Transfer Discussion Thread

[Planet14]

Perhaps they should make an enquiry.

Perhaps I should make an enquiry of Scarlett Johansson to see whether she would like to spend the night, too.

 

[Magma]

neves seems to be the only player who has improved in reputation as a player since going to the saudi league. in england for 6 seasons and i dont really remember anyone trying too hard to get him away from wolves

 

[moomba]

Perhaps I should make an enquiry of Scarlett Johansson to see whether she would like to spend the night, too.

You could, if you dont ask you dont get. Or you could invent some new law preventing anyone else from having a go.

Bet that's the first time Ruben Neves has been compared to Scarlett Johansson.

 

[Zidane98]

You could, if you dont ask you dont get. Or you could invent some new law preventing anyone else from having a go.

Bet that's the first time Ruben Neves has been compared to Scarlett Johansson.

You're showing your bias here.

There needs to be a regulation that prevents any of the PIF owned clubs from buying Mbappe for 500m and loaning him to Newcastle..

 

[Magma]

You're showing your bias here.

There needs to be a regulation that prevents any of the PIF owned clubs from buying Mbappe for 500m and loaning him to Newcastle..

have any of your invented scenarios ever happened?

 

[moomba]

You're showing your bias here.

What's my bias? I'm not a Newcastle supporter. I can't see us loaning a player in from one of the CFG owned clubs any time soon.

There needs to be a regulation that prevents any of the PIF owned clubs from buying Mbappe for 500m and loaning him to Newcastle..

There is. If a PIF owned club buys Mbappe, Newcastle would have to pay fair market value to loan him.

What you want is a rule that says Newcastle wouldnt be able loan a player from a PIF owned club but Liverpool (or anyone else) would be free to do so.

 

[Zidane98]

There is.

How's that any different to Neves scenario which clearly a lot of clubs are concerned about?

 

[Magma]

clubs should be terrified of scarlett mbappe

 

[moomba]

How's that any different to Neves scenario which clearly a lot of clubs are concerned about?

A lot of clubs are concerned about Newcastle finishing ahead of them, and are doing everything they can to stop or delay that from happening.

 

[Zidane98]

What's my bias? I'm not a Newcastle supporter. I can't see us loaning a player in from one of the CFG owned clubs any time soon.



There is. If a PIF owned club buys Mbappe, Newcastle would have to pay fair market value to loan him.

What you want is a rule that says Newcastle wouldnt be able loan a player from a PIF owned club but Liverpool (or anyone else) would be free to do so.

Nope.

A fair rule is anytime a PL club loans in a player from a club they own they are free to do so but on their FFP figures it is treated as a purchase for the time the player is on loan.

In the interests of fairness the same would also apply in reverse which would be an advantage to state owned clubs.

What you want are rules where clubs with multi club ownership are able to gain an FFP advantage over other clubs who are not part of a multi club ownership group.

Which is obvious cos of your allegiance to Abu Dhabi.

 

[Zidane98]

A lot of clubs are concerned about Newcastle finishing ahead of them, and are doing everything they can to stop or delay that from happening.

Lol. Poor Newcastle, funded by human rights abusing murderers that have Saudi Airlines and anything Saudi state investment fund owned sponsoring them under the sun.

Hilarious. I'm sure they'll be just fine with fairer regulations around multi club ownership loans.

 

[moomba]

Nope.

A fair rule is anytime a PL club loans in a player from a club they own they are free to do so but on their FFP figures it is treated as a purchase for the time the player is on loan.

In the interests of fairness the same would also apply in reverse which would be an advantage to state owned clubs.

What you want are rules where clubs with multi club ownership are able to gain an FFP advantage over other clubs who are not part of a multi club ownership group.

Which is obvious cos of your allegiance to Abu Dhabi.

There is no FFP advantage available to Newcastle for loaning a player that isnt also available to any other club. The loan fee (which for Newcastle, but not other clubs has to be deemed as fair market value) goes down as an expense on the FFP accounts.

