How is this ineos fault? Ffs few just moan about anything and everything, moany moanersons.
Jean-Clair Todibo
- Thread starter L1nk
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Honestly if we don't sign someone soon we might just have to close this forum for a few weeks. I'm starting to seriously worry about the mental health of some of the users on here and the weird shit they post just moaning about everything! All enabling each other and working themselves up into a moany frenzy
It's a dumb rule and there is nothing right about it either .
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's a great rule. Multi club ownership is gross and terrible for the game.
I'm not kidding, I know Chelsea does it and I hate it.
INEOS better bend the rules for this one. Sick of watching Chelsea and City do it nobody does anything about it
It’s a simple fix, sell him to another team for 20mil and loan him for the season. They agree a fee for next summer with 5/10 mil on top. If we want him and don’t see better alternatives then we can find a a way to get the deal done. feck the rules. Everyone else does.
You're absolutely spot on and I've been banging this drum for years as the quoted post in my previous post alludes to.
Man Utd's biggest issue (IMO) has been a lack of physicality and pace in those areas where you have to control transitions in higher defensive lines when the space opens up for the opponent to potentially exploit the pace in quick transition. The way the game has evolved in England, it's absolutely crucial to have a high level of physical and athletic capability in your team in those deeper areas where the resting defense will come up against a high level threat in the form of a EPL team's lightening quick transition. And when you can't contain the transition threat in the large spaces then you will naturally retreat in a lower block and will struggle to sustain pressure/attacks. This is not understood by many fans and unfortunately the details also eluded some of our previous managers as well.
It's not difficult to spot high technical players on the ball and we've signed some very good players in possession over the years but that rest defense has always been crap, if I'm to put it bluntly. And if your rest defense is crap, then you will undermine your attacking players hence why we have to resort to counter attacking football in a mid block against the top teams. Man Utd's attack has high potential to score a lot of goals if we bring in the correct profile of players at CB and deeper midfield. If those deeper players in rest defense eat up the opponent's transitions then the opponent will struggle to get out of their half, and our own high press will be much much more effective. It's why for me the most important positions to upgrade are the positions that will make up the rest defense because it's crucial to pinning teams back.
What City, Arsenal and Liverpool have done is something so obvious that it really frustrates me to see my own team ignore the out of possession aspects which give those teams the edge. If we want to challenge them then that rest defense has to be of a high technical level backed up by pace and power. Arsenal and City have the best rest defense in the league right now and Liverpool with a top midfield signing will also complete their triangle which is their weakness right now. Leverkusen in Germany is another example of a team that had a very strong rest defence potential with Tapsoba, Tah and Kossounou who had ridiculous pace and power which was backed up by a strong in-possession game.
Thems the breaks.
You can't loan him or buy him. The rules are very clear.
Can someone explain to me why Ineos couldn't get Nice to sell him to another Ineos owned club - FC Lausanne - and then loan him to United from Lausanne with a mandatory buy clause?
I'll be honest I don't think we should be doing this as it feels like your cheating the system a bit, but it's no different to what likes of City have done.
I'll be honest I don't think we should be doing this as it feels like your cheating the system a bit, but it's no different to what likes of City have done.
So why dont UEFA set a price tag on Todibo instead of completely blocking the transfer.
What if Todibo prefers Utd over everyone else???
What if Todibo prefers Utd over everyone else???
What if Todibo does a Neymar, pays a "release compensation" to Nice and United pays him a signing on bonus of an equivalent amount?
Jimmy B is right. How will Nice selling Todibo to us affect the integrity of the competition? It'd be understandable if they completely ban player sales between clubs with the same owner. In this case it doesn't make much sense.
Only from Nice. Strike a deal with another club and use them as a middle man for an agreed upon fee. Been done before and that isn’t against any rules.
Do that then. Do it with Chelsea, 10 million fee.
I am thinking that too. He will be signing as a free agent in this scenario. No rule breaking there.
I doubt Tobido has that kinda money.
I’d probably pick a more trustworthy team than those feckers.
We're experts at this kinda thing.
The release compensation can be arrange to be paid within certain number of months. Then there's the tax angle. Let's say he we pay him 40m signing on fee. That's taxable as income. His payment to Nice is not. So, we have to pay the tax portion to him as well to compensate.
