The on topic thread

[Magma]

He does not have to agree to the move.

gun to his head, doors locked, blinds drawn, chained to his chair until he signed the deal. come on, you know this.

 

[moomba]

I heard we threatened to tickle him with a wet lettuce leaf until he signed.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Jan Vertonghen has picked up an ankle injury in training and will miss the next 4 months.

That's some ****ing twisted ankle. 4 months for an ankle...what did they chop it off.

Time to cotton wool Toby before the Chav campaigner can hack him down to **** us over.

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

Between Sterling disgracefully buying a new sink and the abduction of Aaron Mooy, I'm surprised the UN haven't been called in.

 

[Doctor Bojan_]

That's some ******* twisted ankle. 4 months for an ankle...what did they chop it off.

Time to cotton wool Toby before the Chav campaigner can hack him down to **** us over.

who is the chav?

I'd be trying to stop that fat lump lukaku from falling on Toby's ankles....

 

[Art Vandelay_]

who is the chav?

I'd be trying to stop that fat lump lukaku from falling on Toby's ankles....

Eden.

I'm also worried about an elbow from Fellaini. Utd's insurance premium must be sky high with him at training

 

[jod23]

So who has Foxtel?

Has LFCTV started yet? Has it just sprung up, is it free in the sports package?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

He does not have to agree to the move.

You get that they didn't actually pay money, right? They just shifted it from themselves to themselves. He wanted to have a crack at Europe, no-one else could meet the fee, and he was probably happy with what they were paying him anyway.

The reason why it looks like third party ownership is because, according to people on here, he won't play for City but will be moved around on loan with the end point being that he fails and returns to Melb City, or that he succeeds and they cash in later. That is pretty darn similar to when Tevez was being moved around by his ownership until the rule changes meant that ownership had to be bought out. But let's hope he starts and sets up a great relationship with Villa and De Bruyne to make Aguero's life a walk in the sun.

 

[moomba]

You get that they didn't actually pay money, right? They just shifted it from themselves to themselves. He wanted to have a crack at Europe, no-one else could meet the fee, and he was probably happy with what they were paying him anyway.

Wow. Theres a couple of big assumptions you've made there. First Melbourne City and Manchester City are two separate legal entities. One paid a fee to the other. Second we don't know what other offers Mooy or Melbourne City got or whether they were acceptable to him or not.

The reason why it looks like third party ownership is because, according to people on here, he won't play for City but will be moved around on loan with the end point being that he fails and returns to Melb City, or that he succeeds and they cash in later. That is pretty darn similar to when Tevez was being moved around by his ownership until the rule changes meant that ownership had to be bought out. But let's hope he starts and sets up a great relationship with Villa and De Bruyne to make Aguero's life a walk in the sun.

It's not similar at all. It is not a third party arrangement, end of. And I'm sure you know this but Villa and De Bruyne have never played together and probably will never.

 

[elhadjihenry]

So who has Foxtel?

Has LFCTV started yet? Has it just sprung up, is it free in the sports package?

Yes and Yes

 

[SM]

*Yawn* Ratts in yet another argument over absolutely nothing.

 

[Jatz]

*Yawn* Ratts in yet another argument over absolutely nothing.

Normally I think he has a point but Moomba has won this one hands down.

"Tune in next time to see..."

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Normally I think he has a point but Moomba has won this one hands down.

"Tune in next time to see..."

In what way? I'm not surprised that SM wants to dismiss me (after whatever that discussion over Woy was about), but I haven't actually heard a cogent explanation for what is going on with the Mooy move, beyond what I've said a couple of times: maybe they do plan on playing him.

 

[SM]

In what way? I'm not surprised that SM wants to dismiss me (after whatever that discussion over Woy was about), but I haven't actually heard a cogent explanation for what is going on with the Mooy move, beyond what I've said a couple of times: maybe they do plan on playing him.

How about this: Manchester City have bought a player to then loan him out in Europe. Melbourne City don't have the funds to organise loans for him in Europe without running the risk that if the loan fails, they would then have to cover the short fall. Mooy has no intention of playing for Melbourne City anymore, so they don't need to have him still on their books.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

How about this: Manchester City have bought a player to then loan him out in Europe. Melbourne City don't have the funds to organise loans for him in Europe without running the risk that if the loan fails, they would then have to cover the short fall. Mooy has no intention of playing for Melbourne City anymore, so they don't need to have him still on their books.

Yep, that makes sense, but it absolutely qualifies therefore as Man City being able to get around rules due to their multi-club ownership. In this case, Melb City gets to keep control of the player without it effecting their salary cap.

The getting around of rules has been my point from the start.

 

[SM]

Yep, that makes sense, but it absolutely qualifies therefore as Man City being able to get around rules due to their multi-club ownership. In this case, Melb City gets to keep control of the player without it effecting their salary cap.

The getting around of rules has been my point from the start.

What rules are they getting around? How is Melbourne City keeping control of the player? Did you read my post at all? I said that was the opposite of what either party wanted.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

What rules are they getting around? How is Melbourne City keeping control of the player? Did you read my post at all? I said that was the opposite of what either party wanted.

Fair enough. I thought the logical thread in your post was that Man City has "bought a player to then loan him out in Europe" and you were then explaining why that had happened: "Melbourne City don't have the funds to organise loans for him in Europe without running the risk that if the loan fails, they would then have to cover the short fall."

But I see now that you were just saying them as separate things. You believe Melb City couldn't do anything. So he was free to do whatever, and fortunately Man City decided to go for it. To me it looks like the point is to maintain the player in their ownership so he can return to Melb City without them worrying about Victory, for example, throwing more money at him to attract him across town. Melb City couldn't do that within their salary cap, so they use Man City.

 

[SM]

Fair enough. I thought the logical thread in your post was that Man City has "bought a player to then loan him out in Europe" and you were then explaining why that had happened: "Melbourne City don't have the funds to organise loans for him in Europe without running the risk that if the loan fails, they would then have to cover the short fall."

But I see now that you were just saying them as separate things. You believe Melb City couldn't do anything. So he was free to do whatever, and fortunately Man City decided to go for it. To me it looks like the point is to maintain the player in their ownership so he can return to Melb City without them worrying about Victory, for example, throwing more money at him to attract him across town. Melb City couldn't do that within their salary cap, so they use Man City.

Mooy wants to play in Europe. The City group can facilitate that through a loan move. Melbourne City don't have the resources, nor does Mooy want to play for them again. Manchester City have the resources, and Mooy having to return to them from a failed loan has no financial repercussions for Manchester City.

Incredibly simple, and no rules have been warped, with absolutely no impact on the A-League.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Mooy wants to play in Europe. The City group can facilitate that through a loan move. Melbourne City don't have the resources, nor does Mooy want to play for them again. Manchester City have the resources, and Mooy having to return to them from a failed loan has no financial repercussions for Manchester City.

Incredibly simple, and no rules have been warped, with absolutely no impact on the A-League.

Well, it's not simple. When has another player ever been bought by a club because they have the "resources" to "facilitate...a loan move"?

What would you think was going on if Hull bought a 25 y.o. player who has previously had a crack at Europe, with no intention of playing them, and just to loan out? What's the incentive for Man City to buy that player? And as was said before, as Melb City and Man City are owned by the same people, why wouldn't he have been able to access these "resources" without Man City buying him? The same people with the same links already owned his registration.

 

[SM]

Well, it's not simple. When has another player ever been bought by a club because they have the "resources" to "facilitate...a loan move"?

What would you think was going on if Hull bought a 25 y.o. player who has previously had a crack at Europe, with no intention of playing them, and just to loan out? What's the incentive for Man City to buy that player? And as was said before, as Melb City and Man City are owned by the same people, why wouldn't he have been able to access these "resources" without Man City buying him? The same people with the same links already owned his registration.

Why does that matter? Are teams not allowed to be innovative?

You've been asked numerous times now. What rules have they broken?

I wouldn't give a shit to be honest. It's no different to any other player we have bought and then immediately loaned out.

 

[Zidane98]

It does seem pointless for Mooy to sign for City when that's clearly not where he plans to play nor will ever play for them. Again it isn't breaking any rules but isn't right from a moral viewpoint. One has to ask why Mooy is signing there rather than signing directly for a lower level / championship team directly.

 

[Zidane98]

Why does that matter? Are teams not allowed to be innovative?

You've been asked numerous times now. What rules have they broken?

I wouldn't give a shit to be honest. It's no different to any other player we have bought and then immediately loaned out.

It is different because you've bought those players with the intention of playing them for Hull. And you aren't buying them from a related 3rd party.

 

[elhadjihenry]

It does seem pointless for Mooy to sign for City when that's clearly not where he plans to play nor will ever play for them. Again it isn't breaking any rules but isn't right from a moral viewpoint. One has to ask why Mooy is signing there rather than signing directly for a lower level / championship team directly.

I wonder if the interest in Mooy just wasn't there from a club he was willing to play for. The City move could potentially convince a higher calibre of club that he is worth a crack, along with them potentially paying part of his wages for the loan move.

 

[Jatz]

It is different because you've bought those players with the intention of playing them for Hull. And you aren't buying them from a related 3rd party.

Chelsea have been doing this for years. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Chelsea have been doing this for years. There's nothing wrong with it.

Chelsea do it with highly rated youth players to eventually sell them for a profit, can't see City making any money off Mooy.