I don't have any allegiance to Abu Dhabi.

 

[moomba]

Lol. Poor Newcastle, funded by human rights abusing murderers that have Saudi Airlines and anything Saudi state investment fund owned sponsoring them under the sun.

Hilarious. I'm sure they'll be just fine with fairer regulations around multi club ownership loans.

Not asking for sympathy for Newcastle, but please don't make out that these proposals aren't all about self interest from the same old clubs.

 

[Zidane98]

There is no FFP advantage available to Newcastle for loaning a player that isnt also available to any other club. The loan fee (which for Newcastle, but not other clubs has to be deemed as fair market value) goes down as an expense on the FFP accounts.

I don't have any allegiance to Abu Dhabi.

Of course there is. They can let other PIF owned clubs pay for the transfer fee on their books giving Newcastle a significant FFP advantage.

This would be balanced by Newcastle benefitting in the reverse scenario where other clubs wouldn't.

Completely fair and reasonable to bring in regulations that reduce or eliminate this loophole. Which works both ways.

 

[moomba]

Of course there is. They can let other PIF owned clubs pay for the transfer fee on their books giving Newcastle a significant FFP advantage.

This would be balanced by Newcastle benefitting in the reverse scenario where other clubs wouldn't.

Completely fair and reasonable to bring in regulations that reduce or eliminate this loophole. Which works both ways.

The fair market loan fee would almost certainly be equal to the amortised cost of buying the player. Newcastle simply wouldn't be allowed to loan in Mbappe (for example) for less than his amortised annual cost under the current rules.

The advantage is in your imagination.

 

[Zidane98]

The fair market loan fee would almost certainly be equal to the amortised cost of buying the player.

The advantage is in your imagination.

If the loan fee equals amortisation cost that's fine. That should be written into any new regulations.

No subsidised wages allowed between clubs under the same ownership group either is fair. The full whack of the contract goes on the books even if the Saudi club continues to pay the wages.

 

[moomba]

If the loan fee equals amortisation cost that's fine. That should be written into any new regulations.

No subsidised wages allowed between clubs under the same ownership group either is fair. The full whack of the contract goes on the books even if the Saudi club continues to pay the wages.

I wouldn't have a problem with either of those being set in stone (the fair market fee for a loan pretty much already is).

Much better than outright banning a club from loaning a player that their rivals are allowed to loan. That's just bad regulation.

 

[Zidane98]

I wouldn't have a problem with either of those being set in stone (the fair market fee for a loan pretty much already is).

Much better than outright banning a club from loaning a player that their rivals are allowed to loan. That's just bad regulation.

Banning won't happen. Like all things the final iteration of any rule that gets 14 votes or more will be fair & reasonable.

 

[moomba]

Banning won't happen. Like all things the final iteration of any rule that gets 14 votes or more will be fair & reasonable.

Ha ha, might agree to disagree on that.

 

[RossFC]

 

[Zidane98]

Ha ha, might agree to disagree on that.

BAnning won't happen. Because the PL wouldn't want to block young promising stars developed at clubs across multi club ownership structures. We've got some cracking players at Strasbourg that Chelsea might want to take a punt on and get them in on a season long loan to see how they go/


What should be banned is for example a Saudi PIF owned club buying an established player and immediately loaning him to Newcastle Utd. There should be a mandatory 12 month exclusion period on loans in that scenario between clubs with the same owner.

 

[RossFC]

 

[moomba]

What should be banned is for example a Saudi PIF owned club buying an established player and immediately loaning him to Newcastle Utd. There should be a mandatory 12 month exclusion period on loans in that scenario between clubs with the same owner.

If they are banned from loaning the player to Newcastle, but can loan him to one of Newcastles rivals its a bad law imo.

 

[chef]

Contract runs to 2025, yeah? So by next summer window he will have one year left? You’d think they cash in at the end of the season.

Mikel on the case

 

[RossFC]