3 player in 3 players out

[tropix]

I'll repeat what Colin Fray said once more - any club in the Championship knows that if they offer over 11k a week, then can beat us to a loan player. I'd imagine most clubs would want to take Bridcutt on. Sorry to be a party pooper. It'll be one of Sunderland's U16 players

 

[winnits]

The principle reason for a Premier League team to loan out a player isn't to subsidise wages it's for them to get game time hopefully under a manager they see as beneficial for their development...

 

[winnits]

... or I suppose in the case of fringe players to get them playing to hopefully get them in the shop window for a permanent move.

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

...or so the next 300 footballers that show any potential whatsoever at a smaller club they're coming along just fine at will also sign for the Prem club so the Prem club hold their registration if they are one of the few who fulfill early promise knowing that they can still get some football even though its 95% certain that they will never play for them.

 

[RedTe]

... or I suppose in the case of fringe players to get them playing to hopefully get them in the shop window for a permanent move.

Danny Graham.

 

[Strummer]

...or so the next 300 footballers that show any potential whatsoever at a smaller club they're coming along just fine at will also sign for the Prem club so the Prem club hold their registration if they are one of the few who fulfill early promise knowing that they can still get some football even though its 95% certain that they will never play for them.

Welcome to Chelsea!

 

[The_City_Is_Ours]

...or so the next 300 footballers that show any potential whatsoever at a smaller club they're coming along just fine at will also sign for the Prem club so the Prem club hold their registration if they are one of the few who fulfill early promise knowing that they can still get some football even though its 95% certain that they will never play for them.

Now the 'top' clubs can create an income by loaning out, en masse, the kids they'd hoovered up from the lower leagues for high fees with a big percentage of their relatively modest wages paid. In the past clubs may have taken a hit by selling a player who wasn't making the grade but instead they can loan them out year after year to the highest bidder

 

[Strummer]

Now the 'top' clubs can create an income by loaning out, en masse, the kids they'd hoovered up from the lower leagues for high fees with a big percentage of their relatively modest wages paid. In the past clubs may have taken a hit by selling a player who wasn't making the grade but instead they can loan them out year after year to the highest bidder

and thus, recoup any potential investment (or a decent proportion thereof) they've already made in said player.

For example, I'd be willing to bet Chelsea have almost broke even on young Patrick Bamford, even though he's never kicked a ball for them in a real match.

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

It is clearly a policy they have. They will know when they are signing players from other clubs that many of them will never play for them.

 

[tropix]

The principle reason for a Premier League team to loan out a player isn't to subsidise wages it's for them to get game time hopefully under a manager they see as beneficial for their development...

That's a factor, sure, but there are at least 10 clubs/managers in our league that would be good for his development. If you've got one club offering to pay 11k and the one offering 15k then it's an easy decision. Prem clubs are dealing with FFP too

 

[justnotjase]

I'll repeat what Colin Fray said once more - any club in the Championship knows that if they offer over 11k a week, then can beat us to a loan player. I'd imagine most clubs would want to take Bridcutt on. Sorry to be a party pooper. It'll be one of Sunderland's U16 players

You may well be right, but if Adboun is on £35,000 a week and we ship him out and can use 75% of his wages then cant we offer someone £26,250 a week ? Am i completely missing something ?

 

[Strummer]

You may well be right, but if Adboun is on £35,000 a week and we ship him out and can use 75% of his wages then cant we offer someone £26,250 a week ? Am i completely missing something ?

That's actually a good point. I think you're right.

 

[Dan_Bristol]

You may well be right, but if Adboun is on £35,000 a week and we ship him out and can use 75% of his wages then cant we offer someone £26,250 a week ? Am i completely missing something ?

sounds about right, aside from the fact we are unable to get rid of Abdoun, if a club really wanted him he would have left at the start of the month at the latest. Interest was said be from france, i don't see many Lique 1 clubs playing 35K per week for players, unless its PSG or Monaco, really its a case of loaning him out, gaining a percentage of wages, say a club is willing to pay 20k per week.

It would give us only 15k per week to spend on wages, or slightly less if you factor in the reaming 15k from Abdouns current contract.
So getting rid of Abdoun would help but only if he went on a perm deal, which doesn't appear likely.

edit: - max wages is 600k per year, would that me pro rata? i.e 300k for the remainder?

 

[justnotjase]

edit: - max wages is 600k per year, would that me pro rata? i.e 300k for the remainder?

Ahh, thats where the Colin Fray figure came from then, and it prob is pro rata.

 

[bgd]

If money was no issue to Fawaz, he'd be smart to buy a club and use them as a 3rd party to do a lot of crafty business through. E.g if he owned some small time Kuwaiti club, he could have them loan Abdoun paying all his wages, so it's still coming out of his pocket anyway, and just tell Abdoun to go on holiday for 5 months.

Obvs it's dodgy morally, but there's a growing number of clubs who are owned by someone who owns other clubs and uses them to avoid FFP. Charlton did it the other day too.

