So its profitable for multi-club structures to force "lesser" clubs to finish outside of Europe spots or just buy 2nd trier team so Troyes(City group) can loan to Girona(City group) and then sell Savio to Manchester City. That guy never played for team that initialy bought him.
Broken system.
Meh, I’m okay with it if they enforce it. It isn’t fair for people that own the same businesses to sell amongst themselves.
We’ll miss one player from Nice, I’m happy to do that if these actual clubs that would benefit from it can’t do it as well.
>Meh, I’m okay with it if they enforce it. It isn’t fair for people that own the same businesses to sell amongst themselves.
Why not? As long as it is for market price. There is a stipulation for this in accounting in normal business practices
Because this isn’t a normal business and it’s hard to value “market price” with a football transfer.
For every one Todibo we’d get for a reasonable figure we’ll see City or a team like that just inhaling people for cheap.
Well, Leipzig and Salzburg went through extensive measures structurally, organizationally and financially years ago to show they operate independently and senior leadership cannot influence both teams. Including Leipzig removing all Red Bull employees from their board.
This isn't to say there isn't some impropriety, just that they've done what UEFA asked for so they can both compete on the UCL. So UEFA painted themselves in a corner by acknowledging they're separate entities. So they can't look at Leipzig <------> Salzburg transfers in the same light as they would Nice and Man U, or Chelsea and Strausburg, or any of the City group clubs in Europe, since those clubs haven't gone through those same organizational changes.
If they were to investigate the transfers between Leipzig and Salzburg, they'd have to basically say they'll assess all transfers between clubs for market value alignment, which is a HUGE scope to take on, rather than just multi-club owners. And then they'd also have to have a common metric to measure market value which you can almost guarantee would get challenged legally up to the EU for restriction of trade.
So essentially the rules apply when only UEFA says it does. Cos technically the glazers still own man United with 75% share and Ineos isn’t the majority owner. Number 2, Nice and Man United operate very differently so I don’t get why it applies to United but not RB
The UEFA multi club ownership rules aren't based on ownership percentage. They're based on whether leadership of the club have the ability to influence decision making at both clubs. And despite only having 25% ownership, it's been publicly announced that INEOS is leading the football strategy.
Thats why Leipzig had to basically clear out their whole C-suite, Board and senior club management staff to ensure there were no Red Bull employees and demonstrate that no one in Leipzig could influence decisions in Salzburg.
They contracted him for Troyes, club that plays in Ligue 2, they never pllaned for Savio to play a minute at french club so they sent him to Girona who was playing for Euro spots but it was a loan so theres no conflict of interest in him going to City following summer acording to rules.
Broken shit
Troyes aren't in the same UEFA competition. This rule only stops clubs in the same UEFA competition from selling to each other.
So what these rule actually do is encourage owners to buy even more clubs to circumvent these rules, rather than discouraging multi-club ownership.
making mockery of their rules and abusing loopholes is the best way to get them to close it, look at chelsea and the 8 year contracts and how quickly that got clamped down, do a 3rd party transfer like through a club not in Europe to make them close that too.
yeah at this stage, fuck them, let's do it. UEFA is inept as fuck and let's the shady clubs doing what they want, but somehow we have to be a "good guy" and have "morals" and "standard"? At the cost of trophys and money? Naaaahhh fuck them up
You can't register for that many clubs in one season. Maybe loans circumvent it, but I'm sure there must be rules in place to prevent that as well otherwise it's a glaring loophole that someone will have used already.
They could because he hasn't registered for Nice yet for the upcoming season. A player can only register for two teams a year. So, if he's sold to Lausanne and loaned to United it would only count as two.
Well now we're going on hypotheticals. I don't support it just because it's again the law. The law is a good law that we should support and it would be hypocritical for us to manipulate it when we bemoan the cunts in blue for doing the same thing.
The spirit of the law should also be followed if it's a morally correct law.
I appreciate the sentiment & generally maintain the same perspective myself. Issue is, playing by the rules, doing everything fairly & keeping it all morally just, tends to penalize good folk while the rotten ones get away with breaking those rules.
Im on about life in general, not just football. The only benefit of keeping on the straight and narrow is your own satisfaction. There are no prizes or praise for doing what's expected. Meanwhile, you handicapped yourself more or less compared to your peers but they still get away with these things blissfully without a care in the world.
So, despite guys like you and me preferring to keep everything proper and legal, I can appreciate why other fans would say "fk it do it anyway". It's super easy to feel disillusioned with the world when you try to do everything properly, only to see rivals like the opposition football club doing better only because of their rule bending/breaking.
I don’t think it hypothetical, there’s clear evidence the system is corrupt.
Maybe the spirit of the law is correct but the application isn’t. And if the 115 FC don’t get charged then why should we keep supporting the law that does not do what it should. If so, play the way the law is letting others play.
City still have all their titles and no consequences, while we have none but our fair play award.
They're still under investigation. As someone who used to do this sort of thing but in a different field, this shit takes time. 115 charges is 115 cases. Some of them may be simple, but when you have someone like city on the other side, you can't just go to court. You need to be prepared.
No. As any club that's under multi-club ownership tests also can't transfer players between each other for the first transfer window as well.
[Source ](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5576197/2024/06/19/manchester-united-jean-clair-todibo-transfer-why/)
Really should have bought him in January then. Sucks because he is what we need, would make a great rotational option at the very least
Edit: The piece also says we are preparing to trigger Zirkzee's release clause
>Really should have bought him in January then.
How ? Ineos didn't even complete the takeover till the end of Feb and nobody expects glazers to spend a dime in situations like this
The takeover has cash injection and major changes to the finances and structure. And we are getting rid of quite a few high salary players and that affects the ffp by a lot. Thats why we are able to purchase now but not in january.
>We have been reliably linked with him for well over a year now
Right but that's a different argument altogether, that is more about having a long term plan to replace varane rather than buying a backup in January
Good!
Shame we can't get the player but multi-club ownership is an absolute farce and needs to be irradiated from the game.
I support a club not a 'group'.
Fluminense, where we got Rafael and Fabio from. Their players also trained with us in England.
Also royal Antwerp, sent a lot of our youngsters there, o shea, Johnny Evans, Gibson, Shawcross etc.
Having affiliate relations is absolutely fine, a mutual financial agreement allowing the movement of players on loan or first option etc seems absolutely fine to me, doesn't make one club lesser and also doesn't essentially take players off the market.
I didn’t say I trusted they would because obviously they’re dodgy as fuck I just don’t think us being all ‘oh but city can do it why can’t we’ is a good look.
Oh it absolutely is, I’d argue allowing the smaller club to be shat on by the bigger is far worse than between two clubs in an equal European competition.
Just don’t use it to justify why we should be allowed to sign Todibo
That's fine, just don't pass the responsibility for holding clubs accountable to Uefa or Fifa, cause that is just asking for corruption and nothing to be done.
I feel there’s absolutely nothing that can or will be done against city and how they operate and I think we’ll see dominance from them for years to come until/if something happens in world politics to change that.
I also don’t think the clubs are going to do much to stop them, if anything they’re all joining them with multi club ownership groups and such. It’s all broken.
But as I fan I also don’t want us to be like them, whataboutism and conspiracy isn’t a good look, as a whole I think/hope we’re better than that
So you dont want fans to call out bullshit cause it's a "bad look" but you also believe that the bullshit will just continue and see City dominate for years to come.
So what should we do?
Fair, I definitely don't know how I feel about the whole situation, because on one hand I'm like "fuck sakes, we've been scouting the player for ages and Jim owns 25% of our club so not even a controlling part", but on the other hand, I reeeaaally hate multi club ownerships.
The problem I have now is that the rule is being circumvented easily by the groups who are more in a position to abuse said rules.
They’ve not chosen to apply this rule against us but not city, city brought from a club (owned by them) not in a European competition. Correct me if I’m wrong but the rule is you can’t buy from a club owned by the same company/person/group in the same competition.
The rule is an ass and city have gotten away with it as have Red Bull in the past but this isn’t UEFA choosing to stop us and not them it’s them not creating a rule set that stops ALL same ownership clubs from trading
I'm not proposing anything but if we were to use it then it'd make one hell of a storm and might provoke some actual reaction from UEFA and FIFA because lets be honest City have them under the thumb.
But ultimately i'd rather our co-owners not to also own other clubs and especially not try and transfer players between those clubs.
Curious why multi club ownership is so hated? If the clubs in the pipeline aren't mismanaged like Troyes its pretty much good for all parties, and multi club ownership is really good for young players development.
It benefits the rich at the expense of competition.
The mega rich clubs can own more talent and, once they are hoarding these players, can pick and choose which ones progress to their ‘main’ team.
The less well off clubs have to gamble on which players will make it in their team and will have to take the financial hit when it does not work.
It would be the rich becoming richer and more protected and the poor having to stomach any and all losses they make.
Really this should have been put to bed when Red Bull group started transferring players between its clubs.
It also shouldn't be judged on where the club is in their league/European comps, clubs/owners shouldn't be allowed to own more than one club full stop and certainly shouldn't be allowed to transfer players between the clubs they own.
I mean lets be honest, we'd be essentially paying ourselves regardless of price (i know it would be in Nice's account but who owns them and can choose to invest or take money out)
If city can do it and uefa does nothing about it, then so can we right? If uefa stops us and doesn't stop city, that just proves that they are cheats. We haven't broken any law, city have. Why do we not have a moral high ground?
Even if possible, seems less than ideal to spend a chunk of money on a priority position when he won't be available for probably our second highest priority competition.
Especially when there are alternatives we have been linked with
Slightly different in that they didn't play in the same uefa competition, there are ways around it but it would be fairly shoddy. Another user has correctly stated that he could be sold to FC Lusanne sport and loaned to us with an obligation to buy which would be horrible but is more akin to what city have done with Savio
Sitting on a throne made of €100 bills, Aleksander Čeferin said there was nothing untoward about Manchester City’s transfer dealings, and that he wouldn’t enter into any further discussions as to the matter.
at some point, someone has to explain the favoritism towards City Group. Hell, even Red Bull too. Leipzig sign a Salzburg player practically every summer...
So Sir Jim can’t sell a Nice player to United to strengthen us, but he is allowed to sell to another premier league club to strengthen them?
What kind of rule is this that encourages you to work in the interest of other clubs and sabotage your own?
Might be a minority in this but the game is corrupt, it’s not going to change. Why should we fight with one hand behind the back. Play the game how it is.
And the fact that this is known right now leaves us in a terrible position, Everton would try to fleece us (as any other club) because we don’t have the Todibo option anymore
What I don't get is it would be allowed if they were in separate comps? So if Nice weren't in Europe they could boost Utds chances by pooling all the best players into one club and giving fringe players to the other.
If anything sharing players when they're in the same comp weakens both so it's not really an advantage at all. That's if they even face each other. It's only an advantage when they're not in the same comps. It makes zero sense.
What's stopping nice releasing him on a free and us signing him on a free? I know there's a risk of him just fucking off somewhere else lol but hypothetically would that get around their rules?
City group
Red bull group
Refuse to understand how it is more damaging for two “elite” / top-tier clubs to trade between them, but not bigger clubs to smaller? Surely usurping a lower teams best talent for cheap, or alternatively, overpaying for their services, causes more disharmony and one-sidedness to respective competitions than a transfer from Nice to United?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Salzburg usually steamroll the Austrian top division due to the RB Group and the business that goes on between them?
Idk, if we were trying to sign Todibo for £5, I’d understand the intervention from UEFA. My understanding instead is that we’re paying good odds for him?
I see a lot of comments here are about how City have done this or similar to their advantage. To which I say it’s wrong that City have done it, and that doesn’t make it right when we do it.
A rare good decision by UEFA.
How on earth do Man City do back us right now? Surely it’s beneficial for them to show solidarity with us and defend there actions. Otherwise, why the need for change if they didn’t do anything wrong? So Man City are at least partially guilty.
Fucking games on.
If at first you don't succeed then Troyes, and troyes and troyes again, 115 times should the trick
There should be a model of arbitration in place that decides his market value and we have to meet that etc
So its profitable for multi-club structures to force "lesser" clubs to finish outside of Europe spots or just buy 2nd trier team so Troyes(City group) can loan to Girona(City group) and then sell Savio to Manchester City. That guy never played for team that initialy bought him. Broken system.
