Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 14, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 14, 2017 Should be clear what's happening with this within the next couple of days supposedly (any money that nothing's announced within that time), Leicester reportedly claiming they sent it off before the deadline. I don't think it's over yet but I think either way we've got to have a look at ourselves here. Totally daft situation to get ourselves into. Fuck deadline day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 I think we were given an extention when we signed ashavin because of bad whether. I know deadlines are deadlines but 14 seconds seem a bitt padantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 16, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 16, 2017 Mirror reporting it's going through. Fucking well chuffed if so. We NEED him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserker Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Good news for Leicester and it's a good decision by the always blatantly corrupt Fifa. Up to 1 min difference should be absolutely allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey Posted September 16, 2017 Author Share Posted September 16, 2017 The deadline is 12 not 12:01 I think Leicester should be allowed the transfer but also receive a heavy fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnivore Chris Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 14 seconds after 12 is still 12:00. It's not 12:01 until 60 seconds has passed, so technically there was nothing wrong with this and it should stand as far as I'm concerned. It's 14 seconds, not 14 minutes. I don't see the big deal and he should be eligible to play for Leicester now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 17, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 17, 2017 10 hours ago, The Rebel CRS said: 14 seconds after 12 is still 12:00. It's not 12:01 until 60 seconds has passed, so technically there was nothing wrong with this and it should stand as far as I'm concerned. It's 14 seconds, not 14 minutes. I don't see the big deal and he should be eligible to play for Leicester now. The deadline was 1am and for all you're right, who is to say that we didn't do it at 1:01:14 and that is where the 14 seconds late comes from? Leicester apparently leaning on us sending it off before the deadline and FIFA receiving it after. I think if we sent off before, for all I think it should be a wake up call, we should be allowed to complete the transfer. We are crying out for Silva to come in and perform. It's torturous watching this midfield unable to string 4 passes together while we have a Portugal first team midfielder sat in the stands out until January. Everything crossed that it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey Posted September 17, 2017 Author Share Posted September 17, 2017 10 hours ago, The Rebel CRS said: 14 seconds after 12 is still 12:00. It's not 12:01 until 60 seconds has passed, so technically there was nothing wrong with this and it should stand as far as I'm concerned. It's 14 seconds, not 14 minutes. I don't see the big deal and he should be eligible to play for Leicester now. It is pretty standard practice for an electronic deadline to cut off at the 00 second of the minute specified. Not give you that minute. If the deadline is 12 then you must submit BEFORE the clock strikes 12. You don't get that minute otherwise the deadline would have to be set at 12:01:00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Large Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 I don't get those of you getting on FIFA's case about this. Both clubs have had plenty of time to sort this out. If they didn't then there's nobody else to blame but them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig on the Wing Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 14 seconds or 14 weeks, you're late. Tough tits. It will be an utter pisstake for FIFA to allow it to go through. Letting this go will then set a precedent for clubs to push and push and push past the deadline, ultimately making a mockery of the concept of a transfer window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artful Dodger Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, StefBWFC said: 14 seconds or 14 weeks, you're late. Tough tits. It will be an utter pisstake for FIFA to allow it to go through. Letting this go will then set a precedent for clubs to push and push and push past the deadline, ultimately making a mockery of the concept of a transfer window. Totally agree. People trying to argue with actual time in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Gold Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 29 minutes ago, StefBWFC said: 14 seconds or 14 weeks, you're late. Tough tits. It will be an utter pisstake for FIFA to allow it to go through. Letting this go will then set a precedent for clubs to push and push and push past the deadline, ultimately making a mockery of the concept of a transfer window. I completely agree with you, a deadline's a deadline, but at the same time there are far more egregious examples of FIFA allowing transfers to go through late. Benjani and Rafael van der Vaart spring to mind, so I find it unlikely that this move is what will set a precedent for clubs to take the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inverted Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 The way I've always looked at the "allow them to be a minute late" attitude is to ask, "what if a club was a minute and 10 seconds late?". There's no objective standard for how much leeway should be allowed, so there needs to be a hard deadline. If you're even flirting with the possibility of running late, you've already fucked up seriously. If it's a rule that uni students can be held to, then it's a rule that massive enterprises worth hundreds of millions of pounds can be held to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 17, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 17, 2017 46 minutes ago, StefBWFC said: 14 seconds or 14 weeks, you're late. Tough tits. It will be an utter pisstake for FIFA to allow it to go through. Letting this go will then set a precedent for clubs to push and push and push