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

ROFLUTION said:
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?)
Click to expand...

eventually yes. However rules are rules they are either there or they are not. That's why loopholes are so juicy

SJR is a multi club model fan and ideally he would love reason and common sense to prevail. From his POV there's nothing to gain out of a spat between INEOS and UEFA. All i am saying is that loopholes are there if one looks in detail enough and is determined to get what he wants. Whether that's the battle INEOS wants to fight in remains to be seen
 
Has anyone understood this ruling fully and can answer if United could just buy him and then not register him for the EL?
 
Sure we could be allowed to sign him and not register him for European competition can't we?
 
I'm sure there is a creative way to get him. For example let him buy out his contract and we give him the money through a shady Cayman entity or let him sell a hotel Chelsea style
 
devilish said:
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
Click to expand...

Whilst I'd love to get one over UEFA and their arbitrary application of the rules (e.g. City and RB groups), I'd wager that UEFA is likely to scrutinise any of our attempts to circumvent the rules (even if a technically legal method were used). Given they've made their stance clear on the matter, they would be more than happy to make an example of us.

I think I'd prefer us to look at other targets, as annoying as this may be.
 
izak said:
Sure we could be allowed to sign him and not register him for European competition can't we?
Click to expand...

United buying Todibo would be pretty clear proof of the two clubs not being run independently, not registrering him would not change that. In fact, it might make it even more obvious if anything.
 
Resch said:
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
Click to expand...

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that. Although I still stand by the fact that it’s fecking stupid you can just “sponsor” another club without technically owning them to get by the rules of transfers etc.
 
yet another Leipzig/Salzburg transfer today and nobody seems to care. But United/Nice is a problem? Give me a break.

 
duffer said:
All you you lot thinking up ways to circumvent the rules are no longer allowed to bash Chelsea for doing it. :lol:
Click to expand...

Or it’s at a point where it’s like.. feck it. They’re all getting ahead and making shite happen and it’s about time we do the same. Can’t play nice all the time.
 
Infestissumam said:
yet another Leipzig/Salzburg transfer today and nobody seems to care. But United/Nice is a problem? Give me a break.

Click to expand...


Does this have something to do with Salzburg still needing to progress through a qualifying round to make the UCL group stages? Seems unlikely, but this is a blatant contradiction.
 
Infestissumam said:
yet another Leipzig/Salzburg transfer today and nobody seems to care. But United/Nice is a problem? Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Ineos are officially and undeniably part owners of both Man United and Nice.

The two Red bull teams have fudged it so they are not owned (partly or fully) by the same company.

Of course it's a piss take but Ineos are not even trying to pretend they don't have a stake in both.
 
https://talksport.com/football/1339...play-europe-uefa-manchester-united-psg-qatar/

"Austrian drinks company Red Bull owned both teams up until this investigation when they were forced to make changes due to UEFA rules.
Salzburg chose to remove members of staff that were allegedly linked to Red Bull and their cooperation deal with Leipzig was ended with the sponsorship scaled back.
Once all of these changes were made, UEFA then accepted that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ that the clubs had a shared ownership and they were both allowed to compete in Europe".


There would have been various ways for INEOS to get around this, they could have created a unconsolidated subsidiary in the official ownership of either club ensuring that there's no cross-affiliation between stakeholders / board members.

It's a hard case for UEFA to argue from a legislative framework because subsidizing is distinctively separate from a parent and if done correctly the financials can be published within the subordinate with INEOS claiming a non-controlling status.

Then on the other hand, it's increasingly likely for marketing and brand perception purposes they would want the publicity of being associated with a prestigious premier league club. Being branded in the F1, United and Nice is a show of exuberance.
 
Last edited:
didz said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s banging our heads on the wall to suggest that Nice sell him to Lussane and they loan him to United. Very similar to what City did.
 
Escobar said:
I'm sure there is a creative way to get him. For example let him buy out his contract and we give him the money through a shady Cayman entity or let him sell a hotel Chelsea style
Click to expand...
There’s definitely a way round it - if we give him the money to pay up his deal then sign him on a free, say.

The problem I’ve got is, do we want to be engaging in shady shit like that? City are so far deep in that stuff it could cost them.
 
duffer said:
All you you lot thinking up ways to circumvent the rules are no longer allowed to bash Chelsea for doing it. :lol:
Click to expand...

Right? I'm surprised at how little it takes. Todibo would have been my first choice CB signing (such excellent value), but it's not as if there aren't plenty of good CB options. Just focus elsewhere.

I think the rule's a good one and we shouldn't try and circumvent it. Multi-club ownership shouldn't exist. Yes, it's frustrating that others have benefited from it previously... but they've only ever been marginal gains. Whatever shady situation the two red bull clubs are getting away with is the only systemic advantage I can think of. Others are just bits and bobs here and there.
 
Why have city been allowed to do it for years?? Too fishy.

I remember in the past there used to be feeder and parent clubs. We used Antwerp for youth players and I think had first option on some other clubs players etc.

Are those set ups no longer allowed?
 
berbasloth4 said:
Why have city been allowed to do it for years?? Too fishy.

I remember in the past there used to be feeder and parent clubs. We used Antwerp for youth players and I think had first option on some other clubs players etc.

Are those set ups no longer allowed?
Click to expand...

City have not been allowed to do this for years. Next year is the first year they'll potentially be competing in the same European tournament as one of the other clubs from City Group, and it has not been approved yet.
 
Signs of life maybe?



EXCL. INEOS wants to complete the transfer of Jean-Clair Todibo to Manchester United!
⚖️ The English company specializing in the chemicals sector is contesting the regulations put in place and has hired Swiss lawyer Gianpaolo Monteneri to plead before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in favor of the arrival of the defender #OGCNice at #MUFC … Wait&See.
Click to expand...
 
Surely just not registering him Europe solves it fairly quickly? Maybe they've got some other angle, must be some genuine belief they can win if they're bothering with a battle.
 
I would have thought that this would be classed as a related party transaction, and that it was case of satisfying regulators that the transfer fee represented fair market value.
 
Honestly don’t want it to happen, selling players to yourself just doesn’t sit right for me and we will get hammered
 
Judas said:
Surely just not registering him Europe solves it fairly quickly? Maybe they've got some other angle, must be some genuine belief they can win if they're bothering with a battle.
Click to expand...

Not a terrible workaround. Depends if Todibo would consent to that too though.
 
Judas said:
Surely just not registering him Europe solves it fairly quickly? Maybe they've got some other angle, must be some genuine belief they can win if they're bothering with a battle.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't change anything.
 
Judas said:
Surely just not registering him Europe solves it fairly quickly? Maybe they've got some other angle, must be some genuine belief they can win if they're bothering with a battle.
Click to expand...

That's a good point and I think we'd be wise to accept that as a rule for this season. I still think unless the club is seen as rejecting higher deals or the value is suspiciously low then these deals should be allowed.

You can't just flat out block a player from a potential employer.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Honestly don’t want it to happen, selling players to yourself just doesn’t sit right for me and we will get hammered
Click to expand...

If he is bought at fair market value €35-40m then I don’t think any club can complain. If we were doing dodgy dealings obviously paying under market, or doing weird swap deals on academy talents like Villa and Chelsea, then yeah. Even on the latter, if Chelsea and Villa can do it so blatantly then why the feck can’t we.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.