NUFC Transfer Rumours

[oldtype]

1 minute ago, healthyaddiction said:

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.

 

I feel pretty good about our ability to challenge the "big six" on the pitch without having to rely on dodgy loans from other clubs controlled by the sovereign state that owns us.

[andycap]

They must be worried because just say salah went to the Saudi league we could get him on the cheap or loan. Klopp will be bricking it. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

4 minutes ago, Elbel1 said:

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 

Just having a read and the Villa owners have 46% ownership in Portuguese club Vitoria

 

Palace owners have investments in a few clubs too

 

So I'd be surprised if it passes 

 

 

[ponsaelius]

8 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 think restricting it only one way (inwards to PL) is nonsense. It still encourages the multi club ownership model and farming players out. 

 

This has gone on for years now with clubs benefitting from this model. The timing of it, and the specifics of it, are so thinly veiled so as to a target one specific club and one specific threat/issue rather than the wider issue.

 

I would also say there is a major issue with allowing all other clubs to trade freely with the Saudi league sides, and pick up any unsettled players freely on subsidised deals (this is inevitable with some players going there IMO and the money they're on) while we banned from doing so. I don't see how that can stand from a competitiveness point of view.

[healthyaddiction]

10 minutes ago, oldtype said:

 

I feel pretty good about our ability to challenge the "big six" on the pitch without having to rely on dodgy loans from other clubs controlled by the sovereign state that owns us.

We've already taken various advantages from our owners though. Such as our various large PIF owned sponsors. But they're ever tightening the net and restricting what we can do. It's all about making a closed shop.

[KaKa]

Because of the calibre of players the Saudi clubs can sign and then potentially loan to us, this was always going to happen.

 

They can't stop us signing players outright though, and doing so on very favourable terms i.e. low initial payments with the rest spread out over a long term of years.

[SUPERTOON]

Man Utd will vote against it, they will want to do business with Nice. 

[FloydianMag]

I have a feeling Dan Ashworth in mentioning possible loans from Saudi clubs and now a meeting being held later this month is paving the way for legal action of some kind. After all we hired this guy last year.

 

https://www.nufcblog.com/2022/07/23/newcastle-hire-top-lawyer-to-vital-role-at-club/

 

Clubs are operating a cartel and I wonder if a case for legal action has been prepared.

[Jaqen]

2 minutes ago, KaKa said:

Because of the calibre of players the Saudi clubs can sign and then potentially loan to us, this was always going to happen.

 

They can't stop us signing players outright though, and doing so on very favourable terms i.e. low initial payments with the rest spread out over a long term of years.

 

FFP would stop that however the deal is structured though. I mean that's the only reason we'd even be considering loans as we aren't allowed to spend the money we have. 

[Conjo]

Another good rule that should have been in place 20 years ago. 

[Krabbe2]

If this will be adopted, will this mean that Newcastle will be the only club in the PL that cannot borrow a player from the 4 PIF clubs in Saudia?

[oldtype]

42 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

I think restricting it only one way (inwards to PL) is nonsense. It still encourages the multi club ownership model and farming players out. 

 

This has gone on for years now with clubs benefitting from this model. The timing of it, and the specifics of it, are so thinly veiled so as to a target one specific club and one specific threat/issue rather than the wider issue.

 

I would also say there is a major issue with allowing all other clubs to trade freely with the Saudi league sides, and pick up any unsettled players freely on subsidised deals (this is inevitable with some players going there IMO and the money they're on) while we banned from doing so. I don't see how that can stand from a competitiveness point of view.

 

I think it makes sense to restrict one-way. 

 

There is a qualitative difference, in my view, between farming out players to feeder clubs in foreign leagues, and bringing in players from affiliated teams in the Saudi League. The former is not a competitive balance issue for the Premier League, the latter very much is.

[oldtype]

3 minutes ago, Krabbe2 said:

If this will be adopted, will this mean that Newcastle will be the only club in the PL that cannot borrow a player from the 4 PIF clubs in Saudia?

 

Given that we are the only football club owned by the PIF, that seems eminently fair.

 

I also don't know the extent to which the other clubs in the Saudi Pro League are state-owned or affiliated, but if any are, we should be banned from transacting with them as well.

[Menace]

Red Bull have been doing this for yonks - it stinks that all of a sudden we're the issue.

[Geordie Ahmed]

14 minutes ago, oldtype said:

 

Given that we are the only football club owned by the PIF, that seems eminently fair.

 

I also don't know the extent to which the other clubs in the Saudi Pro League are state-owned or affiliated, but if any are, we should be banned from transacting with them as well.

Not sure how that is fair

 

So if Neves is unsettled and wants to come back to the Premier League, he can be loaned to Liverpool/ManU etc but not us?

[Whitley mag]

This will certainly be loans one way and not farming players out like Chelsea do. 

[ponsaelius]

20 minutes ago, oldtype said:

 

I think it makes sense to restrict one-way. 

 

There is a qualitative difference, in my view, between farming out players to feeder clubs in foreign leagues, and bringing in players from affiliated teams in the Saudi League. The former is not a competitive balance issue for the Premier League, the latter very much is.

 

I suppose if you accept that the PL doesn't care about ruining the competitive imbalance of other leagues and only gets involved when they want to protect their own closed shop, then yeah, it is sound logic.

 

Personally the whole model of multi club ownership and deals is crooked and should have been massively restricted across the board years ago - not just in one specific way when it threatens the big 6 clubs.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by ponsaelius

[Whitley mag]

52 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Man Utd will vote against it, they will want to do business with Nice. 

They might want to place a good South American kid there, but would they loan a player from Nice ? Not so sure, Chelsea don’t loan players from Strasbourg from what I’ve seen.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Whitley mag

[cubaricho]

3 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Not sure how that is fair

 

So if Neves is unsettled and wants to come back to the Premier League, he can be loaned to Liverpool/ManU etc but not us?

This is where the legal action will come into play if it gets to that level I’d imagine. 

[STM]

If we want Neves, we will just sign him permanently. 40m is fair market value.

[hakka]

On 06/11/2023 at 17:31, STM said:

Tonali (season)

Anderson (End of december)

Burn (start of January )

Murphy (February)

Targett (February)

Botman (unknown)

Manquillo (unknown)

Barnes (January earliest)

Isak (2 weeks)

 

I've never seen out like this. Nearly a full 11.

 

Surely this was common Ashley era other than Rafa days? - seem to remember we always badly handled fitness, overplayed certain players until they broke and rushed people back all the time etc.

[Danh1]

They’re terrified of us. 
 

They know they can’t stop us so they’re trying to delay us. 

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, STM said:

If we want Neves, we will just sign him permanently. 40m is fair market value.

Does FMV apply to transfer fees, I’m not sure it does. FMV is about inflated sponsorship deals, I don’t remember the Rice fee or Caicedo fee Chelsea paid going before the FMV panel.

[STM]

Just now, FloydianMag said:

Does FMV apply to transfer fees, I’m not sure it does. FMV is about inflated sponsorship deals, I don’t remember the Rice fee or Caicedo fee Chelsea paid going before the FMV panel.

We had to get our outgoing ASM sale ratified. Not sure it works the other way.

 

Regardless, we can find a deal if we want one.

[Geordie Ahmed]

4 minutes ago, hakka said:

 

Surely this was common Ashley era other than Rafa days? - seem to remember we always badly handled fitness, overplayed certain players until they broke and rushed people back all the time etc.

Might be talking rubbish but they were more muscle injuries whereas at least 5 of ours are impact injuries, just unfortunate 

 

And the muscle injuries (Isak and Targett) have hardly been players that have been overplayed