City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

The MLS have strict wage controls that would make such a move illogical.

Also, I dont think the owners are looking at bending the rules like that as it would be a PR disaster both sides of the pond.

Lastly, they wont need to do that sort of thing in any case.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

I'm no expert but my theory would be that that would be classed as 3rd party owners and therefore illegal in the premier league and soon to be illegal in rest of Europe, but that is just a guess on my part.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

I'm no expert but my theory would be that that would be classed as 3rd party owners and therefore illegal in the premier league and soon to be illegal in rest of Europe, but that is just a guess on my part.

Interesting - i'm not sure how it could be classed as 3rd party ownership when there would only be one owner, the CFG. So there would be no undue influence to exert as we'd be exerting it on ourselves. The point of banning 3rd party ownership from what I can gather is to stop agents having undue influence in moving players from club to club without the club itself having much control.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

I'm no expert but my theory would be that that would be classed as 3rd party owners and therefore illegal in the premier league and soon to be illegal in rest of Europe, but that is just a guess on my part.

Interesting - i'm not sure how it could be classed as 3rd party ownership when there would only be one owner, the CFG. So there would be no undue influence to exert as we'd be exerting it on ourselves. The point of banning 3rd party ownership from what I can gather is to stop agents having undue influence in moving players from club to club without the club itself having much control.

Not sure, if CFG if held the registration and not the club whether they would be treated the same as an agent holding the registration as they could decide to sell him or move him to NYC over the clubs head. As you said really need an expert to answer your question.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I have no doubt twatinni and coherts are already planning someat to stop CFG of that I'm sure. Watch out for a raft of new measures all of which which will be aimed at stopping us.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

The MLS have strict wage controls that would make such a move illogical.

Also, I dont think the owners are looking at bending the rules like that as it would be a PR disaster both sides of the pond.

Lastly, they wont need to do that sort of thing in any case.

Hang on mate, why would it be a PR disaster, quite the contrary no? Lets use Cristiano Ronaldo as an example. City sign him next summer (obviously not gonna happen) to the CFG. They announce a six year deal of which the final two years are spent in NYCFC. How is that bad for NYC or for MCFC? Surely that is exactly the point of the CFG - so you have a family of clubs who are all branded as one. What better way to brand than to have a marquee player who you sign to the group.

With regards the MLS wage controls again, I don't see how this is a problem because the contract can stipulate different wages which is quite natural considering the player is in two different stages of his career.

I'm not saying it'll happen btw but I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the rules and legalities of it.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not sure, if CFG if held the registration and not the club whether they would be treated the same as an agent holding the registration as they could decide to sell him or move him to NYC over the clubs head. As you said really need an expert to answer your question.

MCFC would hold the registration for the first part of the contract and NYCFC for the second part. The point is that the purchase would be financed by the CFG as both clubs would be benefiting from the players services over the life of the agreement.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for the experts or - a theory to posit.

Is it possible for the CFG to sign a player rather than MCFC. So for example, the CFG sign player X next summer for 80 million pounds. This players is contractually obliged to play in Manchester for 5 years before moving to NYCFC for three years.

This way the cost of the player is absorbed by not just MCFC but NYCFC also.

I'm no expert but my theory would be that that would be classed as 3rd party owners and therefore illegal in the premier league and soon to be illegal in rest of Europe, but that is just a guess on my part.

Interesting - i'm not sure how it could be classed as 3rd party ownership when there would only be one owner, the CFG. So there would be no undue influence to exert as we'd be exerting it on ourselves. The point of banning 3rd party ownership from what I can gather is to stop agents having undue influence in moving players from club to club without the club itself having much control.

Under Premier League third party rules the individual club owns the registration of the player (and must own the full registration of the player, you're talking about two individual clubs owning 62.5% and 37.5% of the player each. It wouldn't work.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm no expert but my theory would be that that would be classed as 3rd party owners and therefore illegal in the premier league and soon to be illegal in rest of Europe, but that is just a guess on my part.

Interesting - i'm not sure how it could be classed as 3rd party ownership when there would only be one owner, the CFG. So there would be no undue influence to exert as we'd be exerting it on ourselves. The point of banning 3rd party ownership from what I can gather is to stop agents having undue influence in moving players from club to club without the club itself having much control.

Under Premier League third party rules the individual club owns the registration of the player (and must own the full registration of the player, you're talking about two individual clubs owning 62.5% and 37.5% of the player each. It wouldn't work.

Why would City only own 62% of his registration? They are purchasing him outright, then agreeing to sell him again outright after X number of years to NYCFC. The player stays in the CFG family, however his registration is owned by City first and then by NYCFC.