past the deadline, ultimately making a mockery of the concept of a transfer window. Consider as well the deadline was actually 11pm but we were allowed an extension until 1am. I think we'll get off with it but it should never have come to this. We've paid some of the price to a degree already having had a handicapped midfield against Chelsea and Huddersfield, and I bet even if it's approved say tomorrow he won't kick a ball until Bournemouth away on the 30th. The whole scenario is a bit of a mess. We shouldn't have let Drinkwater go until we were 100% sure that Silva was a done deal. It's more in our interests to look after ourselves instead of Drinkwater. I don't really have much sympathy for our people behind the scenes getting this done. They've proven their incompetence before and it's a miracle that they're still in jobs. If it doesn't go through I feel sorry for the player more than anyone - unable to play through no fault of his own until January, in a World Cup year to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 17, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, Inverted said: The way I've always looked at the "allow them to be a minute late" attitude is to ask, "what if a club was a minute and 10 seconds late?". There's no objective standard for how much leeway should be allowed, so there needs to be a hard deadline. If you're even flirting with the possibility of running late, you've already fucked up seriously. If it's a rule that uni students can be held to, then it's a rule that massive enterprises worth hundreds of millions of pounds can be held to. Precisely. You have to draw the line. Like I've said earlier though I think Leicester are claiming they sent it before the deadline. Other examples in this thread make me hopeful it'll go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 17, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 17, 2017 Scum reckon it's going through too. Bit less confident now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Large Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 12 hours ago, Burning Gold said: I completely agree with you, a deadline's a deadline, but at the same time there are far more egregious examples of FIFA allowing transfers to go through late. Benjani and Rafael van der Vaart spring to mind, so I find it unlikely that this move is what will set a precedent for clubs to take the piss. This is the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument though. I'm sure that there are some deals that have been given some form of leeway that the interested parties have stated had a valid reason for. Point is though it's irrelevant. There was transfer window that was plenty big enough for clubs to do their business. If they missed the deadline then tough. They should have sorted it out sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 I get the whole notion of they should have sorted it sooner but this deal relied on Chelsea agreeing a fee with Drinkwater who was already unsettled that wanted to join Chelsea. For whatever reason Chelsea left that really late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 18, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 18, 2017 7 hours ago, Aaroncpfc said: I get the whole notion of they should have sorted it sooner but this deal relied on Chelsea agreeing a fee with Drinkwater who was already unsettled that wanted to join Chelsea. For whatever reason Chelsea left that really late. Tough shit for Drinkwater then if he ends up having to stay here. Take a leaf from Mahrez' book who publicly admits he wants out but at least still plays. If Chelsea are leaving it too late for Leicester to be sure of a replacement then Drinkwater's frustration should be with Chelsea and not Leicester. Why on earth should we roll over? There's absolutely no way we should've rolled over and let it happen. Totally undermines this supposed ambition of ours. Proven ourselves yet again as total pushovers. EDIT: I've just read that back and I'm treating it almost as if I've gone back in time. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Large Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 39 minutes ago, Aaroncpfc said: I get the whole notion of they should have sorted it sooner but this deal relied on Chelsea agreeing a fee with Drinkwater who was already unsettled that wanted to join Chelsea. For whatever reason Chelsea left that really late. But their choice mate, and that's the risk they took and it backfired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it Drinkwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Gold Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 7 hours ago, Large said: This is the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument though. I'm sure that there are some deals that have been given some form of leeway that the interested parties have stated had a valid reason for. Point is though it's irrelevant. There was transfer window that was plenty big enough for clubs to do their business. If they missed the deadline then tough. They should have sorted it out sooner. Not at all, mate. I don't think the deal should be allowed to go through unless there's a genuine reason they missed the deadline. I'm just saying that if it is allowed to go through, I don't think it'll set a precedent of teams leaving it later and later because the other late moves I mentioned didn't (and because the battle Leicester are having to go through and the games he's missing are disincentive enough). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted September 19, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted September 19, 2017 Farcical that Shakespeare's having to answer all the questions on this when he's in a complete lose/lose and those who got us into this mess are shielded completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Each case should be look at individually. I see no issue with this going through after arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 What's the point of e en having a deadline if this shit can happen? I don't care if there were valid reasons it didn't go through, if you leave it until the 11th hour then you put yourself at risk, no sympathy should be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.