Colos Short and Curlies Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 How can the premier league bring in a rule that dictates how clubs outside of their jurisdiction manage their squads? I get that its incoming loans but other clubs are having restrictions placed on where they can place their assets which feels wrong. Its basically something that can only be in place for January and would be thrown out of court if challenged Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 19 minutes ago, BlazeT44 said: Not that I'm arsed either way, but RE: the whole thing about the league vetoing our supposed move for Neves... Didn't Man City 'get away' with the exact same thing with Frank Lampard from NY... Or am I making this up? Difference is Lampard signed 8 months before their season started and then extended to cover the full PL season, there was some confusion as to whether he even signed for MLS or he signed a short term deal direct with City. Either way its a very different situation to us loaning a bloke from our owners and not paying their huge wages in full as a favour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 minute ago, ponsaelius said: Thing is if it wasn't for FFP, and then restrictions on 'fair market value' sponsorships, we wouldn't even be considering workarounds like loaning from other PIF clubs. Each thing leads to another. I get that there has to be some restrictions but it is mad that you have a governing body basically preventing private entities from investing their cash in their product. There should be a lot more scope within FFP for the costs to be offset over a longer period of time to allow initial investment. Man City and Chelsea were able to skip the queue and set themselves up nicely with valuable squads, feeder clubs and great academies before FFP was ever even a thing. This gives them such leeway to spend now in the age of FFP. It's systemically unfair. I would actually support a salary cap more than I would the current restrictions on player asset spending. Not only that but they are doing it to protect others who have got where they are by doing exactly that (when I say they I mean themselves as its certain clubs that hold the power). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Just now, Fezzle said: Difference is Lampard signed 8 months before their season started and then extended to cover the full PL season, there was some confusion as to whether he even signed for MLS or he signed a short term deal direct with City. Either way its a very different situation to us loaning a bloke from our owners and not paying their huge wages in full as a favour. Where was it mentioned we wouldn't pay the wages ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 minute ago, madras said: Where was it mentioned we wouldn't pay the wages ? Where was it mentioned we wouldnt pay any? Theres zero chance we will be paying Neves £300k or whatever hes on though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandy Man Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 minute ago, madras said: Big motivator ? Without our takeover these rules would not even be considered as they massively benefit certain clubs. It's second guessing other people's motivations, I think it is almost certainly down to us but football fans are conspiratorial creatures and what do I know. It's a sound rule for football as a whole and we can still be successful regardless, that's pretty much all there is to it for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 3 minutes ago, Fezzle said: Where was it mentioned we wouldnt pay any? Theres zero chance we will be paying Neves £300k or whatever hes on though For 6months with no fee ? Still less than we were considering for Lingaard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 (edited) The loan system has been fucked and abused for years, this is just the latest symptom. All it does is encourage player hoarding for those that can afford it. It need to be scrapped for any player you have paid a transfer fee for and reserved for academy/u21 player development. At a minimum all players should have a loan clause in there contract which any club can trigger when the player is available for loan. It would be a percentage of the players remaining contract and paid into a central game development pool. Clubs shouldn’t be able to have preferred or affiliated clubs eg Ferguson loaning to Peterborough and then recalling the players when his son got sacked Edited November 9, 2023 by geordie_b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 If he's on 300k, we won't be signing him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Just now, madras said: For 6months with no fee ? Still less than we were considering for Lingaard. No chance we were going to pay that fee though. Fair enough you think we would shatter our wage budget, i honestly cant see it and its totally irrelevant given it may get rightly blocked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 (edited) I’m not convinced we want anyone from Saudi anyway. And as we said in the summer, KSA will not prioritise us over the success of their own league when they’ve spent billions getting players there. Edited November 9, 2023 by AyeDubbleYoo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 3 minutes ago, Fezzle said: No chance we were going to pay that fee though. Fair enough you think we would shatter our wage budget, i honestly cant see it and its totally irrelevant given it may get rightly blocked I wouldn't have been surprised if we'd have gone for a bit less. Remember thus was before Ashworth etc when we were scrabbling round with people who didn't really know