Fifa to decide Clyde cash dispute

The article is very small, so I am as well quoting the lot..





So what's all that about?

I don't really understand it but Thistle were forced to pay money for Adrian Madaschi because of this situation, and we also claimed money for Jukka Santala, when he moved abroad.

I think the club is basically claiming that they deserve some earnings, because of the improvements he has made at their club.

Brighton left us for Millwall as a free agent but we are due training compensation

Clicky

Paragraph 2.5

He was offered a new contract but turned it down. He was under 23 (or is it 24 for the compensation rule?) so the Club felt entitled to claim a bit of compensation from whoever he signed for under the Rules. I am guessing that Millwall are claiming that the compensation rule does not apply because they are in a different association. SD usually knows about these rules - any chance of enlightening us Skyline?

But he moved South of the border, doesn't that nullify the claim? I thought that was why Porter was a free transfer for Motherwell.

The link is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ell/6255512.stm




I don't understand how Clyde can claim for this.

Compensation and 'training compensation' are two completely different things. It wouldn't be a huge amount. It certainly wasn't in Santala's case.

I have to admit, I was confused as to whether they were one and the same. The article is very short and doesn't explain it properly.

So is this compensation for the time the player trained?

Or compensation for training/improving the playing?

I found this reading through the rules:-



So were are due some money

The following articles might help clear things up, or maybe not.

Seems I was wrong about the figures, too.

Clicky 1

Clicky 2

Again I still don't understand. It's not the rules, they are clear as FIFA can be, but how can they claim for compensation when the player moves from one national FA to another?

Seems a bit much to get compensation for a loan player as in the Madaschi deal.

That alone would make me think we're due some money as Brighton was at least our player. On the other hand our cross-border transfers do seem to have alternative rules and we can forget about it as most of us likely had.

It's taken since last summer to get to this stage so maybe there's an issue in our favour that causes it not to be dismissed easily? More likely the slow turning wheels of football law.

Hmmm, I forgot Brighton was yours and thought he was on loan from Rangers.

In that case, ignore the Madaschi and Santala cases as this, again, seems to be something entirely different!

Training compensation is something to do with us making him a better player as we got him on a free transfer or something like that.

Isn't it?

Article 20

The relevant part of the Article basically states that Training Compensation shall be paid to a player's training club each time a professional is transferred until the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Then it directs us to Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which states that a player's training and education takes place between the ages of 12 and 23, and that training compensation shall be payable, as a general rule, for training up to the age of 21. I'm guessing that only if the player made remarkable massive steps forward at a club between 21 and 23 will compensation be payable to his club(s) in that period, hence why Millwall are unable to claim anything. The calculation of the amount payable is based on the years between the age of 12 and the age when the player actually completes his training. One of the main requirements for this rule is that compensation is due when a professional is transferred between clubs of 2 different associations before the end of his 23rd birthday, so it is outwith the FA's control.

So, in summary, Clyde are due money from Millwall, and that they'll be negotiating amounts. For Madaschi's loan spell in some wee club they got 30k, so i'd think Clyde would get a bit more since it's based on the time spent training a player up to standard.

Don't think going across the border matters, QP have been entitled to receive cash under this ruling in the past when Neil Collins moved from Dumbarton to Sunderland about four years ago, although there was no need for a ruling as Dumbarton agreed when they signed Collins that they would give QP a sum if he moved for cash.

At the time, I think it was reported that we had to offer him a new contract 6 months before his deal expired, or something similar to that, for a cross border transfer.