NorthernLights24 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ity/8109440.stm Jason Scotland could be on his way to Burnley or Wigan. Dundee United must be a bit sick after losing him for nothing cause a panel decided that he "would not make a significant contribution to the Scottish game". Link to comment
Admin Bebo Posted June 19, 2009 Admin Share Posted June 19, 2009 In July 2005, Scotland was denied a new work permit and the club made an appeal, which was deemed unsuccessful by a Scottish Premier League appeals committee. Incredibly, within three weeks, St Johnstone were successful in gaining a work permit for the player Link to comment
tutankamun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ity/8109440.stm Jason Scotland could be on his way to Burnley or Wigan. Dundee United must be a bit sick after losing him for nothing cause a panel decided that he "would not make a significant contribution to the Scottish game". Utd may be sick but I think AFC (and the rest of the SPL) should be feeling sick too for not going after him. I always thought he had something (see my comment below) and would certainly be better than the strikers we have currently. Great goal v Fulham. Swansea look a very good footballing team. and yes, I reckon Jason Scotland would've done a good job at Aberdeen if we had signed him. http://www.afc-chat.net/forums/index.php?s...=jason+scotland Link to comment
Dandyjam Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ity/8109440.stm Jason Scotland could be on his way to Burnley or Wigan. Dundee United must be a bit sick after losing him for nothing cause a panel decided that he "would not make a significant contribution to the Scottish game". I always thought the most hilarious aspect about all this was United losing him then Saints getting a work permit for him a matter of weeks later. Massive Lol especially since it was United that lost out. Link to comment
MMG Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I always thought the most hilarious aspect about all this was United losing him then Saints getting a work permit for him a matter of weeks later. Massive Lol especially since it was United that lost out. Was it not to do with the fact that he'd only started 8 games in 2 years for United despite being fully fit. St Johnstone however, stated that he'd be in their first XI most weeks when fit. Seem to remember a Zerouali just scraped a work permit one year with us as Skovdahl was rarely starting him and was just using him off the bench. Link to comment
dazzy_deff Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Think the reason that St Johnstone got one for him was that he would be a stand out player in that division but the "panel" decided he wouldnt be good enough for our top league! Load of bollocks if u ask me! Link to comment
minijc Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 It was actually to do with the games played, he didn't play enough to warrent being in that United team and the PM was told he would just be in the United managers 16-18 pool of players, St johnstone promised he'd be a starter every week unless injured. Link to comment
Oklahoma 1903 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Are the rules the same for foreign players in the SPL and the SFL. I think the criteria might be different can anyone clarify Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now