Fair but anything skirting boundaries or taking the piss of said boundaries Chelsea will get in the mix.
Deivid Washington
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I find the Savinho one even more annoying because that's actively taking a player who is a 20 year Brazilian international winter who was just in the La Liga team of the season.
This is just as dodgy though, should all be banned.
This is just as dodgy though, should all be banned.
We're about to drop a fat wad of that cash on Sancho so be happy we do!
Yeah, I mean the only thing I’d say about Salzburg is that they are clearly running the club well. It’s a benefit for Leipzig that they are able to get the likes of Haaland and Sesko with less competition but at least Salzburg aren’t buy Leipzig cast offs for stupid money.
It has completely distorted the competition in the Austrian League though, so there’s negatives wherever you look.
Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. Any other year and we can do the deal. Just so happens that this year we're both in Europa.
So now Strasbourg are paying for our stupidity as well as yours.
There's so much stupid in football, everyone has to pay.
“You’re late with this month’s.”
Trickle down profligacy
Bit too much information, but okay.
It already is and has been for a while informally but there's definitely a risk of cementing a hierarchy of feeder clubs (if not leagues) on top of all the shady transfer dealings.
It will have to be addressed imminently because it's already off the rails. Probably not possible / no will to ban it outright but at least rigid regulations on putting clubs into blind trusts and maybe some regulatory negative incentives to dissuade transfers between clubs part of the same group. At least at the continental level (though it's already an international issue involving South American teams).
Axis Of Evil. Which one are youse?
I guess the only way it makes sense is if clubs want to put all their eggs in one basket. When two clubs qualify for the same competition they can shift their best players from Club A to Club B, writing off the chances of Club A but giving Club B the best possible chance of winning. Which fecks with the fairness in that particular competition. So that’s why they care.
That seems a bit far fetched.
And why would they need to be in the same competition to move players between the clubs?
They don’t need to be but that’s the only scenario where they’re not allowed. It’s an extreme example but the point is they don’t want a single owner to be able to simultaneously weaken and strengthen two clubs in the same competition with a single trade.
I don't see why they don't just ban it altogether. It's clearly a conflict of interest. It's just strange to me that you can't do a deal today but you can tomorrow.
All of your shut your filthy mouths, if this provides them the funds for Sancho, we should be thanking Todds one and two. Nothing to see here guys, everything is above board.
They should ban multi club ownership then this issue (and many others) goes away.
Well yeah I'd agree with that. I'm not comfortable with it being allowed either.
Yeah in fairness, before Boehly, Chelsea had a recent history of ownership that was very, very good for modern football.
Deals between sister clubs are supposed to be scrutinized with the whole "has to be fair market value". How is 21mil for an absolute nobody like this "fair value"? This just seems like Chelsea are filling their coffers more to help with PSR.
Seems like? That’s exactly what’s happening.
It's difficult to put a price on the development he would have made training on his own in Cobham this preseason.
Because they paid basically the same fee to buy him last year, much easier to argue that's fair value.
No, they significantly overpaid for him even before, like they have done with all their signings since Boehly took over. And he's done literally nothing to maintain his inflated value.
It’s not a profit at all. Chelsea paid £17 for him a year ago, and sold him for exactly the same amount now. It’s very dodgy of course but there was at least a base value for this player which is the amount Chelsea paid last summer.
Remember Watford signing Hassane Kamara for about £3.5m, then selling him to Udinese 7 months later for £17m and loan him straight back.
Weren't we blocked from buying Todibo because of multi-club ownership rules? What is the difference here? Genuine question, not sure if I'm missing something or the Todibo rumour was just BS?
What a player he was for those 28 minutes, though!
Here we are moaning about journos inflating transfer fees when they talk about what we paid for our signings and the Chelsea fans are moaning because they paid more and want us all to know it.
I’m not moaning about it ffs
We all just want the correct information reported though, right?
Deal has collapsed apparently.
Reports say the PL are unlikely to approve the deal, so Clearlake have scratched the transfer.
Reports say the PL are unlikely to approve the deal, so Clearlake have scratched the transfer.
Wow. Bin them off with City.
They need to come up with stringent rules for the multi club owners and they need to do it fast. I think banning any transfers between them is the only thing that makes sense.
He’s a beast for me on EAFC for Caen
Good.
Totally agree. I’d go one step further and ban multi-club ownerships altogether. It’s a scourge on the game and I despise it with a passion.