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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Judas said:
Wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

No. The point of that rule is that it shows the clubs aren't being run independently. Not registrering him for Europe doesn't change that. In fact, it's a naked (and poor) attempt to circumvent the rules, and if anything it's just more evidence of the clubs not being independent.
Smores said:
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.
Click to expand...

UEFA are not actually blocking the transfer. They're saying that if the transfer happens, United and Nice will not be able to compete in the same tournament.

daba said:
It might not by UEFAs rules but that’s not to say we can’t negotiate something like that.
Click to expand...

Not much room for negotiation. "Hey, can we please break the rules?"
 
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...
daba said:
Not a terrible workaround. Depends if Todibo would consent to that too though.
Click to expand...
Smores said:
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.
Click to expand...

The rulings have been very specific. Not transferring or loaning any player, directly or indirectly, regardless of which competitions they are registered for, has been a specific requirement of every other agreement previously which allowed clubs with the same owners to compete in the same European competitions.
 
GDaly95 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep. Should just be hiring a third party appraiser to sign off valuation and everyone can get this done, like how affiliate transaction are treated in the corporate world every day. But that’s far too logical for UEFA.
 
The inbox for all the football federations is going to be full of all these court cases and counter court cases. How they will all get resolved in a timely manner is anyone's guess.

If the story is true of course.
 
There is no way this matter is going to end 1.5 months from now, that thing is going to be dragged out for the whole summer

 
ATXRedDevil said:
Yep. Should just be hiring a third party appraiser to sign off valuation and everyone can get this done, like how affiliate transaction are treated in the corporate world every day. But that’s far too logical for UEFA.
Click to expand...

They should just not be allowed to own 2 clubs at once at all. That would solve that one.
 
I'd rather we not do this. It's already been made a big issue as we are involved in it and we seem intent on making it a bigger issue. Nothing good can come out it. I just wish we don't get ourselves involved in any shady shit or try to find loopholes like other clubs.
 
saik said:
I'd rather we not do this. It's already been made a big issue as we are involved in it and we seem intent on making it a bigger issue. Nothing good can come out it. I just wish we don't get ourselves involved in any shady shit or try to find loopholes like other clubs.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t need to be dodgy though, we could allow a tribunal to decide the fair cost of the transfer.
 
What many of you forget is that, this isn't merely about owning two clubs. It's the fact that UEFA can stop a player, an employee from joining a club, a place of work of his own choosing. INEOS aren't merely sending a player from one club they own to another, the two clubs are transacting for a player that one club wants. If United are willing to pay 30m and Spurs are willing to pay 30m for example, what is the difference to UEFA? The player wants United and should be allowed that option. That's what INEOS will be fighting at the courts and I think it will be successful but there'll be a few adjustments to the structure and clarifications made clear before anything but I see nothing wrong with appealing this. Before it was made clear that UEFA had a problem with it all of you wanted Todibo and even Thuram too but now we should just sit back and watch others get them?
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Doesn’t need to be dodgy though, we could allow a tribunal to decide the fair cost of the transfer.
Click to expand...
The rules are pretty clear around it though. Unless we accept to be disqualified from playing in the EL next season, I don't see how this goes through. Anything else is literally trying to find loopholes in the rules.

Imagine the furor if this transfer goes through after all this. You just know it's going to be mentioned everytime he plays for us. I don't want these kind of stuff hanging around players heads.
 
mikeyt said:
And yet some clubs find ways around them consistently
Click to expand...
Apparently the new rules only came into effect last year so I don't know if there were any transfers between two clubs owned by the same owner playing in the same European competition. I just wish we don't get ourselves involved in trying to find loopholes to game the system.
 
saik said:
I'd rather we not do this. It's already been made a big issue as we are involved in it and we seem intent on making it a bigger issue. Nothing good can come out it. I just wish we don't get ourselves involved in any shady shit or try to find loopholes like other clubs.
Click to expand...
Obviously we shouldn't do anything illegal and against the rules. However trying to contest / work round the rules in a way that UEFA accept the transfer as many teams are benefitting from seems necessary if we're not going to fall further behind.

We can't keep on trying to overcome things like the United Tax, double standards in the media reporting, winning the 'moral' victory while others win the major trophies, etc.

We absolutely shouldn't do anything dodgy or illegal that might deservedly lead to punishment. But we also need to fight our corner more. It's tough to win competitive sport - especially in a ruthless, multi-billionaire business like modern Football - by being the nice guys and taking the moral high ground.
 
saik said:
Apparently the new rules only came into effect last year so I don't know if there were any transfers between two clubs owned by the same owner playing in the same European competition. I just wish we don't get ourselves involved in trying to find loopholes to game the system.
Click to expand...
Where's the fun in that?
 
TwoSheds said:
They should just not be allowed to own 2 clubs at once at all. That would solve that one.
Click to expand...

This isn’t a direct response to your post.

But does Sir Jim own both clubs? at best it’s a 3rd of United.

I know people jump on the Red Bull group of clubs. But I wonder how many business people have shares in more than one club.

What is the percentage number before it gets too much etc.
 
RuudTom83 said:
This isn’t a direct response to your post.

But does Sir Jim own both clubs? at best it’s a 3rd of United.

I know people jump on the Red Bull group of clubs. But I wonder how many business people have shares in more than one club.

What is the percentage number before it gets too much etc.
Click to expand...

Any. Keep it simple. You don't need to own shares in other clubs, you can sell them before completing any new purchase.
 