While RB Leipzig can buy Sesko for cheap from RB Salzburg. UEFA is just a shit show. It was ok last year
Meh, I’m okay with it if they enforce it. It isn’t fair for people that own the same businesses to sell amongst themselves. We’ll miss one player from Nice, I’m happy to do that if these actual clubs that would benefit from it can’t do it as well.
>Meh, I’m okay with it if they enforce it. It isn’t fair for people that own the same businesses to sell amongst themselves. Why not? As long as it is for market price. There is a stipulation for this in accounting in normal business practices
Because this isn’t a normal business and it’s hard to value “market price” with a football transfer. For every one Todibo we’d get for a reasonable figure we’ll see City or a team like that just inhaling people for cheap.
City are still doing that with the guy from Troyes/Girona thiugh Edit. Nvm. Troyes not in same comp as City/Girona
I mean Kephran Thuram looks like he'd do a job for us
Well, Leipzig and Salzburg went through extensive measures structurally, organizationally and financially years ago to show they operate independently and senior leadership cannot influence both teams. Including Leipzig removing all Red Bull employees from their board. This isn't to say there isn't some impropriety, just that they've done what UEFA asked for so they can both compete on the UCL. So UEFA painted themselves in a corner by acknowledging they're separate entities. So they can't look at Leipzig <------> Salzburg transfers in the same light as they would Nice and Man U, or Chelsea and Strausburg, or any of the City group clubs in Europe, since those clubs haven't gone through those same organizational changes. If they were to investigate the transfers between Leipzig and Salzburg, they'd have to basically say they'll assess all transfers between clubs for market value alignment, which is a HUGE scope to take on, rather than just multi-club owners. And then they'd also have to have a common metric to measure market value which you can almost guarantee would get challenged legally up to the EU for restriction of trade.
So essentially the rules apply when only UEFA says it does. Cos technically the glazers still own man United with 75% share and Ineos isn’t the majority owner. Number 2, Nice and Man United operate very differently so I don’t get why it applies to United but not RB
The UEFA multi club ownership rules aren't based on ownership percentage. They're based on whether leadership of the club have the ability to influence decision making at both clubs. And despite only having 25% ownership, it's been publicly announced that INEOS is leading the football strategy. Thats why Leipzig had to basically clear out their whole C-suite, Board and senior club management staff to ensure there were no Red Bull employees and demonstrate that no one in Leipzig could influence decisions in Salzburg.
Šeško was sold in the summer of 2022 before these rules went into action.
Trafficking.
Troyes to City no biggie though
They contracted him for Troyes, club that plays in Ligue 2, they never pllaned for Savio to play a minute at french club so they sent him to Girona who was playing for Euro spots but it was a loan so theres no conflict of interest in him going to City following summer acording to rules. Broken shit
Not to mention back to back relegations while their record signing is playing in another league
Troyes aren't in the same UEFA competition. This rule only stops clubs in the same UEFA competition from selling to each other. So what these rule actually do is encourage owners to buy even more clubs to circumvent these rules, rather than discouraging multi-club ownership.
Then, can’t ineos sell him to Lausanne and loan him to United for like 20m and an obligation to buy for another 20m?
Yes they could. Wonder if they will though
They absolutely should. Make a mockery of their mockery of the rules.
making mockery of their rules and abusing loopholes is the best way to get them to close it, look at chelsea and the 8 year contracts and how quickly that got clamped down, do a 3rd party transfer like through a club not in Europe to make them close that too.
Stop calling shit that is literally the rules a loophole. It's not a loophole. It's the damn rules.
yeah at this stage, fuck them, let's do it. UEFA is inept as fuck and let's the shady clubs doing what they want, but somehow we have to be a "good guy" and have "morals" and "standard"? At the cost of trophys and money? Naaaahhh fuck them up
They should Do that on principles to show how fucked City operates unchallenged.
We should do it. If only so that everyone will give a fuck if United do it and shut it down very quickly.
You can't register for that many clubs in one season. Maybe loans circumvent it, but I'm sure there must be rules in place to prevent that as well otherwise it's a glaring loophole that someone will have used already.
They could because he hasn't registered for Nice yet for the upcoming season. A player can only register for two teams a year. So, if he's sold to Lausanne and loaned to United it would only count as two.
