comment by #Robb - I come from a land down under. (U19350)
posted 1 minute ago
Sepp Blatter literally this second said 3rd party ownership is going to be banned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't really that though. It's just a loan from another club in effect
Surely Blatter isn't going to ban loans?
Macca,
It would only be allowed if the loan was not detrimental to nycfc.
There is no sporting conflict of interest as there is no competition that links the clubs. The only conflict could be on the financial side, that's it, and any shady dealings on that side can't happen anyway legally due to them being related parties.
It's a very cynical viewpoint to me that disregards all the good it could do. The remit of uefa and FIFA is promoting the game, this is one very good way of doing it and helping to either establish or grow football in new areas. It is an incredibly innovative approach to me.
Macca
I think Rob was just mentioning that because I brought it up earlier in this post.
Even so the Lampard loan isn't that straightforward is it as both clubs are owned by the same people.
Melton
So you genuinely don't see potential problems in owners owning more than 1 club? I mean in the long term.
Personally i think if we were talking about a player with lesser ability being involved in this deal then Wenger would not have batted an eyelid.
Arsene is certainly not daft and realises that Lampard still has life in him at the top level and is probably wishing he could have least had had a go at trying to secure him on a similar agreement.
There was certainly nothing stopping him.
So how is this Lampard deal different from that of Donovan and Henry?
Problem is though that say Arsenal were interested they would never have been able to get him from NY on loan because of who owns them.
Obviously right now the number of quality players in the MLS is low but the league is constantly improving with more and more bigger names moving there. Add the likelyhood of homegrown players improving in the US surely there;s the very real possibility of City gaining an advantage over others by having a club owned in the MLS.
Obviously City have been clever doing this in the first place but at the same time it could also cause issues in the future. Either way FIFA would surely be wise to assess the situation and put in place any regulations that would stop teams gaining an advantage from multiple club ownership.
mancini
It's different because neither owners of Arsenal or Everton own the NY Red Bulls so any loan deal must be accepted by NYRB. Lampard on the other hand is being loaned from one club to another, both of which are owned by the same people.
You know its a Friday and the press conferences are open and Wenger is moaning...again
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
anything that bypasses the farce that is FFP is a good thing
the sooner they kill this rule the better
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this opinion woulnt have anything to do with your club being investigated for breach of this rule
"So you genuinely don't see potential problems in owners owning more than 1 club? I mean in the long term."
Not if they have no chance of being in a joint competition, no. If FFP wasn't in place, I don't see how anyone possibly could.
The fact that New York are paying his wages and it's clearly a clever way of dodging FFP
____________________
Agreed.
I wouldn't call this immoral but it is definitely cheeky. Mainly because Chelsea would not have agreed to sell to City and had no idea that they were doing so when they let Frank go.
Still...I would criticise the player before criticising City. If Chelsea were deceived in all this then it was by Lampard, not by MCFC.
Melton
Then aren't you looking it far too simplistically, clubs from outside of the same competitions can still be used to gain an advantage over others. Right now the owners of city also own New York City and Melbourne City, more could potential be bought. Through these areas top talents can be brought in which would then enable City first dibs on these players, look at this long term, ie 10 years or more.
It's about more control. Spreading your assets where you feel they are best needed. If City had an issue with too many squad players then they can easily just 'loan' them out to one of their other clubs could they not. It's very different to feeder clubs because at the end of the day a feeder club can choose for themselves where as because clubs are all owned by the same people they will decided what is best for all clubs involved.
Shocking voyeurism from Arab again (what happened to this guy?)
Wenger didn't even moan, he said so long as it's legal then he has no problem with Frank playing for City all season
The question he asked regarded whether it's ok to loan a player from one club to another owned by the same person
People asked the same thing regarding Watfords loaness for years
"this opinion woulnt have anything to do with your club being investigated for breach of this rule"
of course not
firstly, we're very very unlikely to be impacted in any meaningful way
secondly, I thought it was the worst thing to happen to football competitiveness from when it was first proposed and that hasn't changed one bit since.
It's just an awful rule specifically designed for no other reason than to ensure only a few clubs are allowed to win. forever.
It's just an awful rule specifically designed for no other reason than to ensure only a few clubs are allowed to win. forever.
__________________
Really? So ensuring financial stability of all clubs has nowt to do with it then? Nothing to do with trying to stop wages from spiralling out of control either?
So you're saying that everyone got together in a big room and agreed the best way to ensure that only a few clubs are ever allowed to win anything ever? Good to know, thanks for educating the world with this fascinating insight.
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting!
Misty,
New York are not paying his wages.
