Jean-Clair Todibo | signs for West Ham on loan with option to buy

[bosskeano]

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.

introduced recently after allowing it for years but as soon as United get into that same scenario, a rule comes into play

I could understand if the same person/company owned two teams but i don't really see how someone who is an investor in another club falls into the shared partnership OR more importantly how being in the Europa league impacts being able to do a transfer

 

[diarm]

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?

Bremer, Inacio and Anselmino. Can also look at Silva, Diomande or Tabsoba.

It’s not like there’s a shortage of centre backs out there.

 

[duffer]

introduced recently after allowing it for years but as soon as United get into that same scenario, a rule comes into play

It's got nothing to do with that. The rule came in way before Sir Jim got involved at Man United.

 

[Rolaholic]

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?

De Ligt?

 

[bosskeano]

It's got nothing to do with that. The rule came in way before Sir Jim got involved at Man United.

ok...recently meaning prior to this investment and the start of the summer window

 

[duffer]

ok...recently meaning prior to this investment and the start of the summer window

Do you actually think the rule came in to stop Man United signing players from Nice?

 

[SAF is the GOAT]

Can we get Todibo in January if Nice or us get eliminated from EL ?

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

The Salzburg/Leipzig partnership is the one I don't really understand rules wise. City and their feeder clubs it's obvious how they circumvent.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

The question now is: Does Todibo just sit on his hands and wait until next window/next summer?

 

[Resch]

The Salzburg/Leipzig partnership is the one I don't really understand rules wise. City and their feeder clubs it's obvious how they circumvent.

Its a simple one, on paper Salzburg is a club not owned by Red Bull, Red Bull is "just" a sponsor. The club has only 125 members, most with strong ties to Red Bull. So it is controlled by Red Bull via money and influence.

 

[El-Manos]

INEOS coming across a bit disorganised here. Surely they would have figured this out months ago? Everton will be looking to pull our pants down after hearing this no doubt.

 

[And-R.E Onono]

Bremer, Inacio and Anselmino. Can also look at Silva, Diomande or Tabsoba.

It’s not like there’s a shortage of centre backs out there.

Wasn't Antonio Silva talked about as looking like the best defender of this up and coming generation?

Wonder where all the hype has gone, maybe it's due to price?

I agree though, a right footed CB doesn't seem that hard to get at the minute.

 

[The-Mezzala]

Wasn't Antonio Silva talked about as looking like the best defender of this up and coming generation?

Wonder where all the hype has gone, maybe it's due to price?

I agree though, a right footed CB doesn't seem that hard to get at the minute.

Yes, when the news broke about Todibo being off. I was thinking do we now target Silva or Diomonde. Not seen either. But both hyped on various football forums. Be interesting if any Portuguese fans could give info.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Its a simple one, on paper Salzburg is a club not owned by Red Bull, Red Bull is "just" a sponsor. The club has only 125 members, most with strong ties to Red Bull. So it is controlled by Red Bull via money and influence.

Got it, although it's fecking hilarious that a "sponsor" get's to literally be in the name of the club

 

[van Nistelrooy]

INEOS coming across a bit disorganised here. Surely they would have figured this out months ago? Everton will be looking to pull our pants down after hearing this no doubt.

To be fair, Nice were well on course for a Champions League place finish when they bought their stake in United and if it wasn't for our miracle against City, we wouldn't be playing in Europe at all.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

We need to come out fighting here.

If we want to sign the player, and the player wants to sign for United, agree the market value, pay the fair price, and get it fecking done.

 

[saik]

Got it, although it's fecking hilarious that a "sponsor" get's to literally be in the name of the club

And to add to that, RB Leipzig is technically RasenBallsport Leipzig. But we all know the intentions of having RB in the name .

 

[Marcus]

Can't we loan Todibo instead? But following season.

 

[Ikon]

Its a simple one, on paper Salzburg is a club not owned by Red Bull, Red Bull is "just" a sponsor. The club has only 125 members, most with strong ties to Red Bull. So it is controlled by Red Bull via money and influence.

But then couldn't it be argued that INEOS are not the owners of Manchester United, they are minority investors, with a stake of less than 30%...

 

[gajender]

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.

I don't like multi club ownership either , but this rule is exactly something suits would come up with to show they are doing something without actually doing anything .

 

[duffer]

I don't like multi club ownership either , but this rule is exactly something suits would come up with to show they are doing something without actually doing anything .

But it is doing something.

It's not doing everything of course.

