It would have been 60+ million for anyone else to buy Sávio. Anyone still arguing that they don’t have clear and unfair advantages is just being contrarian for the sake of it.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
So we can't buy Todibo but City can do this... fair.
It is of course very open to exploitation, but it's more of a FIFA thing than an UEFA thing to stop it.
So we can't buy Todibo but City can do this... fair.
Yes, it is completely fair that City can't buy from Girona or United from Nice, while at the same time competing in the same European competition. It would be great it City couldn't buy from Girona full stop, or United from Nice, or City from Troyes, or United from Lausanne, or if these sorts of ownership messes didn't exist at all, but it's a pretty separate issue.
Last edited:
There is no way Savio is only 20.
Don’t you mean Nice?
Oops.
And yet Leipzig and Salzburg are transferring players without any issues. UEFA absolutely has their share of fecking up here too.
Apart from it being the rules, I fail to see the distinction, really. Why should it matter if they are in the same European competition or not?
I get that it's a complicated issue, but certain clubs are really taking the piss with their multi club setups.
Savio is funnily enough the perfect example. Troyes a City Group team, while being in Ligue1, signs him and then without playing a competitive match they send him off to PSV Eindhoven on loan for the season. Again without playing a competitive match for Troyes, they loan him out to Giron which is also a City Group team, and after having a successful season in Spain, where he also got a call up for Brazil, they sell him to Manchester City for the odd €40mill.
Another funny one was when they were desperate to get rid of Mix Diskerud from New York City (City Group), and how he mysteriously changed clubs within the City Group and suddenly had his wages paid by Manchester City before being loaned out.
Because UEFA are in charge of regulating their tournaments, they are not in charge of regulating international transfers between clubs.
Which is pretty much the part i said about "it's the rules"
Leipzig and Salzburg have somehow convinced UEFA that they are completely independent clubs and not owned by the same entity.
it's our own mistake. Our owner should have just put on a fake moustache and called himself Tim Fatcliffe when he took over United and we'd have been golden.
Then what is the question? It is entirely fair that UEFA have rules for their competition, which leads to United not being able to buy players from Nice or City from Girona if they want to compete in the same UEFA tournaments.
That other rules, from other organizations, allow City to buy players from Troyes (or Girona), or United from Lausanne (or Nice), is a separate issue. That these rules are the way they are does not make UEFA's rules unfair. Nothing is stopping United from buying Todibo, just forfeit the Europa League spot.
I mean, the question is there, isn't it?
"Apart from it being the rules, I fail to see the distinction, really. Why should it matter if they are in the same European competition or not?"
It matters to UEFA, because that is what gives them authority to regulate.
I am responding to someone going "City can buy Savio from Troyes, but United can't buy Todibo from Nice. Unfair."
United can buy Todibo from Nice, just like City can buy Savio from Troyes. That is completely the same. United just can't do that and also play in the Europa League, because of completely separate UEFA rules that have nothing to do with the rules allowing City to buy Savio from Troyes or United to buy Todibo from Nice.
City are not being allowed to do something that is denied United. United are not being treated unfairly.
You're talking the long way round the porridge. It's the rules, we get it. You're essentially on repeat rather than discussing what i'm actually asking about, which is the interesting bit.
No, your question is just nonsensical.
How so?
Because if the question is why it matters to UEFA, the answer is obvious: they can only regulate their own competitions, so the only impact they can have on limiting clubs benefiting from shared ownership is if those clubs compete in UEFA's competitions. They (at least nominally) don't want clubs in their competitions to have an unfair advantage over other clubs based on shared ownership, so they have rules to limit that.
If the question is why it matters for the transfer itself, then the answer is also obvious: it doesn't, which is why these sorts of transfers are treated the same no matter what UEFA competition the clubs compete or don't compete in.
all these charges and they can still get away with this as well.....clearly that is a discounted price from within the City Group
Sources told ESPN that City have paid an initial transfer fee of €25 million ($27.3m), plus a potential €15m ($16.4m) in add-ons.
Sávio joins City from French side Troyes after loan spells at PSV Eindhoven and Girona.
Both Troyes and Girona are part of the City Football Group (CFG), which is headed by Manchester City.
Sources told ESPN that City have paid an initial transfer fee of €25 million ($27.3m), plus a potential €15m ($16.4m) in add-ons.
Sávio joins City from French side Troyes after loan spells at PSV Eindhoven and Girona.
Both Troyes and Girona are part of the City Football Group (CFG), which is headed by Manchester City.
I mean, the question is why it's relevant for transfers if both clubs happen to qualify for the CL or Europa League, but irrelevant if one is in the CL and the other is in the Europa League.
"It's the rules"
Most people will obviously understand why you can't have direct conflicts of interests in terms of effective control and decision making, given the implications it could have on competing in the same tournament and how results impact other teams in the same tournament
But why transfers, what's the logic behind the need to include transfers for evidence of independence.