TwoSheds said:
They should just not be allowed to own 2 clubs at once at all. That would solve that one.
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily disagree, but here we are. In a world where there is multi club ownership, independent appraisals of market value are the obviously solution. Only party really losing here is the player. If one club is paying the other FMV, it really shouldn’t matter if one person or group owns both.
 
Surely there can be an arbitrator of some sort just to oversee the deal to make sure its 'market value'
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Obviously we shouldn't do anything illegal and against the rules. However trying to contest / work round the rules in a way that UEFA accept the transfer as many teams are benefitting from seems necessary if we're not going to fall further behind.

We can't keep on trying to overcome things like the United Tax, double standards in the media reporting, winning the 'moral' victory while others win the major trophies, etc.

We absolutely shouldn't do anything dodgy or illegal that might deservedly lead to punishment. But we also need to fight our corner more. It's tough to win competitive sport - especially in a ruthless, multi-billionaire business like modern Football - by being the nice guys and taking the moral high ground.
Click to expand...
How do you see this going ? As it stands, if we were to successfully fight against these rules there are clubs like Chelsea and City who stand to gain more from this than us as they have a multi club setup already. And these rules were put in to combat that. It's not like we have a sister club in every continent like City do to funnel talent to them.

All this multi club ownership doesn't sit right with me. We might as well be just another City if we didn't want to be the nice guys.
 
saik said:
How do you see this going ? As it stands, if we were to successfully fight against these rules there are clubs like Chelsea and City who stand to gain more from this than us as they have a multi club setup already. And these rules were put in to combat that. It's not like we have a sister club in every continent like City do to funnel talent to them.

All this multi club ownership doesn't sit right with me. We might as well be just another City if we didn't want to be the nice guys.
Click to expand...
As regards the last sentence, I'd say there's a big gap between 'being City' and being 'the nice guys'. Just because we shouldn't illegally break the rules like City and their 115 charges, doesn't mean we have to go fully to the other extreme and lie down and take whatever is thrown at us - or refuse to take advantage of what we legally can do.

Teams like Brentford and Brighton have multiple club set up. As do Watford with Udinese and Granada. And many more. It isn't just City and Chelsea and now us. Brentford and Brighton get raved about for their set up model - and never get seen as 'the bad guys'. Or maybe it's just the size of club, and people are fine with smaller clubs benefitting but hate the idea of wealthy clubs like us, City and Chelsea gaining a further advantage?

Personally, I never thought multi club ownership should be allowed. For me it's always seemed like money laundering (a way of getting round FFP rules) and creates conflicts of interest. However, as it's not only been deemed legal but has continued to grow, then I don't think we should handicap ourselves by refusing to benefit from it when we legally can.

There's plenty of football laws I don't agree with - the stuttering penalty run up, goals disallowed for unintentional handball in build up, etc - but doesn't mean I won't be bloody annoyed if we're not allowed to benefit from them when others are. If there was a vote for banning multi-club ownership, I'd have always voted to do so and would still. But for as long as other teams are legally allowed to do it and benefit from it then I hope we can to, as we're already playing catch up on so many things and this is one way to help with that.
 
Just out of interest if, say, Villa put an offer in and Utd put in an increased offer above this that Villa refused to meet, would that not just be the market process playing out?
 
Bertie Wooster said:
As regards the last sentence, I'd say there's a big gap between 'being City' and being 'the nice guys'. Just because we shouldn't illegally break the rules like City and their 115 charges, doesn't mean we have to go fully to the other extreme and lie down and take whatever is thrown at us - or refuse to take advantage of what we legally can do.

Teams like Brentford and Brighton have multiple club set up. As do Watford with Udinese and Granada. And many more. It isn't just City and Chelsea and now us. Brentford and Brighton get raved about for their set up model - and never get seen as 'the bad guys'. Or maybe it's just the size of club, and people are fine with smaller clubs benefitting but hate the idea of wealthy clubs like us, City and Chelsea gaining a further advantage?

Personally, I never thought multi club ownership should be allowed. For me it's always seemed like money laundering (a way of getting round FFP rules) and creates conflicts of interest. However, as it's not only been deemed legal but has continued to grow, then I don't think we should handicap ourselves by refusing to benefit from it when we legally can.

There's plenty of football laws I don't agree with - the stuttering penalty run up, goals disallowed for unintentional handball in build up, etc - but doesn't mean I won't be bloody annoyed if we're not allowed to benefit from them when others are. If there was a vote for banning multi-club ownership, I'd have always voted to do so and would still. But for as long as other teams are legally allowed to do it and benefit from it then I hope we can to, as we're already playing catch up on so many things and this is one way to help with that.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I do acknowledge there's a big gap between "being City" and "being nice guys" but I just feel so ambivalent about all of this. Not sure this multi club ownership is the direction I want us to be going in just because a lot of other clubs are doing it.
 
It happens between companies / cooperations all the time. As long as it is fair value, it is never an issue. And that should be the case here too
 
Brightonian said:
The rulings have been very specific. Not transferring or loaning any player, directly or indirectly, regardless of which competitions they are registered for, has been a specific requirement of every other agreement previously which allowed clubs with the same owners to compete in the same European competitions.
Click to expand...

So if United and Nice weren't in the same competition this year, there'd be no problem?

That's a total farce.
 
RuudTom83 said:
This isn’t a direct response to your post.

But does Sir Jim own both clubs? at best it’s a 3rd of United.

I know people jump on the Red Bull group of clubs. But I wonder how many business people have shares in more than one club.

What is the percentage number before it gets too much etc.
Click to expand...

I think it was 25% so Jim is just scraping over the threshold.
 
makes me wonder though why other big clubs aren't showing interest in him? typically if United are heavily linked iwth a player one of the other bigger clubs will be as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.