the workings of football transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 minute ago, madras said: I wouldn't have been surprised if we'd have gone for a bit less. Remember thus was before Ashworth etc when we were scrabbling round with people who didn't really know the workings of football transfers. We were never giving them £10m+ just for staying up on top of a loan fee like, thankfully they knew enough to walk away from that awful deal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlazeT44 Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 25 minutes ago, Fezzle said: Difference is Lampard signed 8 months before their season started and then extended to cover the full PL season, there was some confusion as to whether he even signed for MLS or he signed a short term deal direct with City. Either way its a very different situation to us loaning a bloke from our owners and not paying their huge wages in full as a favour. Thanks for the explanation. Couldn't remember the deal with Lampard and if it was similar Don't think we should go for Neves and give the media/other clubs an easy out. I'd laugh hard if we're just shaking the tree and laughing, as others suggested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
500bhp Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Cant see us challenging this rule change but we'll add it to the file alongside all the other stupid changes since the takeover. You pick the battles you really want to win. Something else will be proposed that really hurts and pissed off NUFC/PIF and then we'll wheel out the big legal guns and smash the fucking corrupt PL cartel. This new change id not it, but it will come! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 35 minutes ago, ponsaelius said: Thing is if it wasn't for FFP, and then restrictions on 'fair market value' sponsorships, we wouldn't even be considering workarounds like loaning from other PIF clubs. Each thing leads to another. I get that there has to be some restrictions but it is mad that you have a governing body basically preventing private entities from investing their cash in their product. There should be a lot more scope within FFP for the costs to be offset over a longer period of time to allow initial investment. Man City and Chelsea were able to skip the queue and set themselves up nicely with valuable squads, feeder clubs and great academies before FFP was ever even a thing. This gives them such leeway to spend now in the age of FFP. It's systemically unfair. I would actually support a salary cap more than I would the current restrictions on player asset spending. Salary caps will be linked to clubs incomes and we all know who benefits from that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallumG6 Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 32 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: I’m not convinced we want anyone from Saudi anyway. And as we said in the summer, KSA will not prioritise us over the success of their own league when they’ve spent billions getting players there. Toally agree. As good as Neves is as a player, I'm sure there are other targets that Ashworth and co have been keeping tabs on. Let's not give the other clubs ammunition for slagging either us, or our ownership off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandy Man Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, BlazeT44 said: Thanks for the explanation. Couldn't remember the deal with Lampard and if it was similar Don't think we should go for Neves and give the media/other clubs an easy out. I'd laugh hard if we're just shaking the tree and laughing, as others suggested. Definitely think there is an element of 3D chess with this tbh, highly doubt Ashworth would be explicitly and publicly calling out our intentions if we were actually going to persue a sweetheart deal from one of the other PIF owned clubs. If this is the case and such deals were never in our planning then there is an argument to be made that this ruling will more negatively impact some of our direct rivals who are further down the journey of leveraging relationships with other clubs. Edited November 9, 2023 by Dandy Man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Phillips is a no brainer for me. He fits Eddie's style, where as he's not the technical player Pep likes. He can also play 6 or 8, which is the versatility we look for. Give him a few weeks at Newcastle and he'd be an absolute asset to us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Can't wait till Neves has his contract mutually terminated and we sign him for free! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 52 minutes ago, Fezzle said: We were never giving them £10m+ just for staying up on top of a loan fee like, thankfully they knew enough to walk away from that awful deal That'd why I said bit less. Wouldn't have been surprised if we'd stumped up 6 or 7. Different club then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, madras said: That'd why I said bit less. Wouldn't have been surprised if we'd stumped up 6 or 7. Different club then. We signed Bruno about 2 days after we told them to fuck off Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Fezzle said: We signed Bruno about 2 days after we told them to fuck off We told them to fuck off because they wouldn't move from 10mill +. It wasn't an either/or Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 5 minutes ago, madras said: We told them to fuck off because they wouldn't move from 10mill +. It wasn't an either/or Seemed at the time we went for him for that exact reason to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now