Transfer discussion thread

[Magma]

Yep, thats vibe of it.

If it was old money doing it no one would care as much.

just have to wait for the milan clubs to cry again and then ffp will be relaxed again.

 

[Sphynx]

Can't think of any valid reason to change the amortisation rules. Just seems typical UEFA reactionary bollocks, no doubt as a result of pressure from clubs that don't want to give out long term contracts (but don't want anyone else to have the benefit either).

PMSL.

 

[SM]

PMSL.

What are the valid reasons?

 

[moomba]

I see. Behaving in a snide fashion is ok if it's your own club doing it.

Using a buy back clause is snide?

 

[Zidane98]

Using a buy back clause is snide?

When used to try and block a transfer to another club like you propose. Yes.

 

[moomba]

PMSL.

Ha ha. Another one.

 

[moomba]

When used to try and block a transfer to another club like you propose. Yes.

I didn't propose that.

But it's telling that you didn't have a problem with Spurs trying to avoid paying a sell on clause to us, but have a problem with us using a buyback clause on a player we sold.

 

[Zidane98]

I didn't propose that.

But it's telling that you didn't have a problem with Spurs trying to avoid paying a sell on clause to us, but have a problem with us using a buyback clause on a player we sold.

Spurs don't pay the sell on clause. So no, I don't have a problem with them avoiding something that they don't pay.

 

[chef]

If City can buy him back for 20m and then sell him to Spurs for 35m why wouldn't they?

Seems smart business.

 

[moomba]

Really? Clubs signing players on unrealistically long contracts not a valid reason? That's clearly an FFP cheat/workaround.

It's no more a cheat than giving a player a contract extension. That reduces amortisation too.

It must also be mentioned that FIFA, who govern all transfers, stipulate contract lengths should be no longer than 5 years. Not must be, but should be.

So FIFA who govern all transfers stipulate that if you want to give longer than a 5 year contract to a player you are entitled to. Correct?

Allison, Luis Diaz and Cody Gakpo all joined Liverpool on longer than 5 years contract FWIW.

 

[moomba]

Spurs don't pay the sell on clause. So no, I don't have a problem with them avoiding something that they don't pay.

Ha ha ha.

 

[Zidane98]

It's no more a cheat than giving a player a contract extension. That reduces amortisation too.



So FIFA who govern all transfers stipulate that if you want to give longer than a 5 year contract to a player you are entitled to. Correct?

Allison, Luis Diaz and Cody Gakpo all joined Liverpool on longer than 5 years contract FWIW.

2 of those players joined mid season. They signed 5.5 year contracts which is entirely within the norm for mid season transfers - of course the club isn't going to have their contracts expiring mid season. No 7.5 or 8.5 year contracts for them.

Allison signed a 6 year deal so hardly groundbreaking. He's a keeper who also tend to stay around longer if they end up being top class.

I'm not sure why you are even bringing up Liverpool here, bit obsessive.

 

[moomba]

2 of those players joined mid season. They signed 5.5 year contracts which is entirely within the norm for mid season transfers - of course the club isn't going to have their contracts expiring mid season. No 7.5 or 8.5 year contracts for them.

Allison signed a 6 year deal so hardly groundbreaking. He's a keeper who also tend to stay around longer if they end up being top class.

I'm not sure why you are even bringing up Liverpool here, bit obsessive.

PMSL. But but but but.

 

[Zidane98]

If City can buy him back for 20m and then sell him to Spurs for 35m why wouldn't they?

Seems smart business.

Not allowed to be at 3 different clubs in such a short time. They would have to loan him and Spurs would have to agree, plus the player would have to agree to going back to City.


Spurs will either sign him directly or not at all.

 

[hawkman]

If City can buy him back for 20m and then sell him to Spurs for 35m why wouldn't they?

Seems smart business.

I don't see the problem either. With FFP rules if you can make an easy 15m without any problems why wouldn't any club do it

 

[Zidane98]

PMSL. But but but but.

There's no buts here, just a bizarre obsession by yourself to redirect every conversation back to "what about this player at Liverpool". When the original discussion had nothing to do with Liverpool players.


Virtually all transfers signed mid season have a contract end date in the off season. Your argument is laughable.

 

[hawkman]

Not allowed to be at 3 different clubs in such a short time. They would have to loan him and Spurs would have to agree, plus the player would have to agree to going back to City.


Spurs will either sign him directly or not at all.

Just loan him with an obligation to buy. Easy way to get around it

 

[moomba]

Not allowed to be at 3 different clubs in such a short time. They would have to loan him and Spurs would have to agree, plus the player would have to agree to going back to City.


Spurs will either sign him directly or not at all.

Not allowed to play for three clubs in a season.

I understand it might breach Rule 1 of the Zidane98 rulebook, but according to FIFA and the Premier league they don't have a problem with it.

 

[moomba]

There's no buts here, just a bizarre obsession by yourself to redirect every conversation back to "what about this player at Liverpool". When the original discussion had nothing to do with Liverpool players.


Virtually all transfers signed mid season have a contract end date in the off season. Your argument is laughable.

But but but

 

[chef]

Not allowed to be at 3 different clubs in such a short time. They would have to loan him and Spurs would have to agree, plus the player would have to agree to going back to City.


Spurs will either sign him directly or not at all.

He has to play an actual game for the team to count doesn't it?

As hawkman said theres other ways around it. City makes a bit and Spurs gets him a better cheaper. Sounds good.

 

[Zidane98]

I don't see the problem either. With FFP rules if you can make an easy 15m without any problems why wouldn't any club do it

Annex 3 on player transfer says:

2. A player may only be registered with a club for the purpose of playing organised football. As an exception to this rule, a player may have to be registered with a club for mere technical reasons to secure transparency in consecutive individual transactions (cf. Annexe 3)

There's one problem with the transfer as clearly there is no intent for the club to play him at all if they want to sell him immediately without going on loan or playing for the club. He can't play for City and then Spurs as per below

Annex 4 says

Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs


I believe a loan is possible (as long as Porro does not play a single game for City) but a transfer is not.



Also, the player must agree the City buy back. Much easier for Spurs to convince the player to join them directly and ignore attempts to buy him back.

 

[moomba]

So you can be registered with three clubs as long as you only play for two.

Who would have guessed it.

 

[Zidane98]

But but but

Nah, no buts. Pretty funny you accuse Liverpool of trying to spread amortisation out over a 5.5 year contract signed mid season as opposed to a 5 year contract. You've said many irrational things about Liverpool (and it was you that brought up Liverpool in this discussion even though it wasn't about the club) but this one has reached a new level of delusion by yourself.

 

[Zidane98]

So you can be registered with three clubs as long as you only play for two.

Who would have guessed it.

You can't register a player if there's no intent for them to play football. Annex 3 states this.


In your proposal there is no intention for the player to play football either at the club or on loan. Just sell the player immediately for a profit. Because any game played by the player for the club means he can't play anywhere else for the rest of the season.

 

[Zidane98]

Just loan him with an obligation to buy. Easy way to get around it

Player's got to agree the buy back. Sign a contract, register with the club etc. Easier for him/his agent to negotiate directly with Spurs and better off financially too for him.