Have United broken the loan rules.....

[Robbie]

I thought Harper was only loaned until January when we will complete the deal?

Some people are stating though that it is a season long deal that will be completed in Jan.

But.... he is defo here till Jan, which would have been 4 months (supposdely against the rules for a player his age) from end of August.

Whoa whoa whoa!

Have Fiery, Lenners and Micaljo seen this post?

There seems to be nobody on this post taking responsibility and twisting this around to make this a 'Blackwell out' post!

Can someone please take the lead?

The post wasn't aimed at getting at united, it was aimed to find out what the situation is regards all this.

Lets not get this onto a Blackwell thread.

 

[Linz]

Harper though can't be classed as long term loan (even though he is) as he is not under 23. So that is certainly baffling in itself.

The rule about being under 24 is only to allow deals to be done between 30th June (pre-season) and the season starting as far as I read it... you can be a long term loan at any age, but it has to be organised as or after the season starts (commencement of the playing season).

From the FA Rules:

Long Term Loan Transfers shall be for a Playing Season or from the commencement of the
Playing Season to 31st December or from 1st January (the January Transfer Window) to the
end of the Playing Season. The Board may approve loans between Clubs in membership
of the competitions referred to in Rule 6.4.4 in respect of Players aged 24 and under on or
before 30th June prior to the commencement of the Playing Season and provided the loan
is registered by four (4) hours before the Club’s first fixture of its Playing Season or from
any date between the commencement of a Membership Year to the 31st August in that
Membership Year to any date between 1st and 31st January following or from any date
between 1st and 31st January in a Membership Year to the end of that Playing Season
relative to the Club taking him on loan.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Quoting myself is the height of pomposity, but bearing in mind all of the above... we might have broken that rule depending on Harper.

Even taking Bunn out of the equation as a potential emergency loan, we had Treacy, Harper and Walker in the squad. Three loans from the same category if Harper is classed as long term.

I'm confused

Exactly !

Neither Bunn nor Harper can be classed as long term as neither were under 23 on 30th June. If it's not long term then 93 days appears to be the maximum we can have them for, again, both will exceed that. We (SUFC) have talked about a possible transfer for Bunn in January which suggests if we don't, he'll be on his way back which also ties in with Blackie's comment yesterday that he was going to do something about a keeper in January.

I've no idea what the script is with Harper !

 

[Robbie]

The rule about being under 24 is only to allow deals to be done before 30th June (pre-transfer window) as far as I read it... you can be a long term loan at any age, but it has to be organised after 30th June.

The rule

48.2.1 A Player can only be transferred on a Long Term Loan if he was under the age of
23 on the 30th June prior to the Season in which the Long Term Loan transfer is
intended to take place.

As I read is that the player has to be 23 prior to 30th June..... am I missing something you've read though?

 

[Linz]

Neither Bunn nor Harper can be classed as long term as neither were under 23 on 30th June.

As I read is that the player has to be 23 prior to 30th June..... am I missing something you've read though?

I've taken the rules from the 2009/10 FA Handbook. Page 615. Rule 6.4.5.

It states:

Long Term Loan Transfers shall be for a Playing Season or from the commencement of the Playing Season to 31st December or from 1st January (the January Transfer Window) to the end of the Playing Season.

A normal long term loan is from the commencement of the playing season. The commencement of the playing season is from whenever the season kicks off in August.

The Board may approve loans between Clubs in membership of the competitions referred to in Rule 6.4.4 in respect of Players aged 24 and under on or before 30th June prior to the commencement of the Playing Season and provided the loan is registered by four (4) hours before the Club’s first fixture of its Playing Season or from any date between the commencement of a Membership Year to the 31st August in that
Membership Year to any date between 1st and 31st January following or from any date between 1st and 31st January in a Membership Year to the end of that Playing Season relative to the Club taking him on loan.

The way I read this, is that for players aged under 24 (definitely says 24), their long term loan can begin before the commencement of the playing season (August) and actually begin in June should the board agree to it.

So players over the age of 24 can be long term loans, but their loan has to begin in August or afterwards. If you're under 24, it can begin from June onwards.

Linky to FA Rules:

http://thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegu..._CROP.ashx/FA_Handbook_Full_Proof_NO_CROP.pdf

 

[Santos]

I thought Harper was only loaned until January when we will complete the deal?

