Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 15:43:48 GMT
If the British electorate votes to leave the EU, presumably all Kolpaks and EU passport holders become ineligible to play county cricket except as overseas signings?
Craig Cachopa qualifies to play for Sussex on a Portuguese passport, so presumably a Brexit would be the end of his county career (which makes the recent decision to extend his contract even more bizarre - unless Brexit cannot legally be held to impact on existing contracts, which might actually explain why Sussex have signed him until the end of 2017) ? And what about Irish passport holders such as Ed Joyce?
And would the barring of EU-qualifed players be effective from June 24 ? Or would it not be enforceable until the result of the referendum was endorsed by Act of Parliament ?
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 20, 2016 16:31:33 GMT
If the British electorate votes to leave the EU, presumably all Kolpaks and EU passport holders become ineligible to play county cricket except as overseas signings? Craig Cachopa qualifies to play for Sussex on a Portuguese passport, so presumably a Brexit would be the end of his county career (which makes the recent decision to extend his contract even more bizarre - unless Brexit cannot legally be held to impact on existing contracts, which might actually explain why Sussex have signed him until the end of 2017) ? And what about Irish passport holders such as Ed Joyce? And would the barring of EU-qualifed players be effective from June 24 ? Or would it not be enforceable until the result of the referendum was endorsed by Act of Parliament ? Nice bit of stick-poking into the nest there, borderman. However, as you are I'm sure very much aware, on the morning of June 25th there will be no legal change to the position of the United Kingdom and its responsibilities to observe the laws engendered by its treaty partners, whatever the result. If there is a vote to leave then there will commence a very long period of negotiation on terms and conditions with each of the member states, leading to a formal quittal process,followed at length by independent UK legislation on those aspects of its new status that require differentiation from those adopted by its new treaty partners. In other words....don't hold your breath.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 16:58:28 GMT
If there is a vote to leave then there will commence a very long period of negotiation on terms and conditions with each of the member states ECB (the cricket board not the central bank) wants - and has long wanted - to get rid of the kolpak loophole. The legal complexities will be considerable, as you suggest. But as I read it, they will not need to wait until Britain and Portugal have spent several years negotiating something that determines Cachopa's status as a professional English cricketer. If the ECB choses to disqualify kolpaks after June 23, I think they could do so with more-or-less impunity because a challenge to such a decision in the European Court of Justice isn't going to fly if Britain has just voted to exit. What might be subject to legal challenge in the British courts would be if the ECB tried to apply a ban on kolpaks retroactively to those who had signed contracts in good faith pre-Brexit : i.e. Cachopa could be safe until the end of the 2017 season. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Mar 20, 2016 17:04:39 GMT
If there is a vote to leave then there will commence a very long period of negotiation on terms and conditions with each of the member states ECB (the cricket board not the central bank) wants - and has long wanted - to get rid of the kolpak loophole. The legal complexities will be considerable, as you suggest. But as I read it, they will not need to wait until Britain and Portugal have spent several years negotiating something that determines Cachopa's status as a professional English cricketer. If the ECB choses to disqualify kolpaks after June 23, I think they could do so with more-or-less impunity because a challenge to such a decision in the European Court of Justice isn't going to fly if Britain has just voted to exit. What might be subject to legal challenge in the British courts would be if the ECB tried to apply a ban on kolpaks retroactively to those who had signed contracts in good faith pre-Brexit : i.e. Cachopa could be safe until the end of the 2017 season. I don't think I'd take Counsel's opinion if it indicated "more or less impunity", and neither should the ECB or any other public body. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 17:41:23 GMT
Surely inconceivable that the European Court of Justice would seek to impose kolpaks on a reluctant UK sporting body subsequent to a Brexit vote. That's why ECB could act with impunity to achieve an ambition it has sought ever since the original ECJ ruling in 2003.
|
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Mar 20, 2016 19:26:14 GMT
Hellllllloooooooo.
Vote out - for cricketing reasons and, well otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 10:59:48 GMT
BBC says 400 footballers currently playing in England will lose the right to play here if UK votes for Brexit: "We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent." www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35919247 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 18:32:24 GMT
It has now been confirmed that all EU passports holders on valid contracts with UK employers will not be affected by a Brexit vote on June 23 and will be permitted to work out their contracts.