I frankly doubt he's worth going through all this trouble when Chalobah is available
Multi club ownership shouldn’t exist at all, and I fully agree with UEFA looking at this in detail.
But it wouldn’t be hard to set a fair market price for the player and let us sign him.
£10m would be a piss take. £100m insane. Between those numbers is a sensible value that reflects his age, ability and contract situation.
Tribunals set fees for young players all the time. No reason it couldn’t work here.
But it wouldn’t be hard to set a fair market price for the player and let us sign him.
£10m would be a piss take. £100m insane. Between those numbers is a sensible value that reflects his age, ability and contract situation.
Tribunals set fees for young players all the time. No reason it couldn’t work here.
I suspect this isn’t the last we’ll hear of this and we’ll likely get our man after a long drawn out saga
He's a 24 year old french CB with a handful of international caps and 3 years left on his contract. The going rate for those is probably around the 40 million mark if you look at Upemacano, Saliba, Fofana (to Leicester), Konate, Kounde and Disasi in recent years.
Think he'll end up at Villa personally, hence why we're going in for Branthwaite and trying our hand at Yoro.
Hard not to agree with most of this. Apparently there are 'fair market value' rules in place in the EPL though, for situations like this? These aren't the same as UEFA 's rules stopping the Todibo transfer though I don't think.
In regards to City and the Savio transfer, apparently they're paying about £25m for him...that obviously isn't completely taking the piss, but after the season he just had for Girona he would cost at least double that for anyone else.
Good rule in principle, but since it doesn't affect other clubs in similar situations where the whole structure is based on multi-club ownership (City, Red Bull, etc.), it seems pointless...
Probably answered in another thread, but why can't we declare the ownership of Nice and United in a way that it doesn't affect this rule?
Probably answered in another thread, but why can't we declare the ownership of Nice and United in a way that it doesn't affect this rule?
Rules enforced for United as usual while everyone else has been taking the piss for years.
Are they though?
I am genuinely confused how RB Leipzig & RB Salzburg can both play in the same European competitions, and have so far traded about 20 players between themselves.
Apparently Red Bull have no influence in either club, despite them both being named RB...
The rules only apply to United.
All other clubs just exist to make up the numbers.
All other clubs just exist to make up the numbers.
RB clearly stands for RasenBallsportAre they though?
I am genuinely confused how RB Leipzig & RB Salzburg can both play in the same European competitions, and have so far traded about 20 players between themselves.
Apparently Red Bull have no influence in either club, despite them both being named RB...
But seriously, it's completely crazy that they only seem to care now
To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they've been exploring this. There were rumours INEOS were looking to sell their stake in Nice, which they've denied. I think they've had to do something weird so that we can both play in the Europa next season, but long term I reckon they'll try to find a way around it long term.
They all will.
Lausanne buys Todibo and we get him on loan with obligation to buy. Simples
Just stop trying to circumvent the rules, it's gross and I won't stand idly by while you try.
Red Cartel getting their own way again.
The rule will never be perfect for everyone, but in principle you can understand why it has been tweaked in the last year.
But in the case of Todibo it does seem a little unfair on him if he can't make a dream move from Nice to Manchester United.
The first thing that comes to mind is, could the footballing organisations not set a fair price or have to approve any deal. But then you open another grey area and it never ends...very tricky to know what's the best option.
But in the case of Todibo it does seem a little unfair on him if he can't make a dream move from Nice to Manchester United.
The first thing that comes to mind is, could the footballing organisations not set a fair price or have to approve any deal. But then you open another grey area and it never ends...very tricky to know what's the best option.
Is that true though, is it not just because we're in the same competition as Nice next year?
Whatever, it's a new rule anyway so as long as it's applied to City etc. going forward we can't claim we're being treated unfairly. It's annoying it's just being introduced now but it would be tin hat territory to say it's because of INEOS buying a stake in United.
I'd actually go further and say MCOs can't be in the same competition at all and INEOS/City Group/RB whoever should have to pick which club gets to compete in those situations, so we're lucky in that sense the rules aren't stricter.
You would have thought that the people at the top of Nice and United would be aware of this stumbling block before moving forward with the player at all.
Eurgh, another one...
What did I miss? Happy to be corrected with context.