Wellworn Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ury/8469143.stm Shrewsbury have turned to Fifa for help in their bid to claim compensation from Motherwell for winger Chris Humphrey. Humphrey joined the Scottish Premier League side in July after rejecting a new contract at the Prostar Stadium. Ordinarily the Shrews would not be entitled to a fee because Humphrey has joined a team from another country. But manager Paul Simpson told BBC Radio Shropshire: "It's now in the hands of Fifa. We could be looking at a hefty sum, but it's what we're entitled to." Simpson added: "Just because we're in League Two doesn't mean a Scottish Premier League side can walk in and cream off our best players. "We've got letters from the Football League, from the Football Association and from the Professional Footballers' Association all supporting our case." Humphrey joined Shrewsbury from West Brom in September 2006 and made 88 appearances for the Shropshire club. Motherwell have refused to comment on the situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmcd Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 was just reading on teletext on the bbc that shrewsbury have turned to fifa for help to claim compensation from us for humphrey. There manager paul simpson said " its now in the hands of fifa . We could be looking at a HEFTY SUM , but its what we are entiltled to he said " aye right they are getting he haw has he has moved to another country in the terms of transfer rules think its the same situation as porter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Simpson added: "Just because we're in League Two doesn't mean a Scottish Premier League side can walk in and cream off our best players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdalli10 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 i don't see shrewsbury's case. why would they get compensation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's got something to do with his Agent signing a new contract for him only for him to sign with us, and before anyone says anything Agents are often given the authority to do so on behalf of the player. They even announced he had signed on their web page if I can mind correctly so it's a bit more complicated than the Porter case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattSTFC Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's interesting to note that Celtic are reportedly having to pay compensation after signing Norwegian defender Thomas Rogne who was out of contract but aged 19. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/...86908-21981058/ I'm confused as to what the difference is between this transfer and that of Chris Humphrey in terms of compensation being paid? I thought the reason compensation was not payable in the case of Chris Humphrey was due to the transfer being classed as international, i.e. between different Football Associations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Well Fan Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's got something to do with his Agent signing a new contract for him only for him to sign with us, and before anyone says anything Agents are often given the authority to do so on behalf of the player. They even announced he had signed on their web page if I can mind correctly so it's a bit more complicated than the Porter case. That wasn't Humphrey. It was Northampton who said Giles Coke's agent had agreed a contract on his behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I suppose in a way Shrewsbury have a similar moan to the one we are currently having with Paul Slane ie "promising" youngster "half inched" for next to nowt. In that respect we can't cry foul at Celtic and then give the big V to Shrewsbury IF (and that is a big if) they are due money. If they are it could be nippy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 The transfer rules are actualy quite simply compared to others in the game. If a player is offered a new contract by their former club and is under the age of 23 and he rejects it then that club is due compensation from the club he joins. It will be calculated on the length of service at that club and since he was not a youth product of Shrewsbury (as he was a youth at Wallsall and WBA) I do laugh at the substancial fee. It will be nominal at best. Shrewsbury will need to prove that they offered him a contract which was better than the one he was on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I suppose in a way Shrewsbury have a similar moan to the one we are currently having with Paul Slane ie "promising" youngster "half inched" for next to nowt. In that respect we can't cry foul at Celtic and then give the big V to Shrewsbury IF (and that is a big if) they are due money. If they are it could be nippy. We're not crying foul though, we're just fucking raging that a potential talent could be leaving for nothing. As a Well fan I think Paul Slane is a fucking penis if he bolts for Celtic to the detriment of our team, and I hope we come out of this Humphrey business smelling of roses as well. So what if it's hypocritical? We're Well fans, not moral philosophers, and are therefore concerned with how Motherwell are affected by these moves, not with how consistent we appear in our opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 As for Paul Slane, he can't leave for fuck all - we'll get some sort of compensation if the reports are to be believed due to him being offered an imporved contract by the club - saying that there is is enough shite on Paul Slane already on the forum.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 We're not crying foul though, we're just fucking raging that a potential talent could be leaving for nothing. As a Well fan I think Paul Slane is a fucking penis if he bolts for Celtic to the detriment of our team, and I hope we come out of this Humphrey business smelling of roses as well. So what if it's hypocritical? We're Well fans, not moral philosophers, and are therefore concerned with how Motherwell are affected by these moves, not with how consistent we appear in our opinions. We are not all raging. Some aren't bothered in the slightest with Slane potentially going. So what if it's hypocritical? Makes you sound silly? You lose all sense of a reasoned argument with any rival fans ie OF? Aye, we are all pro-Motherwell but get a grip with the "moral philosophers" gash. If a rule is good enough for Shrewsbury then it is good enough for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Plus, I'd argue that the difference is, Humphrey is at a level already where he'll make a contribution to the first team and play games. Slane (if he goes to Celtic) is likely to have a spot on the bench at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 We are not all raging. Some aren't bothered in the slightest with Slane potentially going. So what if it's hypocritical? Makes you sound silly? You lose all sense of a reasoned argument with any rival fans ie OF? Aye, we are all pro-Motherwell but get a grip with the "moral philosophers" gash. If a rule is good enough for Shrewsbury then it is good enough for us. I'm not interested in reasoned argument with OF fans, I'm interested in MFC getting the best possible result out of any situation, and if that makes me hypocritical / sound silly I couldn't care less. And personally I don't think it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm not interested in reasoned argument with OF fans, I'm interested in MFC getting the best possible result out of any situation, and if that makes me hypocritical / sound silly I couldn't care less. And personally I don't think it does. Agree to disagree there methinks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I think the bottom line is that each club needs to adapt, exploit, prevent exploitation to each of the rules regulations and place in the food chain that exists. I'm only interested in MFC. We need to maximise every situation in our interest. We exploited the cross border non compensation loophole with Porter and I imagine that will be used by us in the Humphrey case as mitigation as it was exactly the same scenario. In my opinion the result will be a rule change or a new rule may be implemented due to Shrewsbury pursuing this through FIFA. if FIFA side with Shrews we may find that Oldham will creep out of the woodwork. wrt to everything else - as a club we need to be a shrewd or shrewder than the rest. We need to ensure we get transfers coming into the club from the product of our youth system and that means that we need to get creative on how we tailor contracts llike I've said before. That's what we need to do. it's our equivalent of the 'reverse trade in value' technique that happens at the OF the pilfer a player for £400K from somewhere and when it doesent work out they look for in excess of a million when they move on - purely because they're an OF player. We've got to do what we've got to do and be biased towards MFC in whatever way that needs to happen. Fuck the rest, Cmon the Well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 If FIFA were to change a rule then I think Shrewsbury would be onto plums anyway. You can't change a rule and then retrospectively punish people for a breaching a rule which didnt exist. They would just look at Shrewsbury's case and decide if it merited a rule change going forward for future transfers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 If FIFA were to change a rule then I think Shrewsbury would be onto plums anyway.You can't change a rule and then retrospectively punish people for a breaching a rule which didnt exist. They would just look at Shrewsbury's case and decide if it merited a rule change going forward for future transfers. That's what I thought I said! however if FIFA rule that we have breached an existing regulation (that's what Shrewsbury are saying) then it could open the door for Oldham regarding the Porter transfer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan09 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 as far as im concerned shrewsbury can gtf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.