Alakagom Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 9 minutes ago, PaulMcGrath_5 said: We won’t be found guilty of anything at all, so before everyone starts getting worried—chill. Were you one of the people that said Douglas Luiz didn't need to be sold this summer because we bought Morgan Rogers in January so we have no issues? I feel that should be stamped on user players, if you want to participate in FFP talks haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 19 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said: It quotes rule B15 which states “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.” Hahaha, can't believe they've written that down. City pretty promised to not break any rules as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallisFrizz Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Tomaszk said: Hahaha, can't believe they've written that down. City pretty promised to not break any rules as well. It does seem very flimsy and difficult to prove. Do they really want to go to court with 3 more of their clubs about what constitutes good faith. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 33 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said: It quotes rule B15 which states “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.” So, which of the cartel do we reckon is kicking up a fuss here? My guess would be United, as Everton are now compliant with PSR so don’t have to sell Branthwaite. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 The premier league are on a slippery slope if they start assessing transfers for ‘fair market value’. The transfer market is a Wild West and clubs have been happily paying double or triple market value for prospects for a long time. If clubs are not happy about this then it should be a wake up call that they need to sort the rules out, they are not fit for purpose. For fair sporting competition the spending limits should be flat across the league clubs. I don’t even care if they are really strict as long as they are the same for all clubs. Anything other than a flat limit is literally a handicap situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan95 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Oh no you're showing our rules up for the farce that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 41 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said: It quotes rule B15 which states “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.” PL: 'We don't think the deal was done in good faith.' Villa/Everton: 'It was. Prove that it wasn't.' PL: '..........' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted June 24 VT Supporter Share Posted June 24 The beauty of being accused of inflating transfer fees is you will always be able to cite about 100 other examples that were ‘worse’ value, such is football. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post oishiiniku_uk Posted June 24 Popular Post Share Posted June 24 (edited) 'Fair market value' - How about Man City's head of academy recruitment going to work at Southampton and then paying previously unheard of sums for youth players who'd never kicked a ball outside of PL2? Sam Edozie (£10m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Shea Charles (£14.5m) - Southampton, 28 mins for City in PL Gavin Bazunu (£15m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Romeo Lavia (£14m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Edited June 24 by oishiiniku_uk 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 12 minutes ago, villan95 said: Oh no you're showing our rules up for the farce that they are. Hey PL ***k off. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oishiiniku_uk Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 If any questions were raised about the legitimacy of any of these transfer then all the clubs involved would need to say is: 'PSR forced us to sell players before June 30th and the only teams willing to offer us fair market value for our players were other clubs in the same situation. Everyone else was trying to low ball us due to the situation that PSR has created.' And, given that we've seen a number of players sold for below market value in previous seasons due to FFP, I don't think anyone could really argue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 22 minutes ago, MaVilla said: Hey PL ***k off. That is all. Hey PL here's all the emails that the 2 clubs happened to have sent each other which fully demonstrates how above board this all is "Did you record or take notes from your phone calls?" "Oh, no, unfortunately we didn't consider that" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 40 minutes ago, oishiiniku_uk said: 'Fair market value' - How about Man City's head of academy recruitment going to work at Southampton and then paying previously unheard of sums for youth players who'd never kicked a ball outside of PL2? Sam Edozie (£10m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Shea Charles (£14.5m) - Southampton, 28 mins for City in PL Gavin Bazunu (£15m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Romeo Lavia (£14m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL This is actually crazy, way worse than Kellyman and Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveburnside Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 hour ago, oishiiniku_uk said: 'Fair market value' - How about Man City's head of academy recruitment going to work at Southampton and then paying previously unheard of sums for youth players who'd never kicked a ball outside of PL2? Sam Edozie (£10m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Shea Charles (£14.5m) - Southampton, 28 mins for City in PL Gavin Bazunu (£15m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Romeo Lavia (£14m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Mochi hitting print screen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Some of these transfers are insane when you look at them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said: 'Fair market value' - How about Man City's head of academy recruitment going to work at Southampton and then paying previously unheard of sums for youth players who'd never kicked a ball outside of PL2? Sam Edozie (£10m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Shea Charles (£14.5m) - Southampton, 28 mins for City in PL Gavin Bazunu (£15m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL Romeo Lavia (£14m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL The tweet says the PL are 'monitoring' these transfers, not that they are applying a 'fair market value' test, which as I understand it only applies to related-party transactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 17 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The tweet says the PL are 'monitoring' these transfers, not that they are applying a 'fair market value' test, which as I understand it only applies to related-party transactions. Maybe V Sports have bought Everton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) im not sure where the loophole is here? if you break this all down there’s no loophole. premier league teams selling each others players? That happens all the time. Maybe it’s doesn’t often happen between the same teams in the same window, but it’s happened before with no issues. is it using amortisation to help comply with PSR? All clubs are already doing that, with no issue. Pricing youth players based upon the speculation on how good they will become? Happens all the time. Spurs wouldn’t sell Micky Moore for anything less than £30m, even tho he’s just 16 and kicked a ball twice for the senior team. Much like Kellyman, if the rumours are true about Moore’s talent, he’s worth it. So no issue there either. so where is the new loophole, and how is it being exploited. Edited June 24 by CarryOnVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: This is a very important point. Much like Chelsea's eight-year contracts, what we're doing has short-term benefits and long-term costs. If our rivals were smarter, they'd not interrupt us while we're in the process of making what could be a very big mistake. FFP was brought in with the stated* purpose of forcing clubs to be more sustainable, to prevent reckless club owners risking the long term sustainability of the club by chasing short term goals. If there is a work around which in fact makes it more likely to bring clubs to financial ruin through short term money hit trades between each other then that loophole will quickly be closed and the justification will be that FFP is not operating as it should to curb reckless spending. * I think we all know why clubs like Manchester United were so supportive of this sort of owner restriction of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 There is no loophole, it's just other clubs feeling threatened and are complaining to the FA. If any of the others teams were close to falling foul of PSR then they'd be doing it too. I'd imagine it's only the clubs with huge revenues that are complaining. They don't want any clubs threatening their income. Those clubs still want the Super League, and still will not support the football pyramid. They're like Tories really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts