• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Jonjo Shelvey

Redemption

One less gobshite...
How much did we pay for Shelvey?
 

Gyros Peter

Sauce salad?
What's interesting is that transfermarkt has us at 12 loans in total - assume some are permanent options which changes the rules. The Shelvey loan might be too, though I doubt he'd have gone to the guardian with this news - he strikes me as a daily star type.
 

Gyros Peter

Sauce salad?
I don't understand, wouldn't terminating his contract be a good thing?
It will have cost us the price of his contract in full. I think it's more likely that we agreed a purchase option for zero cash and agreed to pay off a percentage of his wages to make up any losses, assuming they can't pay his weekly wage in full (at the end of the loan if the option is triggered).
 

DapperDan

Steve Chettle
I don't understand, wouldn't terminating his contract be a good thing?
Would all the cost suddenly hit our accounts for FFP because of it?

I think there is also an issue in that it looks like we told the PL it was a loan, at least that's what it read like.
 

Gyros Peter

Sauce salad?
One thing I'm not sure about is whether a loan to perm changes whether it fits within the seven loans out rule? I think it's different if an option is present, but can't remember where I got that from, or if I'm mixing up rules?
 

Est.1865

Season 3 Loading
One thing I'm not sure about is whether a loan to perm changes whether it fits within the seven loans out rule? I think it's different if an option is present, but can't remember where I got that from, or if I'm mixing up rules?
If nothing else it’s a timely reminder we can’t just readily loan players off the books in January..or mores the point there is a limit we can’t exceed.
 

It's Baggio

John Robertson
I wonder if the PL will let us dump the pay-off in the 24/25 accounts?
 

Berkshire Red

Jack Armstrong
If nothing else it’s a timely reminder we can’t just readily loan players off the books in January..or mores the point there is a limit we can’t exceed.
Is there a limit? If so, what is it? And surely Chelsea must have more players out on loan than we do.

Did PSG have a similar challenge last January when we loaned Keylor Navas?
 

Redemption

One less gobshite...
Is there a limit? If so, what is it?
It's currently seven in, seven out.

From July 1 2024, it will drop to six in, six out.

It applies to international loans.

It also limits transfers between clubs to no more than 3.

Players aged 21 and younger and club-trained players will be exempt from these limitations.
 

Redemption

One less gobshite...
I don't understand, wouldn't terminating his contract be a good thing?
No. The loss would consolidate into one financial year instead of being amortised over the length of his contract, plus some the remaining salary would likely get pulled forward too.
 

Canadian_red

Jack Armstrong
What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.
 

Morpeth

John Robertson
What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.
Probably just that it was agreed to be a loan but then changed to be permanent at the last minute and the twitter team didn’t know so just tweeted the originally agreed wording.
 

donny

Grenville Morris
Probably just that it was agreed to be a loan but then changed to be permanent at the last minute and the twitter team didn’t know so just tweeted the originally agreed wording.
Definitely this.

The media have to have a bee in their bonnet over something.

We're down to 6 international loans now with Scarpa leaving, so, theres space for another player to head off abroad.
 
Definitely this.

The media have to have a bee in their bonnet over something.

We're down to 6 international loans now with Scarpa leaving, so, theres space for another player to head off abroad.
Exactly this.

I think the FFP news (not news...just pure speculation at this point) means we are the club to report on for any minor indiscretion.
 

eyupmeduck

Geoff Thomas
I would sayvthat maybe someone needs to tell Jonjo then (Clearly talks about the loan).


Of course its very possible that at the end of the loan an agreement has been reached in relation to the permanent position but for the element of doubt, this transfer had to:

Have a deal sheet completed which was ratified by fifa and the english/Turkish fa

Have Appropriate international clearances like work permits

If the contract was terminated it would have had to be agreed to by all parties and Forest would have had no say in where the player went to nor have been mentioned constantly

Its possible that its both I.e. A loan with an agreement for termination at the end or permanent transfer that acts in the same way albeit rolls over until the next ffp window or indeed that kicks in in this transfer window.

The player talks about it as a loan, both clubs have reported it as a loan, no one has publicly discussed the situation at the end of the loan but obviously doing no research in terms of contacting the club he is at now, his former club or the player or their representatives for factual comments nor indeed understanding that whatever happened the EPL would be fully aware due to the nature of the transfer reporting needed seems to be fine in the case of this "journalism".



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

youreds1986

Geoff Thomas
What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.
I imagine we agreed a loan, announced it and then when it went for clearance we got a slap on the wrist for not complying with rules and so hastily terminated his contract.
 
What the f*** is going on? The guardian story makes us look like fools. I don't really see the issue with just stating that we terminated his contract in the summer, I don't think anyone would've been surprised. I don't know why we'd report it as loan if that wasn't the case.

The way I interpreted it is that there's a suggestion we may have 'amended' the original loan move retrospectively once we realised we couldn't make anymore loans and then swept it under the rug hoping nobody would notice.
 
Top Bottom