I think we now know why Cachopa has just been given an extension until the end of 2017 when under other circs the logical thing would have been to delay the decision until September.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Mar 31, 2016 18:33:18 GMT
BBC says 400 footballers currently playing in England will lose the right to play here if UK votes for Brexit: "We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent." www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35919247But it would likely be financial disaster, as the Premier League would lose their TV money, as the Leagues world audience dwindled |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 19:08:07 GMT
BBC says 400 footballers currently playing in England will lose the right to play here if UK votes for Brexit: "We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent." www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35919247But it would likely be financial disaster, as the Premier League would lose their TV money, as the Leagues world audience dwindled Why would it have that effect? All it will mean is that EU players will have no automatic right to play here, but would have to meet the same requirements as non-EU overseas players such as Aguero, Oscar, Sanchez, Yaya Toure, Varela etc (i.e. they will qualify for a work permit if they are established internationals). |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Mar 31, 2016 19:08:42 GMT
BBC says 400 footballers currently playing in England will lose the right to play here if UK votes for Brexit: "We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent." www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35919247Lol, here's the thing, as a once again sovereign nation we can let as many doctors, nurses and, yes, professional footballers in as we want, like or need and from any country we like. It's called being in control of our borders. Remain really are scraping the barrel of scares now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 19:23:35 GMT
BBC says 400 footballers currently playing in England will lose the right to play here if UK votes for Brexit: "We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent." www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35919247Lol, here's the thing, as a once again sovereign nation we can let as many doctors, nurses and, yes, professional footballers in as we want, like or need and from any country we like. It's called being in control of our borders. Remain really are scraping the barrel of scares now. I don't follow your thinking there, Mrs D. 1. It's a BBC investigation into the implications, not a 'Remain ' story. 2. The leave campaign are arguing that placing Eurpean players on the same basis as the rest of the world would "broaden the talent pool, not reduce it" (quoting the Brexit spokesman). 3. As explained above, top European players (ie internationals) would still qualify for a work permit. Only Euro-journeymen who are no better than the young English players they are denying an opportunity to would be excluded. So I can't see that this is a story that benefits either the remain or brexit campaigns and how anybody is 'scraping the barrel'? It's an entirely neutral piece of analysis, as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Mar 31, 2016 20:35:40 GMT
Lol, here's the thing, as a once again sovereign nation we can let as many doctors, nurses and, yes, professional footballers in as we want, like or need and from any country we like. It's called being in control of our borders. Remain really are scraping the barrel of scares now. I don't follow your thinking there, Mrs D. 1. It's a BBC investigation into the implications, not a 'Remain ' story. 2. The leave campaign are arguing that placing Eurpean players on the same basis as the rest of the world would "broaden the talent pool, not reduce it" (quoting the Brexit spokesman). 3. As explained above, top European players (ie internationals) would still qualify for a work permit. Only Euro-journeymen who are no better than the young English players they are denying an opportunity to would be excluded. So I can't see that this is a story that benefits either the remain or brexit campaigns and how anybody is 'scraping the barrel'? It's an entirely neutral piece of analysis, as far as I can see. Absolutely this is a story put out by Remain, and absolutely their take is that we should all be afraid, very afraid, and absolutely it is all nonsense. 'Britain’s football clubs stand to lose out if the UK votes to leave the EU, the Remain campaign warns today.' See Politicshome.com. My case is that it is a nonsense because if a club wants to get a foreign player in they can, it will be the case that the rules that currently apply to players outside of the EU will also now apply to players within the EU. It would be nice to think that it will prevent clubs from lazily importing foreign so-so talent rather than grow their own players and that it will in fact be yet another plus side to leaving. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 21:10:45 GMT
Absolutely this is a story put out by Remain No, that is incorrect. The analysis was done by The Guardian (not the BBC, as I originally thought -but most def. not the work of 'Remain') . Both Remain and Brexit have picked it up and attempted to use it. But it is an independent piece of analysis, not a 'scare story', even if some have chosen to try to twist it to that effect. This is what the current rules, introduced this season, require from non-EU players to qualifty for a work permit: * footballers for national associations ranked between 1 and 10 of the FIFA Aggregated World Rankings to have played at least 30% of competitive international matches (FIFA World Cup finals, FIFA World Cup qualifying groups, FIFA Confederations Cup, and continental cup qualifiers and finals (e.g. UEFA European Championships and qualifiers) in the 24 months (or 12 months for players under 21) before the transfer; * footballers for national associations ranked 11-20 of the FIFA Aggregated World Rankings to have played at least 45% of games; * footballers for ational Associations ranked 21-30 to have played at least 60%; * and footballers for national associations ranked 31-50 to have played at least 75%. Players that meet these criteria are automatically granted a work permit. The Guardian research shows that as of 11/9/15, only 50 out of the 161 European footballers playing in the Premier League met these criteria. So it is not a 'scare' story. If Britain left the EU, 111 of the 161 European footballers in the Prem League would not qualiy for a work permit. Fact, not propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Mar 31, 2016 22:16:42 GMT
Absolutely this is a story put out by Remain No, that is incorrect. The analysis was done by The Guardian (not the BBC, as I originally thought -but most def. not the work of 'Remain') . Both Remain and Brexit have picked it up and attempted to use it. But it is an independent piece of analysis, not a 'scare story', even if some have chosen to try to twist it to that effect. This is what the current rules, introduced this season, require from non-EU players to qualifty for a work permit: * footballers for national associations ranked between 1 and 10 of the FIFA Aggregated World Rankings to have played at least 30% of competitive international matches (FIFA World Cup finals, FIFA World Cup qualifying groups, FIFA Confederations Cup, and continental cup qualifiers and finals (e.g. UEFA European Championships and qualifiers) in the 24 months (or 12 months for players under 21) before the transfer; * footballers for national associations ranked 11-20 of the FIFA Aggregated World Rankings to have played at least 45% of games; * footballers for ational Associations ranked 21-30 to have played at least 60%; * and footballers for national associations ranked 31-50 to have played at least 75%. Players that meet these criteria are automatically granted a work permit. The Guardian research shows that as of 11/9/15, only 50 out of the 161 European footballers playing in the Premier League met these criteria. So it is not a 'scare' story. If Britain left the EU, 111 of the 161 European footballers in the Prem League would not qualiy for a work permit. Fact, not propaganda. No, this is a quote from Politicshome website 'The pro-EU campaign warns that two-thirds of European footballers playing in England “might be forced to leave” in the case of a Brexit. Baroness Brady, a Conservative peer and member of Britain Stronger in Europe, has written to the chairs of all professional football clubs in England, Scotland and Wales urging them to speak out in favour of EU membership.' She asked them to tweet their fans saying what effect Brexit 'could' have on their team. More scare tactics, and like all the others, roaming phone charges rising, plane fares rising, will be 100% false. ____________________________________________ |
|