 

[Bluelion7]

I do not see why the rules on players shouldn’t be the same as participation. Ineos has less than 30 percent in United, they are free to play in the same competition, so why not be allowed to set up the transfer. If they were scalping the player for one pound to United and carving out a team, that would be one thing. But it would be easy to stop that: you already have fair market value mechanisms in effect that can verify investments and sponsorships.

I will say… it is t a good look that Ratcliffe and Ineos were caught off guard by this. Did this fall under “footballing control”? Were the people in charge of catching this Glazer employees? How is a mix n match structure even set up?

Obviously the preference would be a total ouster of the pestilent Glazers.

 

[Crimson King]

I do not see why the rules on players shouldn’t be the same as participation. Ineos has less than 30 percent in United, they are free to play in the same competition, so why not be allowed to set up the transfer. If they were scalping the player for one pound to United and carving out a team, that would be one thing. But it would be easy to stop that: you already have fair market value mechanisms in effect that can verify investments and sponsorships.

I will say… it is t a good look that Ratcliffe and Ineos were caught off guard by this. Did this fall under “footballing control”? Were the people in charge of catching this Glazer employees? How is a mix n match structure even set up?

Obviously the preference would be a total ouster of the pestilent Glazers.

I think most people would agree that multi-club models are bad, and that shouldn't really be allowed. However, if they are, then this rule is pretty nonsensical, as you've said. Why can you trade players between the clubs and long as they're not in the same UEFA competition? It should either be not at all or allowed, as long as fair value is paid. The current rules basically encourage owners to make sure one club is kept at a lower level, which isn't really fair on that club.

As for your second paragraph, we don't really know. I think a negative view is the one you've suggested, which is what a lot of people are obviously running with. However, it's equally fair to suggest that they've always been aware of this, but some of these rules are either new or have been applied differently to different clubs. They've obviously been trying to find a way to make it happen, but have only just given up on it, which is why we're hearing about it now.

 

[Rojofiam]

Yes, when the news broke about Todibo being off. I was thinking do we now target Silva or Diomonde. Not seen either. But both hyped on various football forums. Be interesting if any Portuguese fans could give info.

Diomande is considered to be the bigger prospect, but probably a bit more raw. I'm not sure Silva has enough pace and aerial dominance, but I haven't seen him a lot.

 

[bosskeano]

It's got nothing to do with that. The rule came in way before Sir Jim got involved at Man United.

i'm not that daft to think that but it's been going on for a decent period of time and ironic that it comes into play just prior to Sir Jim investing in the club

 

[NotThatSoph]

But then couldn't it be argued that INEOS are not the owners of Manchester United, they are minority investors, with a stake of less than 30%...

You'd have to lie and say that Ratcliffe or others have no sporting control over United, which is a pretty difficult fraud to get away with considering he's been talking publicly about things he's doing and want to do.

 

[Jironasaurus]

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.

For sure they are going to exploit this as much as they can. Unfortunately, damage is already done. Also pretty sure the rules aren't gonna change to restrict them because... money.

 

[awop]

You should be happy this rule blocks you from getting him. He's not great and will be an expensive sub after a few months.

 

[Betson]

Not every day you see a post so impressively wrong on two counts.

You really think t is plausible to pull a stroke by getting third party to sign him and then we swoop in and get him off them ?

It is not without serous repercussions for us , some people here live in a fantasy world not the real world.

 

[diarm]

You really think t is plausible to pull a stroke by getting third party to sign him and then we swoop in and get him off them ?

It is not without serous repercussions for us , some people here live in a fantasy world not the real world.

No I agree with all that.

I was just impressed that you managed to get the club he plays for wrong, and then that you managed to spell the name of the wrong club wrong as well.

 

[Betson]

No I agree with all that.

I was just impressed that you managed to get the club he plays for wrong, and then that you managed to spell the name of the wrong club wrong as well.

So just semantics then and not the substance , whatever makes you feel good and superior .Some people need that for their self esteem.

 

[Sarni]

Got it, although it's fecking hilarious that a "sponsor" get's to literally be in the name of the club

It used to be quite common and still is in smaller leagues. There was a time when half the clubs in Poland’s top division had sponsor in their name.

Philips is also actually part of PSV name though clearly not obvious anymore.

 

[diarm]

So just semantics then and not the substance , whatever makes you feel good and superior .Some people need that for their self esteem.

Do you think you might be overreacting a little bit?

We're in a thread about the blocked transfer of a footballer from Nice - the club owned by our part owner. It's hardly semantics to refer to point Lille have nothing to do with it.

