: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:24 am  

cod'ead wrote:

And then be accused of "restraint of trade"?

Yeah right.

But it's ok for the other 13 clubs to trade/operate at an unfair disadvantage

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:30 am  

me 'n' our kid wrote:

But it's ok for the other 13 clubs to trade/operate at an unfair disadvantage

Sky Sports....

While playing at home will not be a problem, the stand-off may have issues when it comes to away fixtures.

Although the UK Borders Agency have no objection to him playing in France, they say it will be up to individual immigration officers at UK airports to decide whether he is allowed entry into this country

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:37 am  

Standee wrote:

Sky Sports....

While playing at home will not be a problem, the stand-off may have issues when it comes to away fixtures.

Although the UK Borders Agency have no objection to him playing in France, they say it will be up to individual immigration officers at UK airports to decide whether he is allowed entry into this country

They let the showiz people woth previous convictions in to go on talk shows etc...so I suppose they will have to let him in

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:37 am  

berrigans bitch wrote:

They let the showiz people into to go on talk shows etc...so I suppose they will have to let him in

Care to elaborate?

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:38 am  

Standee wrote:

Sky Sports....

While playing at home will not be a problem, the stand-off may have issues when it comes to away fixtures.

Although the UK Borders Agency have no objection to him playing in France, they say it will be up to individual immigration officers at UK airports to decide whether he is allowed entry into this country

How can individual immigration offers be left this to their discretion. Thats makes them look even more of a joke. Surely there needs to be consistency of application. Its like the boss of weatherspoons pub saying he'll leave the price of a pint down to whoever serves you!

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:39 am  

Standee wrote:

Care to elaborate?

Britanny Spears performed on x-factor she has a criminal conviction...she would have been paid for her performance.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:39 am  

berrigans bitch wrote:

Britanny Spears performed on x-factor she has a criminal conviction...she would have been paid for her performance.

Wasnt that before the new guidelines? Does she have a conviction?

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:40 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

How can individual immigration offers be left this to their discretion. Thats makes them look even more of a joke. Surely there needs to be consistency of application. Its like the boss of weatherspoons pub saying he'll leave the price of a pint down to whoever serves you!

It says to me that they will not pre-judge it, which is correct. There will be a record of the refusal and if he doesn't mention it they'll get him for deception. Either way, I'll be very surprised if he gets in.

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:40 am  

berrigans bitch wrote:

Britanny Spears performed on x-factor she has a criminal conviction...she would have been paid for her performance.

are the rules the same for US citizens as Australians?

: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:41 am  

Chris28 wrote:

It says to me that they will not pre-judge it, which is correct. There will be a record of the refusal and if he doesn't mention it they'll get him for deception. Either way, I'll be very surprised if he gets in.

So he turns up and legally has to declare he has been turned down for a visa/entry. The individual there then makes their own mind up as to whether to send him away or not. Why waste time, why dont immigration just centrally tell him to not bother turning up cos he wont get in? I dont see the logic of the approach.