How does the appeal process work?

[ignatz]

The rejection of Convey following the acceptance of Howard has me puzzled as to how the appeal process works.

We have nothing like it in the US, but if we did -- i.e., a governmental program -- it would be legalistic. So the question for the appeal board, when someone doesn't meet the automatic criteria, would be rather formalistic. The members might have their own views as to the ability of the player, but they would not (at least officially) be permitted to substitute them for the opinions of experts placed before them.

Thus, if a US counterpart appeal board had accepted Howard at age 24 with 7 caps, it would have a hard time denying Convey at age 20 with 15 caps, unless there was other evidence (other than their own views) to which they could point: letters from managers and coaches; appearances in all-star games etc. In Convey's case, he is also a mainstay of both the U-20 and U-23 teams and is, I think, captain of one, so in that sense he has better credentials than Howard.

Thus, from what I know of what is "on paper," a US panel could have rejected both Howard and Convey, or rected Howard and accepted Convey, but it would have had a tough time accepting Howard and rejecting Convey.

In the US, there is a likelihood that any appeal board's decision would have been judicially reviewable, which is the factor that knocks out the subjective views of the board members i.e, "I've seen film, and no matter what Glenn Hoddle says, this guy can't cut it; I think Howard's a better player and would rather have him than Convey on my team". That simply could not be taken into account in the typical US administrative law system.

A further factor that likely would not figure into a US procedure, is the fact that Tottenham got a waiver earlier for a S African player. I've been told it doesn't figure in the UK system either. However, a friend of mine, who knows the UK system far better than I do (which doesn't take much) suggests that this might have been cruicial, i.e., the 'Spurs had been to the well once and enough is enough -- but the board couldn't come out and say that.

If anyone could shed light on this, I'd appreciate it.

[soccernutter]

The main difference between Howard and Convey is position. Howard is in a singular position that cannot be changed by tactics. Additionally, over the past 6mo+, it as been written that Barthez is on his way out. That Barthez was not listed to be taken on ManU's US tour probably helped that process. In addition, SAF said that Howard would be given a chance to start.

Convey, on the other had, is a midfield player that can be effected by tactical changes. Unfortunately, Spurs do not seem to have expressed his mulit positional ability (helpful as Spurs are injury prone). Additionally, though he has more caps, he has not been in outstanding form, as Howard has been. Furthermore, it probably didn't help that the current Spurs left mid player, Ricketts, has been in excellent form.

But, to answer your initial question, the appeal is subjective. It takes into account the above, as well as if a player was with a U20, U19, etc team or out for injury. Convey should have had some bonus points being the captian of the U20 team, but if that was important, it seems to not have mattered enough.

Your final point may be true, but our other player, who was able to get through the appeal process, is current captian of the South Africian national team. If his appeal was denied, then there would have been question of the labour board.