Manutd,
I fail to see what's wrong with that though as long as the integrity of the competition is not devalued. If nycfc or Melbourne heart get our younger players to develop in their respective leagues, how is that any different than Chelsea stockpiling youngsters and having 26 players on loan?
As has already been said, they are related parties so the overall asset has to be kept with the individual clubs, they can't just be lifted and shifted without fair market value applied.
I just find the way people are looking at it to be very cynical to be honest.
"So you're saying that everyone got together in a big room and agreed the best way to ensure that only a few clubs are ever allowed to win anything ever? Good to know, thanks for educating the world with this fascinating insight."
I'm not sure if you're joking there but read what Platini said about the g14 and what he did to get rid of them...
Melton
But aren't many also complaining about how the big clubs like Chelsea use the loan system massively to their advantage.
Like City with this ownership move, Chelsea are being very clever with how they use the loan system. Good for them both for seeing what can be done and it's not as if other clubs can't do the same. But saying that I do feel that in both situations regulations need to be put in place to stop giving bigger clubs such an advantage, things will only get even more lenient and easier for bigger clubs the less FIFA and UEFA do about it.
If they want to happen then there are plenty of more pressing things than the loan system that need sorting.
Neither Uefa or FIFA have jurisdiction to do anything about clubs in separate organisations. The regulations in place are financial ones already, I don't see why there needs to be any more.
The mls are happy with what we are doing so I really don't see what the issue is and I think what people think the owners are doing with Melbourne and nycfc is quite a way away from the truth. I'll dig out a link to what they saw as their vision and why they did it.
comment by Komakino (U7809)
posted 3 hours, 52 minutes ago
Just for those who are still not getting it,
MANCHESTER CITY ARE PAYING HIS WAGES.
IN FULL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
blatant corruption
how is that any different than Chelsea stockpiling youngsters and having 26 players on loan?
-----
comment by merrysupersteve (U1132)
posted 3 hours, 52 minutes ago
Well apparently New York City are admamant that they want him back in January so it'll be interesting to see how that works out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the key question, and the key point. If they can't get their own player back then we know who really owns him and that is where the issue becomes dodgy
Sign in if you want to comment
Wenger's moan
Page 3 of 3
posted on 26/9/14
comment by #Robb - I come from a land down under. (U19350)
posted 1 minute ago
Sepp Blatter literally this second said 3rd party ownership is going to be banned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't really that though. It's just a loan from another club in effect
Surely Blatter isn't going to ban loans?
posted on 26/9/14
Macca,
It would only be allowed if the loan was not detrimental to nycfc.
There is no sporting conflict of interest as there is no competition that links the clubs. The only conflict could be on the financial side, that's it, and any shady dealings on that side can't happen anyway legally due to them being related parties.
It's a very cynical viewpoint to me that disregards all the good it could do. The remit of uefa and FIFA is promoting the game, this is one very good way of doing it and helping to either establish or grow football in new areas. It is an incredibly innovative approach to me.
posted on 26/9/14
Macca
I think Rob was just mentioning that because I brought it up earlier in this post.
Even so the Lampard loan isn't that straightforward is it as both clubs are owned by the same people.
posted on 26/9/14
Melton
So you genuinely don't see potential problems in owners owning more than 1 club? I mean in the long term.
posted on 26/9/14
Personally i think if we were talking about a player with lesser ability being involved in this deal then Wenger would not have batted an eyelid.
Arsene is certainly not daft and realises that Lampard still has life in him at the top level and is probably wishing he could have least had had a go at trying to secure him on a similar agreement.
There was certainly nothing stopping him.
posted on 26/9/14
So how is this Lampard deal different from that of Donovan and Henry?
posted on 26/9/14
Problem is though that say Arsenal were interested they would never have been able to get him from NY on loan because of who owns them.
Obviously right now the number of quality players in the MLS is low but the league is constantly improving with more and more bigger names moving there. Add the likelyhood of homegrown players improving in the US surely there;s the very real possibility of City gaining an advantage over others by having a club owned in the MLS.
Obviously City have been clever doing this in the first place but at the same time it could also cause issues in the future. Either way FIFA would surely be wise to assess the situation and put in place any regulations that would stop teams gaining an advantage from multiple club ownership.
posted on 26/9/14
mancini
It's different because neither owners of Arsenal or Everton own the NY Red Bulls so any loan deal must be accepted by NYRB. Lampard on the other hand is being loaned from one club to another, both of which are owned by the same people.
posted on 26/9/14
You know its a Friday and the press conferences are open and Wenger is moaning...again
posted on 26/9/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
anything that bypasses the farce that is FFP is a good thing
the sooner they kill this rule the better
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this opinion woulnt have anything to do with your club being investigated for breach of this rule
posted on 26/9/14
"So you genuinely don't see potential problems in owners owning more than 1 club? I mean in the long term."