 

[Bluelion7]

I think most people would agree that multi-club models are bad, and that shouldn't really be allowed. However, if they are, then this rule is pretty nonsensical, as you've said. Why can you trade players between the clubs and long as they're not in the same UEFA competition? It should either be not at all or allowed, as long as fair value is paid. The current rules basically encourage owners to make sure one club is kept at a lower level, which isn't really fair on that club.

As for your second paragraph, we don't really know. I think a negative view is the one you've suggested, which is what a lot of people are obviously running with. However, it's equally fair to suggest that they've always been aware of this, but some of these rules are either new or have been applied differently to different clubs. They've obviously been trying to find a way to make it happen, but have only just given up on it, which is why we're hearing about it now.

Fair, I tend to take a negative view of anything the Glazers are involved in u til they are expunged, but that is just an assumption.

And , absolutely, if we are going to have multi club models any rule created should go towards incentivizing making ALL the teams in the model good and competitive.

 

[Resch]

Got it, although it's fecking hilarious that a "sponsor" get's to literally be in the name of the club

It is common in Austria. FC Salzburg aka FC Red Bull Salzburg aka SV Austria Salzburg aka SV Casino Salzburg aka SV Wüstenrot Salzburg aka SV Sparkasse Austria Salzburg aka SV Gerngroß Austria Salzburg aka TSV Austria Salzburg

 

[duffer]

It is common in Austria. FC Salzburg aka FC Red Bull Salzburg aka SV Austria Salzburg aka SV Casino Salzburg aka SV Wüstenrot Salzburg aka SV Sparkasse Austria Salzburg aka SV Gerngroß Austria Salzburg aka TSV Austria Salzburg

Salzburg changing their name more times than Puff Daddy.

 

[Sarni]

It is common in Austria. FC Salzburg aka FC Red Bull Salzburg aka SV Austria Salzburg aka SV Casino Salzburg aka SV Wüstenrot Salzburg aka SV Sparkasse Austria Salzburg aka SV Gerngroß Austria Salzburg aka TSV Austria Salzburg

We have had a few of them in Poland, most notably Amica Wronki (Amica is a major home appliance manufacturer) and Groclin Grodzisk Wielkopolski (Groclin being a manufacturer of car seats, they knocked out City in 2003-04 UEFA Cup) but also some of our major clubs like Legia Warsaw and Lech Poznan bore their sponsors name in early 2000s (Daewoo for Legia, Kreisel for Lech).

 

[devilish]

I mean for starters Lausanne can't buy Todibo as they can't afford a £40m player.

Spoiler

"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.

Have you ever heard of Simone Pafundi?

He's at Italian kid, age 18. The guy is thought to be a child prodigy having debuted with Italy first team at age 16. Lausanne had loaned him from Udinese with an option to buy for 15m euros.Now every man and his dog knows that Pafundi is destined for something bigger then Lausanne (either Nice or Manchester United) and that Lausanne hasn't spent 15m euros on a player in their history. Their record signing is Zeki Amdouni for 2.5m euros. Yet the deal was still made.


Now imagine if Lausanne put a 15m euros bid for Todibo but with a huge selling on fee. Then Lausanne loan Todibo to United on a 15m loan with an obligation to buy of 20m euros (a similar deal to the Amrabat one). We get the man, Lausanne had balanced the books and Nice gets 15m now and a big chunk of those 20m later on

 

[ROFLUTION]

Have you ever heard of Simone Pafundi?

He's at Italian kid, age 18. The guy is thought to be a child prodigy having debuted with Italy first team at age 16. Lausanne had loaned him from Udinese with an option to buy for 15m euros.Now every man and his dog knows that Pafundi is destined for something bigger then Lausanne (either Nice or Manchester United) and that Lausanne hasn't spent 15m euros on a player in their history. Their record signing is Zeki Amdouni for 2.5m euros. Yet the deal was still made.


Now imagine if Lausanne put a 15m euros bid for Todibo but with a huge selling on fee. Then Lausanne loan Todibo to United on a 15m loan with an obligation to buy of 20m euros (a similar deal to the Amrabat one). We get the man, Lausanne had balanced the books and Nice gets 15m now and a big chunk of those 20m later on

Surely workarounds like that will be found out? Like when Barca tried to circumvent the rules with an italian club (I think it was Barca?)

 

[Zaboot]

Surely workarounds like that will be found out? Like when Barca tried to circumvent the rules with an italian club (I think it was Barca?)

If the loophole isn't closed yet. Get it done. More than likely it is though.