It's not tricky. This is the best option:tricky to know what's the best option.
No sales or loans between clubs where there are shared owners, ever, under any circumstances.
Multi club ownership should be outlawed completely.
It's not tricky. This is the best option:tricky to know what's the best option.
I'm starting to worry that people are suggesting this seriously and not as a joke. There are a number of extremely obvious reasons why that wouldn't work.Lausanne buys Todibo and we get him on loan with obligation to buy. Simples
The objective should be to discourage multi club ownership.So both the club and player are forced into a disadvantage when the objective should be a level playing field.
RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig were playing each other in the group stages of the Europa League a few years back, but it could be that the rules were not in place back then.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.
The Red Bulls are two unconnected clubs in the eyes of the footballing authorities.RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig were playing each other in the group stages of the Europa League a few years back, but it could be that the rules were not in place back then.
Either way, if the rules apply to all in the future, then it's obviously a good thing.
This seems a bit of a special case, though, as the owner recently changed and INEOS is trying to sell their ownership of Nice (IF that's the case).
In order to avoid unfairness, yes.The objective should be to discourage multi club ownership.
plus around 17 under 19 players since 2019Are 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...![]()
Why wouldn't it work?I'm starting to worry that people are suggesting this seriously and not as a joke. There are a number of extremely obvious reasons why that wouldn't work.
Anyway, I get the rule in principle, but it does seem unfair that if a PL rival bids £40m or whatever, we aren't allowed to match the offer. So both the club and player are forced into a disadvantage when the objective should be a level playing field.
If UEFA deem us 'seperate entities' and clear us to both play in the Europa then are they saying we're actually not seperate entities if a transfer is made between the two seperate clubs with seperate boards?Article Five of UEFA’s rulebook states that no individual or legal entity can have “control or influence” over more than one club participating in a UEFA competition, and European football’s governing body must be satisfied that United and Nice are separate entities to maintain their competition’s integrity.
Yeah this is a fair point. Separate enough to both play in the same competition, but not to make a transfer of a player who in theory, may not even play in Europe for us? We could just leave him out of the squad for example, not that we would, but we could.I think it's just petty.
If UEFA deem us 'seperate entities' and clear us to both play in the Europa then are they saying we're actually not seperate entities if a transfer is made between the two seperate clubs with seperate boards?
Think he is "owned" by Troyes and on loan at Girona. No?And Man City is allowed to do that with Girona's Savio?
Yeah I just checked it out. A bit of a work-around for CFG, since Troyes isn't in UCL.Think he is "owned" by Troyes and on loan at Girona. No?
The likes of city and Chelsea will be planning like this for all of their South American imports going forward you would think. Probably gobbling up more clubs to help with different loopholes. The whole multi-club thing should have been nipped in the bud years ago.Yeah I just checked it out. A bit of a work-around for CFG, since Troyes isn't in UCL.
Aye, I should have also added that payment structures should reflect current market conditions too. Obviously we couldn’t buy him with a ten year payment plan or whatever.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.
I mean for starters Lausanne can't buy Todibo as they can't afford a £40m player.Why wouldn't it work?
That would be pretty brazen! Not to mention a lot of work for whatever club we employ to do this. Not sure who would want to help us out like thatSurely we could find a 3rd club that would buy him and then loan him to us for a year with an obligation to buy at the end.
Theres about a million ways to get around this silly ban.
We've got to start acting more cut throat like the cfg.
Agreed but that genie is out of the bottle now and Ineos should have been smart enough to see this coming. The pragmatist in me makes me think that this is not going to change and UTD and Ineos are a big and bad enough to make the most of it.The likes of city and Chelsea will be planning like this for all of their South American imports going forward you would think. Probably gobbling up more clubs to help with different loopholes. The whole multi-club thing should have been nipped in the bud years ago.
yes but Ineos should know this and be ready but in fairness they are just in the door. I would expect Berrada to be streetwise enough to work on the City , Chelsea level that we need to be at to compete.Chelsea and city bent every single rule. But, united.....
Part of the process of convincing UEFA that United and Nice are separate entities, will include both clubs agreeing not to transfer any players between themselves (whether permanently or on loan) for a given period of time (likely to be until at least September 2025). This was precisely what Aston Villa FC & Vitória Sport Clube; Brighton & Royal Union Saint-Gilloise; and AC Milan & Toulouse FC were forced to do 12 months ago:I think it's just petty.
If UEFA deem us 'seperate entities' and clear us to both play in the Europa then are they saying we're actually not seperate entities if a transfer is made between the two seperate clubs with seperate boards?
Not anymore, they can't - at least not when they are in the same UEFA competition.The one that doesn't make sense is how Salzburg/Leipzig manage it as they're often in the same competition and always make transfers among each other
Why? Only doing what City have done with SalvioI'm starting to worry that people are suggesting this seriously and not as a joke. There are a number of extremely obvious reasons why that wouldn't work.
Anyway, I get the rule in principle, but it does seem unfair that if a PL rival bids £40m or whatever, we aren't allowed to match the offer. So both the club and player are forced into a disadvantage when the objective should be a level playing field.
It's been explained many times that his registration is owned by Troyes who aren't in any European competition, much less the same one.Why? Only doing what City have done with Salvio
Yea, the toothpaste is out of the tube now. Was really just moaning about the powers that govern the game tinkering around the edges of the issue now instead of tackling it when it needed to be addressed.Agreed but that genie is out of the bottle now and Ineos should have been smart enough to see this coming. The pragmatist in me makes me think that this is not going to change and UTD and Ineos are a big and bad enough to make the most of it.
Then fecking ban it. I agree that it's bullshit and never should be allowed in the first place, but as of now we should be perfectly willing to take advantage. We don't get extra points for having good sportsmanship.The objective should be to discourage multi club ownership.
Absolutely. And I don't blame Sir Jim for trying to do that.Then fecking ban it. I agree that it's bullshit and never should be allowed in the first place, but as of now we should be perfectly willing to take advantage. We don't get extra points for having good sportsmanship.
There is a specific rule about selling or loaning to shared ownership if you are in the same comp. It was introduced recently. Fair value is irrelevant to the current rule, you just can't do it.unless there is a specific rule in place about shared ownership and not being allowed to sell players for proper market value.....we are being bent over and railed by a telephone pole
Not every day you see a post so impressively wrong on two counts.Talk of circumventing the rules by laundering him through a 3rd party etc is very naive and would only end up with severe punishments for us and Lile.
We should do a dodgy deal with a team like Everton struggling with PSR by selling him to them for £30m with an exclusive release clause at let’s say £35m and buying him straight away. Can use that as makeweight in the Branthwaite conversations possibly.INEOS better bend the rules for this one. Sick of watching Chelsea and City do it nobody does anything about it