Thanks Bob & the others. I may be wrong but i thought at the time as Jim says we were 'taking over his contract' which I thought meant we have him till the end of the season on loan. His contract runs out at Reading in the summer so in affect he'll be a free agent.

Not sure who said it but someone mentioned it was a ploy by Reading to try and stop us signing him but surely if they didn't want us to sign him they would have refused the loan deal!

Ok, I've had my thinking cap on and I think it may be a mixture or one of these reasons

1. Simply ran out of time as someone mentioned and it will be confirmed in January
2. Harper doesn't want to sign a big contract/commit to up Norf with us if we don't go up.
3. We don't want to commit to a long contract to him as he may be rubbish & we may not be able to afford his wages next season.
4. Reading cleverly knew by signing Harper on loan we would take up one of our loans and cause us problems (as it has)

 

[Bladesman]

Don't let Martin Samuels see this thread.

 

[Linz]

Don't let Martin Samuels see this thread.

Or Martin Samuel

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Thanks Bob & the others. I may be wrong but i thought at the time as Jim says we were 'taking over his contract' which I thought meant we have him till the end of the season on loan. His contract runs out at Reading in the summer so in affect he'll be a free agent.

Not sure who said it but someone mentioned it was a ploy by Reading to try and stop us signing him but surely if they didn't want us to sign him they would have refused the loan deal!

Ok, I've had my thinking cap on and I think it may be a mixture or one of these reasons

1. Simply ran out of time as someone mentioned and it will be confirmed in January
2. Harper doesn't want to sign a big contract/commit to up Norf with us if we don't go up.
3. We don't want to commit to a long contract to him as he may be rubbish & we may not be able to afford his wages next season.
4. Reading cleverly knew by signing Harper on loan we would take up one of our loans and cause us problems (as it has)

Sorry Santos I might not of been clear.

What I was guessing at is that I think there might of been some sort of loyalty clause in his contract that Harper will want paying up. Reading obviously won't want to pay it so they might of used the close of the window as a ploy in order for him let them off. I'm guessing that Harper wasn't having any of it so we couldn't take his contract over because Reading hadn't for filled their obligations.
So what I was implying that Reading were trying to get Harper to drop his claim, not that Reading didn't want us to have him.

 

[Santos]

Sorry Santos I might not of been clear.

What I was guessing at is that I think there might of been some sort of loyalty clause in his contract that Harper will want paying up. Reading obviously won't want to pay it so they might of used the close of the window as a ploy in order for him let them off. I'm guessing that Harper wasn't having any of it so we couldn't take his contract over because Reading hadn't for filled their obligations.
So what I was implying that Reading were trying to get Harper to drop his claim, not that Reading didn't want us to have him.

Makes sense Bob.

 

[Bladesman]

Or Martin Samuel

Both of them as I am sure he is 2 people stuck together.

 

[gregblade]

When we were signing all the loan players I wrote a similar thread about the 4 loanees one the pitch at any time.....but soon after there was something put on the OS stating that the rules were now 5.

We've been doing it all season near enough so I doubt theres a problem.....The retard at the Daily Mail would have been all over it, if we had! So I think we're ok.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Slowly losing the will to live thread...

It's no wonder mistakes can be made when making subs during the game though, isn't it?

Very convoluted situation if you're not careful

 

[SwissBlade]

The post wasn't aimed at getting at united, it was aimed to find out what the situation is regards all this.

Lets not get this onto a Blackwell thread.

I agree, but then a lot of other posts have been turned to Blackwell out posts so thought I better give the option

 

[Fiery Blade]

Whoa whoa whoa!

Have Fiery, Lenners and Micaljo seen this post?

There seems to be nobody on this post taking responsibility and twisting this around to make this a 'Blackwell out' post!

Can someone please take the lead?

Too many loans ! BLACKWELL OUT:thumbup:

 

[Robbie]

You got any link towards this Greg?

 

[oldblade]

I'd not noticed it previously.
Nor had I heard any fuss made about it - media or otherwise.

There was quite a big fuss made on the radio after the Wednesday game. But I think it has since been established that you can have 5 on the pitch.

 

[Robbie]

There was quite a big fuss made on the radio after the Wednesday game.

Don't really listen to it on the radio, so would explain a lot.

But I think it has since been established that you can have 5 on the pitch.

It would make sense.

I do disagree with being allowed so many loan players on the pitch, in fact I think it is ridiclous nearly half your team can be owned by other teams.