Jump to content

NUFC Transfer Rumours


Guest

Recommended Posts

Actually, thinking about it I think Ashworth spoke about it in public on purpose.

This will either do one of two things

1) There is a permanent ban. We don't have any loans so no issue and we'll just follow the rules. It's more problematic for City, Brighton Chelsea etc

2) There is no ban. Then we can benefit by getting players from Saudi to cover injuries etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Krabbe2 said:

Of the clubs that will vote against this, I can quickly come up with Newcastle, Brighton, Bournemoth and City.

 

Probably Forest as well.

 

Although the restriction only amounts to incoming loans not outgoing. Maybe some of these clubs won't mind that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy way to stop this is the PIF letting it be known that, if this goes through, they'll no long be interested in picking up players from the PL. Might make the likes of Man Utd & Liverpool reconsider when they suddenly lose the ability get 40+m for players who are well past it/they need to shift. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just a total ban then? That would then cut off that avenue for all clubs in the future including the likes of Liverpool etc and clubs looking at multi-club arrangements. No just a temporary ban a month before the transfer window opens……

 

I maintain that the ESL 5 (excluding Citeh) are boxing themselves into a corner trying to contain us, things like FFP are starting to affect them too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

There has to be legal challenges to this. The PL can't just carry on making new rules when and how they like. The timeframes they have their "meetings" are so blatent.

 

Guarantee Parish is pushing this hard too as he has a right agenda against us.

I agree 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're hilariously blatent. Since PIF came to the table we've had:

 

The takeover blocked for over a year 

A temporary ban on recruiting new sponsors 

The associated party transaction rule and "fair market value"

The loan deal block

 

Not only are they telling a private entity how it can make its money, they're trying to dictate how it can spend it. I wouldn't want us to loan a player from the Saudi league, but now I kind of want us to do it and challenge them in court, just to be cunts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I wouldn't want us to loan a player from the Saudi league, but now I kind of want us to do it and challenge them in court, just to be cunts.

This is exactly where I'm at with it. Fucking sick of these cunts moving the goalposts now that we're disrupting things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How will this affect salahs move to Saudi at the end of the season?

 

Anyway I'm not that arsed tbh. Could count on one hand the players I'd take from the Saudi league. And after half a season in a retirement home they'll probably take more than a month or 2 to catch up anyway

 

 

Edited by jack j

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn’t give a fuck, they’re just delaying the inevitable. I’d prefer us to dislodge them all while playing by the rules, will be far funnier and more satisfying. It’s hilarious watching them shit themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

For PL rule changes if 7 clubs vote against the rules can’t be changed, if I remember correctly?

Yeah, they need 14 clubs to vote for it to be passed

 

City, Brighton, Bournemouth, Chelsea and ourselves will likely to vote against it, would need 2 more clubs 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oldtype said:

Aside from the fact that it disadvantages us, is there any reason why this is a bad rule to have on substance?

I would say because it's a continuation of rules being put in place to stop any team from ever being able to challenge the "big 6" clubs. No club is ever going to organically grow to compete with them anymore and there is increasingly no way for owners to help clubs to challenge them. So it's just a closed shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Yeah, they need 14 clubs to vote for it to be passed

 

City, Brighton, Bournemouth, Chelsea and ourselves will likely to vote against it, would need 2 more clubs 

Possibly Everton with their 777 takeover in the pipeline also I seem to remember that Burnley voted against the 'Fair market value' stipulation but i may have imagined that 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...