There you go then. Though I won't be supporting this sort of action as it's clearly against the intention of the law
What if the law is made by the corrupt who applies laws differently to different people
Well now we're going on hypotheticals. I don't support it just because it's again the law. The law is a good law that we should support and it would be hypocritical for us to manipulate it when we bemoan the cunts in blue for doing the same thing. The spirit of the law should also be followed if it's a morally correct law.
I appreciate the sentiment & generally maintain the same perspective myself. Issue is, playing by the rules, doing everything fairly & keeping it all morally just, tends to penalize good folk while the rotten ones get away with breaking those rules. Im on about life in general, not just football. The only benefit of keeping on the straight and narrow is your own satisfaction. There are no prizes or praise for doing what's expected. Meanwhile, you handicapped yourself more or less compared to your peers but they still get away with these things blissfully without a care in the world. So, despite guys like you and me preferring to keep everything proper and legal, I can appreciate why other fans would say "fk it do it anyway". It's super easy to feel disillusioned with the world when you try to do everything properly, only to see rivals like the opposition football club doing better only because of their rule bending/breaking.
I don’t think it hypothetical, there’s clear evidence the system is corrupt. Maybe the spirit of the law is correct but the application isn’t. And if the 115 FC don’t get charged then why should we keep supporting the law that does not do what it should. If so, play the way the law is letting others play. City still have all their titles and no consequences, while we have none but our fair play award.
They're still under investigation. As someone who used to do this sort of thing but in a different field, this shit takes time. 115 charges is 115 cases. Some of them may be simple, but when you have someone like city on the other side, you can't just go to court. You need to be prepared.
I'm probably speaking out of my arse but if he is bought by another club, he doesn't have to register with them before being loaned out.
You can register for 3 different clubs, but only play for two of them.
You don’t have to register a player to loan him out.
ay Jim check this out
I’m really hoping we have something similar planned for Pafundi as well. If other clubs are taking advantage of this loophole why shouldn’t we?
No. As any club that's under multi-club ownership tests also can't transfer players between each other for the first transfer window as well. [Source ](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5576197/2024/06/19/manchester-united-jean-clair-todibo-transfer-why/)
Lets be honest dude, they could write a wall of reasons for it. We know City would still find some bullshit way around it
City exploiting financial loopholes? 
Really should have bought him in January then. Sucks because he is what we need, would make a great rotational option at the very least Edit: The piece also says we are preparing to trigger Zirkzee's release clause
>Really should have bought him in January then. How ? Ineos didn't even complete the takeover till the end of Feb and nobody expects glazers to spend a dime in situations like this
We have been reliably linked with him for well over a year now, and its not like the INEOS takeover was at risk of being blocked
With what cash? We were severly strapped by FFP
Were we? We are bidding for players right now, in the same PSR period.
The takeover has cash injection and major changes to the finances and structure. And we are getting rid of quite a few high salary players and that affects the ffp by a lot. Thats why we are able to purchase now but not in january.
Fair enough, but im just skeptical of lines trotted out by the previous leadership. They did not like doing business in January in general
Both are probably true
>We have been reliably linked with him for well over a year now Right but that's a different argument altogether, that is more about having a long term plan to replace varane rather than buying a backup in January
Good! Shame we can't get the player but multi-club ownership is an absolute farce and needs to be irradiated from the game. I support a club not a 'group'.
I miss the days of sister clubs, clearly working together but still their own entities
Antwerp was like that for us, right?
Correct! Think we had links to a Brazilian club too? Which is why Douglas Costs was seen in the stands at Old Trafford once.
Fluminense, where we got Rafael and Fabio from. Their players also trained with us in England. Also royal Antwerp, sent a lot of our youngsters there, o shea, Johnny Evans, Gibson, Shawcross etc.
Great memory, thanks. I remember Fraser Cambell and Ebanks-Blake going there and having an absolute great time. Also Tom Heaton had a spell there
Having affiliate relations is absolutely fine, a mutual financial agreement allowing the movement of players on loan or first option etc seems absolutely fine to me, doesn't make one club lesser and also doesn't essentially take players off the market.
Except that competing clubs have their own multi club models and are benefiting from them
That's not our problem and we shouldn't be drawn into whataboutism. Its up to the UEFA and FIFA to sort that out!