I see some Bookies have them as low as 10/1 to be relegated, it’s strange to see such low odds
Odds are influenced by bets
Another great example how City "play by the rules" with this transfer. Put the player under a club owned by themself but will never play in the same tournament. They just plan it better than us with this easy loophole. We are fecked with Todibo.
Team Ineos need to learn fast from City. They have been doing this for more than a decade fecking around with PL, UEFA and whatnot.
Team Ineos need to learn fast from City. They have been doing this for more than a decade fecking around with PL, UEFA and whatnot.
Hopefully he’s shit
115Fc - joke of a “football club”
115Fc - joke of a “football club”
Savio has ‘dreamed of playing for City since he was a child’ 
A loophole is a way to get around the rules. City are not exploiting a loophole in this specific case, they're simply doing something that is allowed and is meant to be allowed.
Loopholes are also not relevant for the Todibo case. United wanted to do something against the rules, and considered trying to change the rules via lawsuits, just like City tried to do when they sued the Premier League.
How is this meant to be allowed?
How is it not? There are no rules against owning several clubs. There are no rules against two clubs with the same owners buying players from each other.
UEFA have some rules specific for their competitions, but those are not relevant for the Savio deal.
If there were rules against it, it wouldn't be a loophole. It would literally be against the rules. If you deny existence of the spirit of regulations, then the concept of a loophole becomes meaningless.
Unless I missed something, nobody here is claiming that this is against currently stated rules, but that the currently stated rules are a joke since the worst offenders can very easily circumvent all the restrictions and the club that is mostly affected is the one that is actively looking to sell one of the clubs in the multi club system.
There are no restrictions to circumvent, that's why it's not a loophole!
There literally are, what are you talking about. That's the only reason why a formerly second tier French club bought him, didn't use him at all and then sold him at a massively cut price to Man City.
Which rules are they circumventing?
I think it's more the fact he was signed for a club, loaned out to another club for experience and then transferred to another club all within the same ownership for below market value that's dodgy.
It may be within the rules but seems unethical
In Savio's example FFP is the most obvious one. They can take as many bets as they want on Troyes and get massively ahead since they only take the winning ones at a cut price at Man City.
Sure, and if there were rules against it that would be great.
Its like the Luciano Rodriguez deal this summer, he was supposed to be joining CFG's Girona but that fell through due to FFP and now he is signing for Bahia who are also a CFG club instead and Bahia can now loan him straight out to Girona.
Savio has ‘dreamed of playing for City since he was a child’
He saw the Aguero moment in his mothers womb evidently.
Those reports were incorrect. It is astounding how low the level of understanding and the ability to flesh out the truth of a story is in many modern “news” outlets.
With the hotels, Blueco22 couldn’t “buy” the hotels from Blueco22. That’s a myth. A shareholder that owns a percentage of Blueco22 purchased 100% of the hotels.
With the women’s team we were fielding offers through third party banks for investment in our women’s team. It wasn’t until they were told that wasn’t possible that they gathered more info and decided to act.
Women’s teams in the WSL are considered “property” of the men’s team. That’s why you can credit towards your PSR for women’s investment. It outside investment goes directly to the men.
Blueco then discovered that Lyon was the only women’s team emancipated from their men’s team, and they inquired as to what they needed to do to make that that happen.
On 5/29 Blueco announced that Chelsea women’s FC would have it’s ownership shifted from Chelsea FC to Blueco22; same as the men.
Chelsea men’s FC received nothing toward PSR for this. In fact, it takes away an ability to manipulate investment in the women’s team for additional PSR credits.
The Chelsea Womens FC then received the 11m. Investment stake in THEIR team. Doesn’t go to the men or their PSR at all. The valuation people were throwing around of 150m was the total valuation of just the women’s team for the purposes of determining what kind of stake the 11m would get the investor. This was handled by a third party as well, and actually seemed kind low for a figure derived for those purposes. Angel City women’s team in the US NWSL got a valuation of 144m for similar purposes, and they are nowhere near the brand of the Chelsea Women.
All I saw was actual news outlets spreading “Chelsea selling their women’s team to themselves for 150m and now we know how they made PSR on 6/30” ….. so lame.
I asked my 8 year old, without any hints, if Chelsea bought their own women’s team for a huge amount of money. He came up with pretty close to the exact right explanation with his computer and google in about 10 minutes.
Chelsea values its women’s team greatly. They have been making big moves to ensure they continue to excel, and to let people know that they aren’t just property or a PSR tool.
He probably did. When he was five they were already paying Mancini under the table so as he got older and they did more dodgy salary stuff with other folk he thought "I want some of that".Savio has ‘dreamed of playing for City since he was a child’
No matter how much you wash it, it was still a move to avoid PSR charges, and even you can't pretend it was otherwise.