Not if they have no chance of being in a joint competition, no. If FFP wasn't in place, I don't see how anyone possibly could.
posted on 26/9/14
The fact that New York are paying his wages and it's clearly a clever way of dodging FFP
____________________
Agreed.
I wouldn't call this immoral but it is definitely cheeky. Mainly because Chelsea would not have agreed to sell to City and had no idea that they were doing so when they let Frank go.
Still...I would criticise the player before criticising City. If Chelsea were deceived in all this then it was by Lampard, not by MCFC.
posted on 26/9/14
Melton
Then aren't you looking it far too simplistically, clubs from outside of the same competitions can still be used to gain an advantage over others. Right now the owners of city also own New York City and Melbourne City, more could potential be bought. Through these areas top talents can be brought in which would then enable City first dibs on these players, look at this long term, ie 10 years or more.
It's about more control. Spreading your assets where you feel they are best needed. If City had an issue with too many squad players then they can easily just 'loan' them out to one of their other clubs could they not. It's very different to feeder clubs because at the end of the day a feeder club can choose for themselves where as because clubs are all owned by the same people they will decided what is best for all clubs involved.
posted on 26/9/14
Shocking voyeurism from Arab again (what happened to this guy?)
Wenger didn't even moan, he said so long as it's legal then he has no problem with Frank playing for City all season
The question he asked regarded whether it's ok to loan a player from one club to another owned by the same person
People asked the same thing regarding Watfords loaness for years
posted on 26/9/14
"this opinion woulnt have anything to do with your club being investigated for breach of this rule"
of course not
firstly, we're very very unlikely to be impacted in any meaningful way
secondly, I thought it was the worst thing to happen to football competitiveness from when it was first proposed and that hasn't changed one bit since.
It's just an awful rule specifically designed for no other reason than to ensure only a few clubs are allowed to win. forever.
posted on 26/9/14
It's just an awful rule specifically designed for no other reason than to ensure only a few clubs are allowed to win. forever.
__________________
Really? So ensuring financial stability of all clubs has nowt to do with it then? Nothing to do with trying to stop wages from spiralling out of control either?
So you're saying that everyone got together in a big room and agreed the best way to ensure that only a few clubs are ever allowed to win anything ever? Good to know, thanks for educating the world with this fascinating insight.
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting!
posted on 26/9/14
Misty,
New York are not paying his wages.
Manutd,
I fail to see what's wrong with that though as long as the integrity of the competition is not devalued. If nycfc or Melbourne heart get our younger players to develop in their respective leagues, how is that any different than Chelsea stockpiling youngsters and having 26 players on loan?
As has already been said, they are related parties so the overall asset has to be kept with the individual clubs, they can't just be lifted and shifted without fair market value applied.
I just find the way people are looking at it to be very cynical to be honest.
posted on 26/9/14
"So you're saying that everyone got together in a big room and agreed the best way to ensure that only a few clubs are ever allowed to win anything ever? Good to know, thanks for educating the world with this fascinating insight."
I'm not sure if you're joking there but read what Platini said about the g14 and what he did to get rid of them...
posted on 26/9/14
Melton
But aren't many also complaining about how the big clubs like Chelsea use the loan system massively to their advantage.
Like City with this ownership move, Chelsea are being very clever with how they use the loan system. Good for them both for seeing what can be done and it's not as if other clubs can't do the same. But saying that I do feel that in both situations regulations need to be put in place to stop giving bigger clubs such an advantage, things will only get even more lenient and easier for bigger clubs the less FIFA and UEFA do about it.
posted on 26/9/14
If they want to happen then there are plenty of more pressing things than the loan system that need sorting.
Neither Uefa or FIFA have jurisdiction to do anything about clubs in separate organisations. The regulations in place are financial ones already, I don't see why there needs to be any more.
The mls are happy with what we are doing so I really don't see what the issue is and I think what people think the owners are doing with Melbourne and nycfc is quite a way away from the truth. I'll dig out a link to what they saw as their vision and why they did it.
posted on 26/9/14
comment by Komakino (U7809)
posted 3 hours, 52 minutes ago
Just for those who are still not getting it,
MANCHESTER CITY ARE PAYING HIS WAGES.
IN FULL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
blatant corruption
posted on 26/9/14
how is that any different than Chelsea stockpiling youngsters and having 26 players on loan?
-----
posted on 26/9/14
comment by merrysupersteve (U1132)
posted 3 hours, 52 minutes ago
Well apparently New York City are admamant that they want him back in January so it'll be interesting to see how that works out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the key question, and the key point. If they can't get their own player back then we know who really owns him and that is where the issue becomes dodgy
Page 3 of 3