FFP Question regards our owners .....

How does it work in respect of them selling players from one club they own to another they also own ?!?

 

The transfer of McGeehan will be just like any other transfer, assuming

• There wasn't a massively inflated transfer fee
• Any settlement with Barnsley FC, is shown in Barnsley's books
• Any subsequent wages show in Oostende's books.

Not sure we can compare selling Cameron McGeehan to selling Hillsborough or Pride Park. Also, are we really close to losing £39m over 3 years to break FFP?

 

I think it would be good to hear from Dane about this at some point, to allay any fan fears that anything dodgy is going on. It is bound to raise questions.

 

Whatever the paperwork says was the fee.

and for those of a suspicious nature - the exact ownership isn’t shared, and both clubs will want to show vfm. We’re not just offloading our players to straighten the books, because that wouldn’t be a good deal for the player or the other club. And why would the player or club agree to that.

 

Just a question, that worries me a little about our owners. Have they spent one single penny of their own money, or has the purchase of the club and any subsequent player purchases been financed with debt and the club as collateral.

 

In theory nobody should be spending any of their own money on clubs- this is the problem with football. You or I should be able to own a football club.

They should be self-sufficient and reliant on player sales as well as other income streams such as sponsorship, TV rights, gate receipts and merchandise sales.

 

Nothing wrong as long as it isn’t an over inflated fee

 

Give me strength!!

anyone up for giving the ‘men on Mars’ conspiracy a roll of the dice’?

 

Someone's asked a question, what is your problem with that? Nobody has accused anyone of anything on this thread from what I can see?

 

I don't believe for one second that it's a way round FFP because finding a way round FFP is done so that an owner can bankroll a club.our owners have made it clear they won't put a penny in so there is no need to come up with ways to get round FFP.

I could see it as a way to shift money around though, load one club with debt and then take the money out at the other club if that's what they wanted to do but if that was the case the transfers would appear to be in the wrong direction

 

If it had happened the other way round I doubt anyone would be thinking something dodgy was going off. In fact, I was a little disappointed we never got any of Nice's fringe players on loan. Didn't Watford have 3 or 4 Italian players on loan from their sister club.

 

I don’t have any problem with the op at all. What I find a tad irritating is some people looking under every stone for reason to have a go at the club.

 

I vaguely recall Watford had something like 9 or 10 on loan, which then generated a rule change to stop such action.

 

I’d agree on terms of day to day running in terms of purchasing the club itself it would be right for them to pay for rather than raise the cash via debt a la Glaiziers. Not that I think they have.

 

He was supposedly on 6k a week and had another season left on his deal. So by moving him sidewards we save 300k on wages which is vast in these times of struggle which will help with FFP as we can use the cash from saving on a fringe player elsewhere and they get a player that should strengthen their club. Both sides win here.

 

Dreamboys spot on as far as I’m concerned. The clubs are separate entities & it shouldn’t matter the owners own both clubs.

It’s win-win for all 3 parties. We move on a big earner, the Belgian club get a better player than they’d normally be able to get without paying much of a transfer fee & the player presumably doesn’t take a wage reduction or if he does he’ll be comfortable with it due to having an extra 2 years on the contract he had with us

 

Asking Dane and also GG to come out and confirm they and the clubs they work for are not bent, is a bit much really. Otherwise, there’s nothing else to comment on.

Transactions between 2 linked clubs will always be under the spotlight, so it wouldn’t even make sense anyway to try ‘that approach’.

However, McGeehan played well for Portsmouth last season, and played well for us the season prior. He’s well paid and under contract. So I imagine a reasonable transfer fee would have been agreed anyway

 

Not the point I was making by asking Dane. More for transparency so the fans know how it works, rather than asking them to prove they're not bent. Hence the "allay fears" bit.

 

It's fine and absolutely definitely not a problem. Don't ask questions, we're doing nothing wrong.