Lawyers acting for the club, Walker Morris, won the case yesterday in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne
The dispute dates back to November 18, 2001 when Dunfermline Athletic Football Club agreed to transfer Andrew Tod to Bradford City Football Club for an initial fee of £100,000 with a further £25,000 to be paid to Dunfermline once Tod had played 25 competitive first team games for Bradford City, and an additional £25,000 to be paid once the player has played 50 games.
The contract further provided that if Tod played less than the stipulated 25 or 50 games Dunfermline would receive a pro rata payment at the rate of £1,000 per game. The commonly used pro rata clause stated "should the player be transferred by Bradford City before he has made 25 or 50 competitive first team appearances respectively, then Bradford City shall pay Dunfermline a pro-rata amount".
The case revolved around whether Tod had been transferred by Bradford City.
On March 28, 2002, after he had played 19 games for Bradford City, Tod was loaned to Heart of Midlothian in the Scottish Premier League.
On June 27, 2002 Tod returned to Bradford City for whom he played a further 5 games, taking the total number of games played for Bradford City to 24. The player was then loaned to Dundee United, also competing in the Scottish Premier League, prior to Tod's contract with Bradford City being terminated by mutual consent on July 31, 2003.
Dumfermline, supported by the Scottish FA, claimed that Tod had played 24 matches in total, that the player was then "transferred" and that under the pro rata clause they were owed the sum of £24,000.
Bradford City, represented by Walker Morris, contended that the word "transfer" could not apply to a temporary transfer or loan.
As the case involved a dispute between Bradford City and Dunfermline, two clubs subject to the different rules of the Football Associations of England and Scotland respectively, the case came before FIFA on June 15, 2004. FIFA held that "the loan of a player by one club to another should be dealt with administratively like a transfer."
Chris Caisley, head of the Walker Morris Sports Group, said: "If the FIFA decision had been upheld a temporary transfer or loan would have the same practical effect as a permanent transfer. Consequently, a club acquiring a player from another club on deferred payment terms, based on the number of appearances made by the player, would think twice about allowing the player to go elsewhere on loan for fear of triggering the deferred payments.
“Further, if a loan were to have the same effect as a permanent transfer then the acquiring club could use a "transfer" clause to its advantage by selecting the player for one game before loaning him to another club, thereby triggering the clause. The ramifications for many other clubs would have been huge."
Walker Morris filed their Statement Of Appeal in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The appeal asserted that a loan agreement could not by definition be a permanent "transfer", that the word "transfer" meant a permanent transfer and that the pro rata clause had never been triggered.
