Jump to content

Transfers, 2024-25 season


trophyshy
 Share

Recommended Posts

They’ll allow it again next summer onwards. It’s purely to block us this January as they know FFP restricts our options. I don’t really mind the CL rivals doing it but the clubs below that who will get absolutely shafted by the likes of Arsenal and Man Utd are fucking tragic. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Tbh I reckon Ashworth hinted at it to rile the divvies up and throw them off our actual transfer targets. 
 

This does stink to high heaven mind, it’s targeted and intentional. I don’t mind if it’s a permanent ban but a temporary one is just like the sudden temporary sponsorship ban after our takeover, imo it’s cheating. Fwiw I’m more than fine with the ban if it’s permanent, but I want it to extend to outward loans too - clubs like Brighton loaning young players out to their feeder clubs etc can fuck right off, Arsenal exploited that under Wenger to get top African players into their set up and get around the visa requirements that would have meant other clubs were unable to sign those players at the time arsenal did. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing it mid season smacks of desperation. It’s all good though lads. They can slow us down but they can’t stop us. They all know we’re coming and they’re fucking shitting it 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Isegrim said:

Is it a one way street, meaning only incoming transfers? Otherwise some clubs will shoot themselves in the foot just to stop us getting players.

The reports all seem to be saying it’s on incoming loans, so the cheating bastards have made sure their outgoing loans to feeder clubs won’t be impacted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Howay said:

The reports all seem to be saying it’s on incoming loans, so the cheating bastards have made sure their outgoing loans to feeder clubs won’t be impacted. 

Ah good so we can loan out Tonali and Barnes to our 'feeder' clubs the. For a fee of course, for players of such high calibre. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Neves had gone to Saudi a couple of years ago and sat on the bench like Philips there wouldn't be anyone moaning about this at all.  I mean, he's hardly smashing up the no mark league he's in.  But because the likes of Man Utd, Dippers, Barca etc were after him in the summer and didn't get him because he took oil money then their noses have been put out of joint.


Just make a rule if they've been bought by a club under the age of, say, 21 they cannot be loaned out that season to another club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will also be a few clubs trying to loan players from Saudi to assist in their relegation battles (Man Utd for example) that will be told to fuck off if this goes through. I don't care about it tbf other than to wind other clubs up to breaking point, there's a whiff of cutting your nose off about it though.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's frustrating that this has been looked at purely to stymie us (and make no mistake if we didn't have a stack of injuries this would never even have been considered) but, objectively I've no problem with backdoors for bigger clubs being shut. We'd be justifiably annoyed if Man City were crippled with injuries and they loaned players from a newly opulent state backed UAE League, wouldn't we?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Fish said:

It's frustrating that this has been looked at purely to stymie us (and make no mistake if we didn't have a stack of injuries this would never even have been considered) but, objectively I've no problem with backdoors for bigger clubs being shut. We'd be justifiably annoyed if Man City were crippled with injuries and they loaned players from a newly opulent state backed UAE League, wouldn't we?

 

No we wouldn't because they've got a shit ton more quality AND depth already because they expanded exponentially without the constraints of FFP. We're adhering to FFP and it's royally fucking over the health of our players because they're stretched so thin across our many games, as we knew it would. If we weren't limited by FFP we'd have the depth to have avoided at least some of these injuries, or to have had replacements of suitable quality and experience. Let's not forget that FFP purports to be to protect clubs from spending too much and threatening their survival. That is simply not a risk to us. The reality is FFP is of course designed to protect the monopoly of the curently most powerful clubs by preventing anyone else from spending similar amounts on players, management, facilities etc.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OTF said:

 

No we wouldn't because they've got a shit ton more quality AND depth already because they expanded exponentially without the constraints of FFP. We're adhering to FFP and it's royally fucking over the health of our players because they're stretched so thin across our many games, as we knew it would. If we weren't limited by FFP we'd have the depth to have avoided at least some of these injuries, or to have had replacements of suitable quality and experience. Let's not forget that FFP purports to be to protect clubs from spending too much and threatening their survival. That is simply not a risk to us. The reality is FFP is of course designed to protect the monopoly of the curently most powerful clubs by preventing anyone else from spending similar amounts on players, management, facilities etc.

 

precisely.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OTF said:

 

No we wouldn't because they've got a shit ton more quality AND depth already because they expanded exponentially without the constraints of FFP. We're adhering to FFP and it's royally fucking over the health of our players because they're stretched so thin across our many games, as we knew it would. If we weren't limited by FFP we'd have the depth to have avoided at least some of these injuries, or to have had replacements of suitable quality and experience. Let's not forget that FFP purports to be to protect clubs from spending too much and threatening their survival. That is simply not a risk to us. The reality is FFP is of course designed to protect the monopoly of the curently most powerful clubs by preventing anyone else from spending similar amounts on players, management, facilities etc.

 

 

christina-aguilera-preach-it-girl.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OTF said:

 

No we wouldn't because they've got a shit ton more quality AND depth already because they expanded exponentially without the constraints of FFP. We're adhering to FFP and it's royally fucking over the health of our players because they're stretched so thin across our many games, as we knew it would. If we weren't limited by FFP we'd have the depth to have avoided at least some of these injuries, or to have had replacements of suitable quality and experience. Let's not forget that FFP purports to be to protect clubs from spending too much and threatening their survival. That is simply not a risk to us. The reality is FFP is of course designed to protect the monopoly of the curently most powerful clubs by preventing anyone else from spending similar amounts on players, management, facilities etc.

I understand all that and perhaps Man City was a poor example. I just meant that I understand why this rule could make sense. What would stop an ownership group with the wealth of an oil state behind them circumventing rules about wages or transfer fees by spreading the costs over 5 or more clubs. In theory Man City have a giant pool of talent they could pull from. 12 clubs in City Group, with I've no idea how many players at each. Some in countries without FFP rules to restrict them. Theoretically Mumbai City FC could 'sign' a player on huge wages and immediately loan them to Man City, thus circumventing FFP and spreading wage costs. Is that really in the spirit of the sport? 

 

I agree that FFP is less about ensuring responsible club ownership and more about ringfencing the established elite, but this new vote isn't about FFP, not really. This proposed change to the rules is about other clubs trying to handicap us when we're struggling. If the shoe were on the other foot, if Man City were 12 players down and hadn't the depth throughout their youth squads to support the first team, how would you react to them lifting a erstwhile Premier League player from a UAE state owned team to help them out of the jam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Meenzer changed the title to Transfers, 2024-25 season

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.