NUFC Transfer Rumours

[hakka]

2 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

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 

 

I was more commenting on the "never seen it like this" for size of players out over causation.

[Geordie Ahmed]

5 minutes ago, hakka said:

 

I was more commenting on the "never seen it like this" for size of players out over causation.

Ah right, fair

 

I even recall under Souness we had loads of players out 

 

 

[Nobody]

For it to be remotely fair, it would have to be that no PL clubs can loan from a club that has related party ownership. Obviously that wont happen. 

[Kimbo]

I think this is a sensible rule change that should have been made a long time ago. It’s also pleasing that our takeover will have a positive affect on the premier league as a whole, rather than just Newcastle. People should be thanking us really, but their bitterness won’t allow it.

[midds]

It's hard to say it's a bad thing from a neutral point of view. The loaning back and forth from sister teams in different leagues should have been clamped or restricted a long time ago tbh, the Watford/Udinese link has been ridiculous. 

 

It's the obvious timing that's laughable. If we only had 2 or 3 out inured then it wouldn't have even been mentioned let alone voted upon. It's just an obvious knee-jerk reaction to idle speculation - "bet they just loan a few from the Saudi league. Just watch, bet you they do".........and then 2 weeks later it's an actual thing and being voted on because of the paranoia it's triggered around the boardrooms of the (fucking petrified) PL. It is what it is, difficult to argue against and will probably happen. Not sure how it'll work like - Company A owns Team A and Team B. Can Team A loan to team B? Can team B loan to team A? Who decides who is team A and Team B? 

[Hanshithispantz]

I like our players and I like how we're doing business. Getting taken over won't be fun for long if we start blatantly cheating 

 

Honestly speed running to glory would be shite, you need some resistance.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[FloydianMag]

I might be way off the mark, but I think that a legal case has been prepared by the club. It’s odd that Dan Ashworth mentioned in an interview last week that there was nothing in the rules to prevent a loan from a Saudi club. Within a week a PL meeting has been convened to try and introduce a temporary ban on loans happening. It certainly demonstrates that there are clubs willing to do anything to hinder our progress.

[madras]

I don't mind the loan rule in essence, or the FMV stuff. What's galling is that it's done mid season purely to try and stop us. Was the stopping of Chelseas tactic of 8yr contracts to stretch FFP done straight away ? No.

[MrRaspberryJam]

10 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

I like our players and I like how we're doing business. Getting taken over won't be fun for long if we start blatantly cheating 

 

Honestly speed running to glory would be shite, you need some resistance.

 

 

 

I just want to us take whatever route upsets everyone else the most. 

[Pokerprince2004]

Why is it a temporary ban as well and not a permanent one? Blatantly being rushed through to stop us signing anyone from Saudi in January

[Boey_Jarton]

12 minutes ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

Why is it a temporary ban as well and not a permanent one? Blatantly being rushed through to stop us signing anyone from Saudi in January

My original thought was that it is a temporary thing until they get some rules in place that say loans need to be at fair value. Although that has difficulty as fair value is impossible to assess, particularly with loans when it can be about reducing wage bills or getting people game time. 

 

I cannot imagine it would be legal to have a permanent restriction on two entities (connected or otherwise) entering into a transaction on a basis that could be proved to represent 'arms length' value.  

[relámpago blanco]

3 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

My original thought was that it is a temporary thing until they get some rules in place that say loans need to be at fair value. Although that has difficulty as fair value is impossible to assess, particularly with loans when it can be about reducing wage bills or getting people game time. 

 

I cannot imagine it would be legal to have a permanent restriction on two entities (connected or otherwise) entering into a transaction on a basis that could be proved to represent 'arms length' value.  

I'd be quite happy to pay what Tonali is on per week for Neves based on the fact we wont be paying Tonali's wages.  We could probably do with ASM back though, Neymar andFirminho would be good to bulk out the squad as well.

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, relámpago blanco said:

I'd be quite happy to pay what Tonali is on per week for Neves based on the fact we wont be paying Tonali's wages.  We could probably do with ASM back though, Neymar andFirminho would be good to bulk out the squad as well.

Neymar is out for the season at least.

[Elric]

33 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

I just want to us take whatever route upsets everyone else the most. 

 

This. The league (or, rather, the super League 6) have tried to impede us at every turn. We've won nothing and opposition fans are already acting the cunt. Fuck 'em all, do whatever is in our power to reinforce. Anything that may give Klopp/Arteta an aneurysm is a bonus. 

[kingxlnc]

Forest and Olympiakos are affiliated and have done lots of transfers between them the past few windows. They’d vote against it too.

[et tu brute]

Take the fuckers to court. Any 'loan' ban introduced is a blatant disregard of restraint of trade. 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by et tu brute

[Conjo]

Ban all loans, and ban transfers between associated party clubs.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Ban all loans, and ban transfers between associated party clubs.

So we send Hall back to Chelsea?

[r0cafella]

A lot of people are missing the point here. The change is temporary with the sole purpose to prevent us from loaning players from Saudi. 
 

it will pass and we will accept it like we have with all the other bullshit the league has pulled. 

[Conjo]

12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

So we send Hall back to Chelsea?

 

It's a pipe dream so not sure it's even worth discussing tbh  Obviously all active loans should be allowed to run its course.

[DoricGinola]

2 hours ago, Nobody said:

For it to be remotely fair, it would have to be that no PL clubs can loan from a club that has related party ownership. Obviously that wont happen. 

Also should cover loaning players out as well as in - saving wages in FFP by sending players on loan to teams in the same party ownership. Blanket ban for it to be fair

[sushimonster85]

10 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

A lot of people are missing the point here. The change is temporary with the sole purpose to prevent us from loaning players from Saudi. 
 

it will pass and we will accept it like we have with all the other bullshit the league has pulled. 

 

If the rule change does go through what exactly do suggest we do. Any legal appeal would go on way past Jan anyway. Already mentioned it on the previous page, the most effective way of killing this is PIF making it clear that, if this passes, they won't be chucking anymore huge sums at clubs for the aging players they want off the books.

 

This would fuck over Man U especially, as Saudi is the only hope they have of getting a big fee for Casemiro. Or potentially even Sancho. 

[duo]

30 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Ban all loans, and ban transfers between associated party clubs.

Just ban everything - home grown players only. sorted.

[Mattoon]

Whatever we do, however we climb the league, however long it takes, opposition fans will always say we bought/cheated our way there no matter the circumstances. So who cares about taking the path of least resistance? Let's find every and any loophole we can to cause maximum drama and fume, couldn't care less at this point.

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said:

 

If the rule change does go through what exactly do suggest we do. Any legal appeal would go on way past Jan anyway. Already mentioned it on the previous page, the most effective way of killing this is PIF making it clear that, if this passes, they won't be chucking anymore huge sums at clubs for the aging players they want off the books.

 

This would fuck over Man U especially, as Saudi is the only hope they have of getting a big fee for Casemiro. Or potentially even Sancho. 

We sue the league which is what we should have been doing from the start, since BEFORE our takeover the league has been creating rules which make the league less competitive to our detriment and we’ve just nodded along and played nice. What has that gotten us? More rules solely designed to slow our progress. 
 

How does not loaning players from related parties hurt any other team?