Velli's ban from league grounds and tagging

[Paul Stephens]

With 600 or more people being tagged each month does anyony know exactly what the requirements to be let out in this way?

 

Also does anyone know what the exact wording of the ban from league/conference grounds is. I can undestand the football authorities wishing to ban football hooligans from "supporting" their team each week, but is this the first case of a professional footballer being involved. A though I have is that the European court of Human rights would quash such a ban is an instant. It is a basic human right to be able to work (supported by case law), so a ban from football grounds as far as playing goes would compromise that right.

[Ian]

David (Dai) Thomas, ex Watford, Cardiff and Swansea was banned from all league grounds for being involved in the trouble at the Cardiff versus Leeds cup tie a couple of years ago.

 

I recall he also upset his club at the time (Cardiff I think) for being caught on camera causing trouble at an England away game alongside one of Cardiff's main hooligans.

 

He is still only is his mid/late twenties and now playing lower league football in Wales somewhere.

[Guest]

Paul--You may well have a point---The EEC is founded on free trade and movement of Labor, and they tend to come out against things that restrict the right to work. However to establish a point like that you have to go through all your own countries legal procedures first --up to and including the House of Lords. Then you apply to the European Courts of Justice, and wait several years.This is extremely expensive and time consuming, so such cases tend to be brought only with the backing of an outside body, such as a Trade Union, where they are trying to establish legal precednt/get a law changed. Individuals can do it, but it is extremely expensive.

[Paul Stephens]

ian I remember that case now - but I think the difference is that no one wants Dai Thomas to play for them so there has never been any test of the law.

Ted, yes up to a point. but the other day we had Birmingham (?) threatening legal action because Wales wanted to call up players 4 days before a vital match. Since he would still be paid by the club there can hardly be a case for loss of earnings or restraint of trade. Just self interest for a club that wants its player for a match tommorow (sunday) . Funnily enough EUFA changed its mind on its ruling.

 

In Veli's case i dont think you have to go through the legal process. There have been multiple cases brought in European courts for restraint of trade, and the precedent has been set.

[Bernie Gogan]

I didn't think the judgement meant that Velli can't earn money by PLAYING football - for us or any other non - League club. He can't go to a Football League or Premiership ground for 6 years as a fan.

 

Isn't it correct that 1 of the 2 years is suspended, so with good behaviour he could be out in 6 months?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dominic]

HOPE SO!!!

[Ian]

It would be interesting to see the wording of the banning order. If it says he's banned from spectating then he's in the clear. I suspect it's more generic than that though and bans him from being inside any ground for whatever reason. When the rule was made I don't suppose they thought they would have to make it relevant to both spectators AND players.

 

Thinking ahead slightly this of course could work in our favour as all the time Slough are below the conference he couldn't be enticed away to join a club in a higher league.

 

Maybe it's better to think of the present and worry who is going to replace him for Tuesday and more importantly next Saturday. Whilst he is no Veli, I thought Ryan did ok against Hemel.

[Guest]

'Thinking ahead slightly this of course could work in our favour as all the time Slough are below the conference he couldn't be enticed away to join a club in a higher league.'

 

true, and also the way Slough have stuck by him, and by his comments, I think he'd want to stay with us. But, he won't be here this season to help us try and get back in the Premier, so it won't be in our favour.