 

[UndisclosedFee]

If money was no issue to Fawaz, he'd be smart to buy a club and use them as a 3rd party to do a lot of crafty business through. E.g if he owned some small time Kuwaiti club, he could have them loan Abdoun paying all his wages, so it's still coming out of his pocket anyway, and just tell Abdoun to go on holiday for 5 months.

Obvs it's dodgy morally, but there's a growing number of clubs who are owned by someone who owns other clubs and uses them to avoid FFP. Charlton did it the other day too.

hmm. Not sure how long that loophole will be there. They already clamped down on the practice of loaning loads of players to one of the other clubs in the portfolio, after Watford overused it. I'm sure there will be other changes in the future, which make transfer fees and things like you suggest at least more transparent.

 

[Cortez the Killer]

If money was no issue to Fawaz, he'd be smart to buy a club and use them as a 3rd party to do a lot of crafty business through. E.g if he owned some small time Kuwaiti club, he could have them loan Abdoun paying all his wages, so it's still coming out of his pocket anyway, and just tell Abdoun to go on holiday for 5 months.

Obvs it's dodgy morally, but there's a growing number of clubs who are owned by someone who owns other clubs and uses them to avoid FFP. Charlton did it the other day too.

I did that on Championship Manager once.

 

[The Fat Lad]

hmm. Not sure how long that loophole will be there. They already clamped down on the practice of loaning loads of players to one of the other clubs in the portfolio, after Watford overused it. I'm sure there will be other changes in the future, which make transfer fees and things like you suggest at least more transparent.

Whilst they clamped down on the loaning process and not having too many foreign league loanees. They didn't stop the fact that all three can move freely between Granada, Watford and Udinese. I don't think they can stop it either as surely it would be a breach of employment laws.

All that seems to happen now is Udinese and Granada get a player which they may not need yet and they look to 'sell' him to Watford. Watford take on his wages and a 'new' contract which means they have a new player for free. In line with that the Pozzo family still keep the player and still have control over him. There's also a way around it as well because clubs can subsidise wages.

If there's no loophole now and Fawaz has the money to do so. I'd be looking at trying to purchase a few clubs around Europe and the world. He couldn't run them all but if he trusted family members they could be the chairman.

 

[bgd]

Whilst they clamped down on the loaning process and not having too many foreign league loanees. They didn't stop the fact that all three can move freely between Granada, Watford and Udinese. I don't think they can stop it either as surely it would be a breach of employment laws.

All that seems to happen now is Udinese and Granada get a player which they may not need yet and they look to 'sell' him to Watford. Watford take on his wages and a 'new' contract which means they have a new player for free. In line with that the Pozzo family still keep the player and still have control over him. There's also a way around it as well because clubs can subsidise wages.

If there's no loophole now and Fawaz has the money to do so. I'd be looking at trying to purchase a few clubs around Europe and the world. He couldn't run them all but if he trusted family members they could be the chairman.

Obviously it's all speculation and a bit of dreamland stuff as we don't know how much Fawaz has to go out and do something like that, but it's certainly a way around FFP.

You'd imagine he could essentially sell a player to one of his other clubs for a decent fee too which would help.

 

[Kelvin's Local]

It's complete shit that we can't spend any transfer fees and are limited to £10k per week but Man City can spend £30m on one player and £200k per week on him too. Where is the justification for this? It makes me so f***ing angry how clearly biased the rules are set, the rich get richer and the poor aren't allowed.

 

[Otis Redding]

I agree Kelvin, which is why I'm perplexed as to why the "poorer" majority outside of the PL meekly voted in favour of the Football League's FFP proposals.

 

[Strummer]

I agree Kelvin, which is why I'm perplexed as to why the "poorer" majority outside of the PL meekly voted in favour of the Football Leagues FFP proposals.

Because old mate, they didn't have any choice.

Much like the so-called "Elite Player Performance Plan" (which allows 'top' clubs to pick up players from the football league for less) the Premier League threatened to reduce or completely withdraw the financial support it gives to the football league clubs if they didn't tow the line.

 

[Dan_Bristol]

I agree Kelvin, which is why I'm perplexed as to why the "poorer" majority outside of the PL meekly voted in favour of the Football League's FFP proposals.

Because it means that lower league clubs don't have to pump in so much money to stay competitive with their league rivals. Even playing field in terms of league teams.

It does however expand the gulf between each league.

 

[Otis Redding]

Because old mate, they didn't have any choice.

Much like the so-called "Elite Player Performance Plan" (which allows 'top' clubs to pick up players from the football league for less) the Premier League threatened to reduce or completely withdraw the financial support it gives to the football league clubs if they didn't tow the line.

Another example of what a fine, upstanding individual Richard Scudamore is.

 

[RedTe]

You may well be right, but if Adboun is on £35,000 a week and we ship him out and can use 75% of his wages then cant we offer someone £26,250 a week ? Am i completely missing something ?

No, 75% of the leaving player up to a maximum of £600,000.

edit: - max wages is 600k per year, would that be pro rata? i.e 300k for the remainder?

Yes, the figure of £600,000 is pro-rata. A little under £12,000 less any associated fees (Agent's fees etc).