyalty. did they all think there money was buying loyalty? i think not they was all buying someone who just wanted more money You're not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telithowitis Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I have just "speed read" this subject, but if you had players only able to sign for a max. 2 clubs per season, end of problem? :c: 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