D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
Terrible news, my stomach turned reading that.
Did we? Here's the relevant extract from the competition rules;
(j) Temporary (loan) Transfers
So did Chelsea block Gallagher playing or did the FA?
- (i) A player on a temporary (loan) transfer is ineligible to compete in the Challenge Cup Competition unless permission to do so is given by the lending Club in writing and a copy is received by The Association by 12 noon on the Friday prior to the date fixed for playing the Round. Any permissions must clearly state that the player has approval to play in The FA Challenge Cup Competition. A registered Trainee or a player who is registered on a Scholarship for work experience may play for another Club, subject to written permission being given by the Club that he is registered to and provided that such permission is received by The Association by 12 noon on the Friday prior to the date fixed for playing the Round. The Association will not give permission for players on loan or work experience to play against the lending Club.
- (ii) A player recalled, at any time prior to the date of the Round, to his original Club from temporary (loan) transfer, in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement, may represent his original Club. Such player may only play in postponed and replayed matches if he had been recalled in time for the first match in accordance with sub- paragraph (i) above and (iii) below as applicable.
- (iii) A player on temporary (loan) transfer is eligible to compete if transferred by the lending Club to the loaning Club after the date and time for player qualification for a round but must have been eligible to play in the original tie.
- (iv) Players on season “long term loan agreements”, are not considered “loan” players for the purposes of the Rule, and are therefore eligible to play in the Competition.
Chelsea did nothing wrong BIM and would support Palace 100% if we were in the same situation. The original loan agreement between the clubs stated he could not play, but as those rules you quote state the FA will let a player play against his own club if they receive written agreement, which is exactly what we asked for from Chelsea. You unsurprisingly refused that request.
You never called Jesus out on saturday neither ??
Imagine calling out footballers diving/clutching face, knee,ankle/cheating every time it happened, you'd need a new keyboard every 3 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61118626Can you show me where please, because I'm not seeing it? I can't see anything in what I've quoted that can overrule the bolded section.
Well if you're not prepared to do it every time Stu then either don't do it at all or expect to get picked up for bias
seriously BIM, bias?
maybe if more fans called out their own cheats it wouldnt be such an issue......
Well what else do you all it when certain players/teams are picked up for it and others not?
That wasn't intended as a pop against you, you explained why one and not the other, but that doesn't mean it's any less irritating when others do it, including the press & TV.
And yeah, if more people called out their own it would be less of an issue, but there's more chance of UEFA, FIFA or the FA doing something about it than the number of people on here calling out their own growing.
each to their own, ill keep calling out arsenal players when they cheat
what irritates me is that fans constantly want to find reasons to excuse or defend their own players because "others are doing it", and commentators want to praise them for "earning" a free kick or pelanty, that just guarantees the status quo remains and we continue to get games ruined by the constant attempts to cheat and then at the same time be utterly aghast when the other sides players do the same
Well if you're not prepared to do it every time Stu then either don't do it at all or expect to get picked up for bias
I read it as the first sentence of (j) 1 (i) says that the club can make the agreement, the last sentence simply says that the FA will not do it (i.e. it has to be the club and the FA don't want to get involved in the discussion other than being told about the agreement if it is made).Can you show me where please, because I'm not seeing it? I can't see anything in what I've quoted that can overrule the bolded section.
The first sentence is simply about eligibility for playing in the Cup generally, so long as lender club gives permission. The highlighted bit after is specifically related to the player not being able to play against the lender club.I read it as the first sentence of (j) 1 (i) says that the club can make the agreement, the last sentence simply says that the FA will not do it (i.e. it has to be the club and the FA don't want to get involved in the discussion other than being told about the agreement if it is made).
I read it as the first sentence of (j) 1 (i) says that the club can make the agreement, the last sentence simply says that the FA will not do it (i.e. it has to be the club and the FA don't want to get involved in the discussion other than being told about the agreement if it is made).
I do not believe there is an option, as both the Premier League and FA Cup rules strictly forbid it.Didn’t Tuchel say in an interview that he’d bumped into Gallagher in a restaurant and explained his reasons as to why the club wouldn’t give Palace permission for him to play against Chelsea?
Whilst on that subject I think it’s unfair generally as you have a really good player, play against your 2or3 main rivals to help take points off them but they can’t play against the club they’re owned by.
For example, Gallagher had an influence in taking points off City a few weeks ago.
I do not believe there is an option, as both the Premier League and FA Cup rules strictly forbid it.
I believe Arsene Wenger was one person vocal against the rule.
My previous has earned me enough not to be accused of bias. Calling it out everytime proves nothing.
Are you serious? Nobody cares. It means nothing in the context of posting in this forum. You will not be given a trophy, or some sort of special recognition.
You are sounding like a child in the playground, you're not really coming across well in this discussion, as much as you think you might be.