It's not tricky. This is 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.
Jean-Clair Todibo | signs for West Ham on loan with option to buy
- Thread starter L1nk
- Start date
- Status
It's not tricky. This is 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.
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.
The objective should be to discourage multi club ownership.
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).
The Red Bulls are two unconnected clubs in the eyes of the footballing authorities.
It's ridiculous but that's why this rule doesn't impact them.
In order to avoid unfairness, yes.
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...
plus around 17 under 19 players since 2019
With Ratcliffe confirming it is against the rules for us to buy this player then this thread is done.
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.
This one is done.
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.
This one is done.
Why wouldn't it work?
Slightly annoyed at other clubs getting away with this but I do agree with the sentiment of the rule and trying to stop multi club ownership is a plus so I'm not too upset with it
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?
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?
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.
Can't we compromise with a deal to buy him but agree he can't play in Europa
It does seem like others can get away with all sorts. But that's probably not the case when examined.
And Man City is allowed to do that with Girona's Savio?
Think he is "owned" by Troyes and on loan at Girona. No?
Yeah I just checked it out. A bit of a work-around for CFG, since Troyes isn't in UCL.
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.
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
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.
It’s all a bit low rent and silly across the board.
I mean for starters Lausanne can't buy Todibo as they can't afford a £40m player.
"Oh it's fine, Nice can do them a discount, maybe even just give him for free."
No, because UEFA assess these deals to ensure fair market value has been achieved and they do this doubly so when the two clubs have ties.
"Fine, just give Lausanne the money. They'll get it back off United anyway."
No, because that involves making money magically appear in their accounts - more money than the club has ever seen. How do you suppose we do that?
"Inflate some sponsorship deals?"
Not allowed.
"Inheritance from a die-hard Lausanne fan we made up?"
Fraud.
"A wizard did it?"
Now your being silly.
"No I'm not, I just really want the player."
Tough. There are others.
"But other clubs get away with it!"
Yes, they do.
"So???"
So what?
"So why can't we get away with it?"
Because we are Manchester United:
Dreams (and Todibo) can't be buy.
No, because UEFA assess these deals to ensure fair market value has been achieved and they do this doubly so when the two clubs have ties.
"Fine, just give Lausanne the money. They'll get it back off United anyway."
No, because that involves making money magically appear in their accounts - more money than the club has ever seen. How do you suppose we do that?
"Inflate some sponsorship deals?"
Not allowed.
"Inheritance from a die-hard Lausanne fan we made up?"
Fraud.
"A wizard did it?"
Now your being silly.
"No I'm not, I just really want the player."
Tough. There are others.
"But other clubs get away with it!"
Yes, they do.
"So???"
So what?
"So why can't we get away with it?"
Because we are Manchester United:
Dreams (and Todibo) can't be buy.
Surely 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.
Theres about a million ways to get around this silly ban.
We've got to start acting more cut throat like the cfg.
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 that
Chelsea and city bent every single rule. But, united.....
Simple, Nice loans him out to Juve, Juve loans us Bremer, and they get Greenwood at cut price.
Corrupt cnuts at UEFA probably got a brown envelope from Abu Dhabi.
But there's precedent for this in Europe, Sesko has played for both RB clubs right?
This seems pretty pernicious of the league tbh. If we were owned outright by INEOS then I would kind of understand it, but they're a minority stakeholder.
This seems pretty pernicious of the league tbh. If we were owned outright by INEOS then I would kind of understand it, but they're a minority stakeholder.
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.
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.
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:
https://www.uefa.com/news-media/new...-decisions-on-multi-club-ownership-cases-for/
The rules:
• No club, either directly or indirectly, holds or deals in securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
• No club is a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
• No one has any power whatsoever or is simultaneously involved, directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition; and
• No one has control or decisive influence over more than one club in a UEFA club competition.
Some of the significant actions taken by the aforementioned clubs before UEFA would allow them to compete were:
• significant reduction of the investors’ shareholding in one of the clubs, or transfer of the effective control and decision making of one of the clubs to an independent party;
• significant restrictions in the ability to provide financing to more than one club;
• no representation on the board of directors and no capacity to directly appoint new directors on the board of more than one club;
• no ability to participate in the general assembly or ability to participate in key decisions such as the approval of the budgets of more than one club; and
• no ability to exercise control over more than one club at the level of the board of directors or their general assemblies through veto rights or contractual arrangements entered into with other shareholders.
Furthermore, as additional evidence of their independence, all concerned clubs accepted the following conditions:
• The clubs will not transfer players to each other, whether permanently or on loan, directly or indirectly, until September 2024;
• The clubs will not enter into any kind of cooperation, joint technical or commercial agreements; and
• The clubs will not use any joint scouting or player database.
Not anymore, they can't - at least not when they are in the same UEFA competition.
Why? Only doing what City have done with Salvio
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.
Anyway, this is becoming a bang-your-head-against-the-wall kind of thread, so I'm done with it.
Rules apply when it's Manchester United period.
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.
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.
Absolutely. And I don't blame Sir Jim for trying to do that.
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
RB did it with Sesko...City have been doing it for years with their ownership, PSG has done it with their ownership
it BS that they pick and choose when to act like a true federation when rules need to be enforced
yet 115 Charge City still keeps their hands clean
RB did it with Sesko...City have been doing it for years with their ownership, PSG has done it with their ownership
it BS that they pick and choose when to act like a true federation when rules need to be enforced
yet 115 Charge City still keeps their hands clean
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.
Not every day you see a post so impressively wrong on two counts.
So our 3 CB targets are Branthwaite, Todibo and Yoro, that much is clear according to the reports.
The first one wants to come but has a sky high price which we aren’t willing to pay.
The second one wants to come too but can’t sign due to multiple club ownership.
The third one wants to go to Real Madrid.
Where do we go from here lads?
The first one wants to come but has a sky high price which we aren’t willing to pay.
The second one wants to come too but can’t sign due to multiple club ownership.
The third one wants to go to Real Madrid.
Where do we go from here lads?
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.
Or alternatively just do exactly that with Lausanne instead to keep the profit within INEOS-owned clubs.
- Status