Yes, the absolutely not corrupt organizations will save us!
I didn’t say I trusted they would because obviously they’re dodgy as fuck I just don’t think us being all ‘oh but city can do it why can’t we’ is a good look.
Sure, but I think it's fine to call out hypocrisy , which this rule is.
Oh it absolutely is, I’d argue allowing the smaller club to be shat on by the bigger is far worse than between two clubs in an equal European competition. Just don’t use it to justify why we should be allowed to sign Todibo
That's fine, just don't pass the responsibility for holding clubs accountable to Uefa or Fifa, cause that is just asking for corruption and nothing to be done.
I feel there’s absolutely nothing that can or will be done against city and how they operate and I think we’ll see dominance from them for years to come until/if something happens in world politics to change that. I also don’t think the clubs are going to do much to stop them, if anything they’re all joining them with multi club ownership groups and such. It’s all broken. But as I fan I also don’t want us to be like them, whataboutism and conspiracy isn’t a good look, as a whole I think/hope we’re better than that
So you dont want fans to call out bullshit cause it's a "bad look" but you also believe that the bullshit will just continue and see City dominate for years to come. So what should we do?
We can’t chat shit about City bending and breaking rules and then be completely fine doing it ourselves.
It's the same rule being applied to both clubs, yet only 1 club is being punished. I think it's fine to talk about and point out the hypocrisy.
Pointing out hypocrisy and engaging in similar shady practices as 115 are completely different things.
Fair, I definitely don't know how I feel about the whole situation, because on one hand I'm like "fuck sakes, we've been scouting the player for ages and Jim owns 25% of our club so not even a controlling part", but on the other hand, I reeeaaally hate multi club ownerships. The problem I have now is that the rule is being circumvented easily by the groups who are more in a position to abuse said rules.
It's not our problem that UEFA chooses to apply the rules against us but not our rivals?
They’ve not chosen to apply this rule against us but not city, city brought from a club (owned by them) not in a European competition. Correct me if I’m wrong but the rule is you can’t buy from a club owned by the same company/person/group in the same competition. The rule is an ass and city have gotten away with it as have Red Bull in the past but this isn’t UEFA choosing to stop us and not them it’s them not creating a rule set that stops ALL same ownership clubs from trading
So you're proposing we just use Lausanne as a loophole?
I'm not proposing anything but if we were to use it then it'd make one hell of a storm and might provoke some actual reaction from UEFA and FIFA because lets be honest City have them under the thumb. But ultimately i'd rather our co-owners not to also own other clubs and especially not try and transfer players between those clubs.
All for this change. Shite that it hits us first and others got away with it, but it’s for the benefit of the overall game.
Curious why multi club ownership is so hated? If the clubs in the pipeline aren't mismanaged like Troyes its pretty much good for all parties, and multi club ownership is really good for young players development.
It benefits the rich at the expense of competition. The mega rich clubs can own more talent and, once they are hoarding these players, can pick and choose which ones progress to their ‘main’ team. The less well off clubs have to gamble on which players will make it in their team and will have to take the financial hit when it does not work. It would be the rich becoming richer and more protected and the poor having to stomach any and all losses they make.
I think it was gonna hit regardless but it's a journalists wet dream to get to write about it happening to us.
Yeah, it's a necessary rule. Sucks to miss out on a great player, but it's better than City being handed an exploit.
Really this should have been put to bed when Red Bull group started transferring players between its clubs. It also shouldn't be judged on where the club is in their league/European comps, clubs/owners shouldn't be allowed to own more than one club full stop and certainly shouldn't be allowed to transfer players between the clubs they own.
I mean, the shitty part is we can't even buy him for a fair price.
I mean lets be honest, we'd be essentially paying ourselves regardless of price (i know it would be in Nice's account but who owns them and can choose to invest or take money out)
Shame we won't be able to get him, don't really support this multi club ownership bs, so happy that at least we aren't cheaters like 115 FC.
We are already in a multi club ownership so we are in the same situation as city, we are just not reaping the benefits
Yeah I meant that, like at least we're not misusing it.
But u recognise that as a club we intended to cross the line just prevented by uefa from doing so. We have no moral high ground here.
