| Complete farce. on 18:56 - Nov 21 with 3538 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
"The ban was proposed as a temporary measure until a concrete solution could be agreed before the summer transfer window."
I guess they will have to find that concrete solution a bit more urgently. Clearly a majority of clubs think they will benefit from using this. |  |
|  |
| Complete farce. on 18:59 - Nov 21 with 3525 views | Zx1988 |
| Complete farce. on 18:56 - Nov 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
"The ban was proposed as a temporary measure until a concrete solution could be agreed before the summer transfer window."
I guess they will have to find that concrete solution a bit more urgently. Clearly a majority of clubs think they will benefit from using this. |
It's got to be a MASSIVE FFP loophole, unless the devil is in the details?
PIF-owned Saudi club pays top-dollar for a player, and gives them a crazy contract. What's to stop them then loaning said player to Newcastle for free, and agreeing to continue paying 95% of their wages? |  |
| |
| Complete farce. on 19:03 - Nov 21 with 3496 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Complete farce. on 18:59 - Nov 21 by Zx1988 |
It's got to be a MASSIVE FFP loophole, unless the devil is in the details?
PIF-owned Saudi club pays top-dollar for a player, and gives them a crazy contract. What's to stop them then loaning said player to Newcastle for free, and agreeing to continue paying 95% of their wages? |
I am sure it is. I would suggest some rule that includes more than just the percentage of wages being paid by the loaning club. Then again, if FFP is meant to protect the viability of the club and the loan isn't going to cost the club, is it really an FFP issue?
The intriguing thing is why a majority of clubs think they would benefit from this. | |
| |
| Complete farce. on 19:04 - Nov 21 with 3492 views | MK1 |
| Complete farce. on 18:59 - Nov 21 by Zx1988 |
It's got to be a MASSIVE FFP loophole, unless the devil is in the details?
PIF-owned Saudi club pays top-dollar for a player, and gives them a crazy contract. What's to stop them then loaning said player to Newcastle for free, and agreeing to continue paying 95% of their wages? |
Nothing. Chelsea do it here, right under the Premier League bosses noses. |  |
| |
| Complete farce. on 19:04 - Nov 21 with 3490 views | MattinLondon |
| Complete farce. on 18:56 - Nov 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
"The ban was proposed as a temporary measure until a concrete solution could be agreed before the summer transfer window."
I guess they will have to find that concrete solution a bit more urgently. Clearly a majority of clubs think they will benefit from using this. |
And if one club benefits immensely from this, another club who voted to allow this to happen will probably complain. |  | | |
| Complete farce. on 19:11 - Nov 21 with 3429 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Complete farce. on 19:04 - Nov 21 by MattinLondon |
And if one club benefits immensely from this, another club who voted to allow this to happen will probably complain. |
That's the bit that confuses me. Why do the majority of clubs think it will benefit them? | |
| |
| Complete farce. on 19:23 - Nov 21 with 3351 views | MattinLondon |
| Complete farce. on 19:11 - Nov 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
That's the bit that confuses me. Why do the majority of clubs think it will benefit them? |
Maybe some of the bigger clubs had a word with some of the smaller clubs and promised them players at a cheaper price? Obviously that will be very shady and not in keeping with the transparent and sporting model that is the PL. | | | |
| Complete farce. on 20:16 - Nov 21 with 3078 views | Rocky |
| Complete farce. on 19:11 - Nov 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
That's the bit that confuses me. Why do the majority of clubs think it will benefit them? |
The majority of clubs?
If I'm understanding this correctly, only 7 clubs agreed to allow these loans - clearly one of which was NUFC.
The 13 clubs who disagreed didn't quite make up the two-thirds majority. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Complete farce. on 22:14 - Nov 21 with 2782 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Complete farce. on 20:16 - Nov 21 by Rocky |
The majority of clubs?
If I'm understanding this correctly, only 7 clubs agreed to allow these loans - clearly one of which was NUFC.
The 13 clubs who disagreed didn't quite make up the two-thirds majority. |
Ah, that makes a little more sense! Teaches me for only skim reading and assuming it was 13 for it! | |
| |
| Complete farce. on 22:27 - Nov 21 with 2694 views | Swansea_Blue |
So basically the clubs in the PL are governing themselves? Is that the gist of it? It sounds like a bit of a mess and potential legal nightmare.
There's nothing here different to what's happened already of course with the likes of Watford. But (and it's a big but, bigger than Benter's butts) if it becomes a mainstream tactic for avoiding FFP rules, I can't see how it can be left to continue. |  |
| |
| Complete farce. on 09:29 - Nov 22 with 2372 views | rickw |
The question is why would any Saudi clubs want to loan their expensive signings to Newcastle for free??? They are in a competitive league playing in front of thousands of fans and trying to grow their game's profile around the world.
Just because they can it doesn't mean they will.... |  |
| |
| Complete farce. on 09:35 - Nov 22 with 2352 views | _clive_baker_ |
However you cut it it's a complete circus and absolutely ripe for abuse.
Newcastle's Saudi owners sign players up to contracts in their Saudi owned clubs, free from FFP, then loan them to Newcastle on favourable terms. Call me a cynic but it's a clear attempt to circumvent the FFP rules, otherwise Newcastle would just sign them directly.
The game has well and truly gone, disappeared up its greedy money driven ar5e. Feck the Premier league. |  | | |
| Complete farce. on 09:36 - Nov 22 with 2348 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Complete farce. on 09:29 - Nov 22 by rickw |
The question is why would any Saudi clubs want to loan their expensive signings to Newcastle for free??? They are in a competitive league playing in front of thousands of fans and trying to grow their game's profile around the world.
Just because they can it doesn't mean they will.... |
Because they're owned by the same people that own Newcastle, and a successful Newcastle in the near term is more valuable to them than a successful Saudi league team. | | | |
| Complete farce. on 09:39 - Nov 22 with 2331 views | wkj |
I did have to lightly chuckle that Man City voted against it |  |
| |
| Complete farce. on 10:57 - Nov 22 with 2160 views | brazil1982 |
Who cares anymore? The PL is an utter circus. |  | | |
| Complete farce. on 13:56 - Nov 22 with 1989 views | HighgateBlue |
| Complete farce. on 19:03 - Nov 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I am sure it is. I would suggest some rule that includes more than just the percentage of wages being paid by the loaning club. Then again, if FFP is meant to protect the viability of the club and the loan isn't going to cost the club, is it really an FFP issue?
The intriguing thing is why a majority of clubs think they would benefit from this. |
FFP is not just about sustainability - it's about "fair play" (the FP of FFP), i.e. the aspiration of some kind of level playing field.
I appreciate that it's not working, but that's what it was said to be intended to achieve. So I absolutely think this is an FFP issue. |  | | |
| Complete farce. on 14:13 - Nov 22 with 1947 views | Vaughan8 |
Is this a bit like when Watford and Udinese did their "deals"? Or was that something different?
Is there a limit to how many loans they are allowed? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
