Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It’s the big PL meeting today which has a lot of contentious issues being discussed and hopefully agreed on. It’s going on right now in London at the Churchill Hyatt Regency Hotel. 
 

On the agenda:

- Loans between related clubs

- TV money distribution for 2025 onwards - Big 6 want it to move from 1-1.6 to 1-1.8, favouring the tops teams. 

- Punishments - Everton, Man City, Chelsea, etc.

- Possible tweaks to FFP rules. 

- EFL £130m package and who pays for it.

 

Edited by ender4
Posted

I see the loaning between clubs with the same owners hasn’t been blocked. 

Will we be told how each club voted?

13 clubs voted to block it but they needed 14 for it to pass. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

I see the loaning between clubs with the same owners hasn’t been blocked. 

Will we be told how each club voted?

13 clubs voted to block it but they needed 14 for it to pass. 

Generally no we aren’t told. But it does sometimes leak out a few days later in contentious issues. 

There are around 5 clubs which have related clubs so I guess those 5 voted against.  And maybe 2 abstained. 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

I see the loaning between clubs with the same owners hasn’t been blocked. 

Will we be told how each club voted?

13 clubs voted to block it but they needed 14 for it to pass. 

I'd be interested to see which 7 clubs voted against the motion. 

Posted
Just now, Made In Aston said:

I'd be interested to see which 7 clubs voted against the motion. 

Top of my head guess... Man City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Brighton, Nottingham Forest, Bournemouth, and... Aston Villa.

Those are the clubs I can think of with third party club interest.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Made In Aston said:

I'd be interested to see which 7 clubs voted against the motion. 

These 7 have multiple sister clubs:

Newcastle - Saudi clubs 

Man City - 11 other clubs 

Bournemouth - Lorient & Auckland, stated he wants more clubs. 

Chelsea - Boehly has said he wants a multi-club model like Man City. Already has Strasbourg. 

Arsenal - Kronke owns Colorado Rapids (MLS)

Nottingham Forest - a Greek club 

Brighton - a Belgian club


Plus obviously Villa.

Edited by ender4
Posted
18 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Pathetic if we voted against it

You're always enthusiastic in the other thread. What did you think they were working towards? 

They've not spent years building up a football empire (🤮) to vote against using it.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

Turkey's voting for Xmas. The premier league should just set the rules.dont like it f off and join the football league 

The premier league are the clubs. It’s a cartel.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

You're always enthusiastic in the other thread. What did you think they were working towards? 

They've not spent years building up a football empire (🤮) to vote against using it.

 

 

 

 

Can you show me any players we have obtained from any of these clubs that have gone into our first team?

Can you also show me any players we have sold to any of these clubs like newcastle have? 🙂

  • Like 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Pathetic if we voted against it

I can’t see our owners setting up “V Sports”, creating a multi-club model…

…then voting in favour of something that hinders their approach.

Obviously I could be wrong. 

Posted
Just now, Demitri_C said:

Can you show me any players we have obtained from any of these clubs that have gone into our first team?

Can you also show me any players we have sold to any of these clubs like newcastle have? 🙂

As far as I’m aware, both Villa and Newcastle have done one player transaction with linked clubs (they sold one, we bought one). 

Posted
Just now, Demitri_C said:

Can you show me any players we have obtained from any of these clubs that have gone into our first team?

 

Give it time. If you don't think that's the goal, what do you think our motivation is, sharing the love and giving some clubs a leg up through the goodness of our hearts?  We're not as bad as Man City and Newcastle, but we're a lot closer to them than we are some benign club interested in the good of the game.

Maybe we did vote against it and I'll look like a complete idiot, but I doubt it

Posted
Just now, bobzy said:

As far as I’m aware, both Villa and Newcastle have done one player transaction with linked clubs (they sold one, we bought one). 

Who did we buy? Only one i can think of was a younger from zed 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Give it time. If you don't think that's the goal, what do you think our motivation is, sharing the love and giving some clubs a leg up through the goodness of our hearts?  We're not as bad as Man City and Newcastle, but we're a lot closer to them than we are some benign club interested in the good of the game.

Maybe we did vote against it and I'll look like a complete idiot, but I doubt it

I dont know what motivation is but if i was guessing man loaning players out, helping get work permits in ans looking at talent from the clubs. If we wanted to sell players to vitoria for example to help with FFP we would have by now. 

Edited by Demitri_C
Posted
8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Can you show me any players we have obtained from any of these clubs that have gone into our first team?

Can you also show me any players we have sold to any of these clubs like newcastle have? 🙂

The problem with the proposal is that it's unfair, and that's not me talking with a Villa hat on. It is genuinely unfair. It's clearly been raised to have a specific purpose, which is to stop Newcastle getting a particular player from another Saudi club and gaining an advantage by gaming the system, right?

But the flip side is that any other Prem club can/could loan that same player, but Newcastle wouldn't be allowed to - so we could loan him, or Chelsea could or whoever. Surely the thing to put in place is a "market value" thing, like with transfers - a loan fee would have to match "market value", then anyone could sign any player from anywhere on loan, but not be gaming the system.

If you put a Villa hat on, for example, there could be a kid at our sister club, we want to loan him to give him some experience of training with the first team squad, or play in the odd cup game - but we're not allowed to, but Newcastle could loan him, then later decide to offer him a contract..and nick him, basically.

it's complicated, but it's like an act in haste repent at leisure thing.

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, bobzy said:

Exactly. Who did Newcastle buy?

well neves is 100% certainty if you dont think that wasnt the plan for day one i dont know what to tell you.

They can affectly get a saudi club to buy darwin nunez for example for 100m then sell him to Newcastle or loan him (if they are above FFP) with option to buy following season for a fraction of the price

It stinks 

  • Like 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â