That’s pretty obviously not going to be enough. Shared ownership is needed for the scheme the mail suggests.
If it’s not City, Leicester would be my choice given their Belgian club and how much corruption is in Belgian football
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
That’s pretty obviously not going to be enough. Shared ownership is needed for the scheme the mail suggests.
If it’s not City, Leicester would be my choice given their Belgian club and how much corruption is in Belgian football
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Only Porro of those was signed from Europe, though, as mentioned in the Mail article?We've signed a few. Harrison, Mooy, Brattan, Cacares, Porro come to mind.
Funny thatQuick check of the usual twitter profiles and you're right, there's very little mention of it - nothing from Harris, Delaney, Ziegler, Conn et al. At the very least, it's interesting they haven't commented at all
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
The article is very poorly written and unclear, but it seems to mention 16 transfers. Can only think of Watford where there has been anything like that volume of traffic between European and domestic clubs from the same ownership group. But then they are not in the PL anymoreThat’s pretty obviously not going to be enough. Shared ownership is needed for the scheme the mail suggests.
If it’s not City, Leicester would be my choice given their Belgian club and how much corruption is in Belgian football
salfordbluetrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 3,670
Could Chelsea Vitesse fit the bill?The article is very poorly written and unclear, but it seems to mention 16 transfers. Can only think of Watford where there has been anything like that volume of traffic between European and domestic clubs from the same ownership group. But then they are not in the PL anymore
I’m not sure it’s necessarily talking about transfers within the same ownership group, it’s alleging that agents’ fees are being paid from the funds of a club within the group rather than by the Premier League club where the player is going. The player could be coming from anywhere. But I don’t see how that could escape scrutinyThe article is very poorly written and unclear, but it seems to mention 16 transfers. Can only think of Watford where there has been anything like that volume of traffic between European and domestic clubs from the same ownership group. But then they are not in the PL anymore
Howard Croft
Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 17
Out of idle curiosity, have you any idea of the millions which the Phil Jones brand may have generated?I seem to remember a couple of manyoo players setting themselves up as initials+squad no., akin to Ronaldo.
The names that seem to stick in my mind were Phil Jones and Anthony Martial.
Maybe getting the wrong end of the stick.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,402
I’m not sure it’s necessarily talking about transfers within the same ownership group, it’s alleging that agents’ fees are being paid from the funds of a club within the group rather than by the Premier League club where the player is going. The player could be coming from anywhere. But I don’t see how that could escape scrutiny
I'm not sure it's talking about common ownership at all. The text of the article mentioned sister clubs (that implies common ownership) once, then talks more often about satellite clubs, even mentioning that many PL clubs have satellites, defining a satellite as a club "often used to loan or develop players in preparation for a move". It also talks about off-shore, at some point, for some reason which isn't further explained.
So yes, poorly written and who knows what the fuck they are talking about. Not the person writing the article I think.
Has anyone seen the original Sun article, by they way? It may be better written, but I doubt it.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,402
So I found the Sun article. Ignoring the headline, which is probably written by someone other than the author of the piece, the text of the article doesn't mention sister clubs at all.
It talks first about off-shore payments to agents and then adds that a club is using foreign "partner" clubs to disguise amounts paid for transfers into their UK squads.
It then goes on to say that these "off-shore" payments by "partner clubs" have often been made as "scouting agreements" and that 16 transfers are being reviewed.
It then goes on to talk about satellite teams and how many PL club owners have them (strange observation about owners).
So, to conclude. Assuming the writer is able to properly express what he is trying to talk about .... a PL club is using its European satellite clubs to pay "scouting arrangements" to agents as part of at least 16 transfers into its UK squads. Not much to go on there.
I suppose this could be something to do with CFG and a group-wide scouting network, some misunderstanding of sophisticated shared service processes and a willingness from some clubs to throw shit in the direction of CFG because they are losing out. But I doubt anything CFG has done is anything less than squeaky clean from the accounting, fiscal and FFP viewpoint.
It talks first about off-shore payments to agents and then adds that a club is using foreign "partner" clubs to disguise amounts paid for transfers into their UK squads.
It then goes on to say that these "off-shore" payments by "partner clubs" have often been made as "scouting agreements" and that 16 transfers are being reviewed.
It then goes on to talk about satellite teams and how many PL club owners have them (strange observation about owners).
So, to conclude. Assuming the writer is able to properly express what he is trying to talk about .... a PL club is using its European satellite clubs to pay "scouting arrangements" to agents as part of at least 16 transfers into its UK squads. Not much to go on there.
I suppose this could be something to do with CFG and a group-wide scouting network, some misunderstanding of sophisticated shared service processes and a willingness from some clubs to throw shit in the direction of CFG because they are losing out. But I doubt anything CFG has done is anything less than squeaky clean from the accounting, fiscal and FFP viewpoint.
Yep, the difference it how it will be reported will be astounding….More like it definitely isn’t us as it would get wall to wall negative coverage from our friends in the media if it was!