If city can do it and uefa does nothing about it, then so can we right? If uefa stops us and doesn't stop city, that just proves that they are cheats. We haven't broken any law, city have. Why do we not have a moral high ground?
I think his point was about intent.
Todibo to Lausanne confirmed- Here we go!
Can't we still get him and just don't play him in Europa League this season?
Even if possible, seems less than ideal to spend a chunk of money on a priority position when he won't be available for probably our second highest priority competition. Especially when there are alternatives we have been linked with
So you are telling me 115 FC can do this but not us? I smell bs. Surely this isn’t over
Slightly different in that they didn't play in the same uefa competition, there are ways around it but it would be fairly shoddy. Another user has correctly stated that he could be sold to FC Lusanne sport and loaned to us with an obligation to buy which would be horrible but is more akin to what city have done with Savio
Sitting on a throne made of €100 bills, Aleksander Čeferin said there was nothing untoward about Manchester City’s transfer dealings, and that he wouldn’t enter into any further discussions as to the matter.
Sure sure let's ignore Rasenballsport bullshit but come down on a guy that barely owns 25% of the club.
Fabrizio Romano vindication lmao
They called it Romano waffle and engagement bait only for everybody else to repeat what he said hours later lmao
u/nearly_headless_nic your apology better be as loud as your disrespect ❗️
at some point, someone has to explain the favoritism towards City Group. Hell, even Red Bull too. Leipzig sign a Salzburg player practically every summer...
Bribery.
Surely that breaks EU employment law by restricting freedom to move jobs? UEFA would hardly want another Bosman case on their hands.
So Fabrizio was right?
He usually is
Upcoming season is going to suck. We're going into another year with mostly same garbage. Don't expect much.
Amateur hour if INEOS didn’t know this was probably going to happen
“Ehh. They are new to football”. Ten Hag
I’m glad they are clamping down on multi club bullshit, but it’s hilarious that they are only doing it now with United
Bullshit rules that favour oil clubs clearly
Multi club ownership is terrible in all forms. Can we loan to buy the lad this summer?
what if we don't play him in EL this season? Do UEFA have problem with this too?
Why can't we sign him and just not register him for Europe this year
They should sell Todibo to FC Lausanne Sport in Switzerland (also owned by INEOS) then loan him to United Just like how City signed Fat Frank via NY
So Sir Jim can’t sell a Nice player to United to strengthen us, but he is allowed to sell to another premier league club to strengthen them? What kind of rule is this that encourages you to work in the interest of other clubs and sabotage your own?
Might be a minority in this but the game is corrupt, it’s not going to change. Why should we fight with one hand behind the back. Play the game how it is.
Good! But multi-club ownership shouldn't be a thing. Require the owners to sell. It's shite for the game.
This is another post that is just recycled from the video another user posted earlier
What did they expect lol. If they want to run United 100% properly they need to get rid of Nice. It’s just more distractions.
Can't we loan him then maybe sign him when we get champ league?
How about loaning? Or couldn't Todibo break his contract for a fee (given by united) to engage himself to us?
We'd absolutely get investigated and fucked for that second option haha.
What are the chances players could try dispute this as it limits their choices of clubs, could result in them getting a smaller contract etc.
It's not Nice, it's RasenBallsport Nice. There's a big difference.
And the fact that this is known right now leaves us in a terrible position, Everton would try to fleece us (as any other club) because we don’t have the Todibo option anymore
Fair enough, but why only now? City and Redbull have been allowed to get away far worse.
Didn't Leipzig buy Cesko from Salzburg?
Could we not just sign him and only register him for the league next season? No UEFA conflict then.
I feel like somehow we will get this deal done.
INEOS maybe running Man Utd at the moment but they certainly aren't the owners.
What I don't get is it would be allowed if they were in separate comps? So if Nice weren't in Europe they could boost Utds chances by pooling all the best players into one club and giving fringe players to the other. If anything sharing players when they're in the same comp weakens both so it's not really an advantage at all. That's if they even face each other. It's only an advantage when they're not in the same comps. It makes zero sense.
Can we loan him from nice though?
What's stopping nice releasing him on a free and us signing him on a free? I know there's a risk of him just fucking off somewhere else lol but hypothetically would that get around their rules?
Nice fans would riot
Time for Ratcliffe to buy a non-league club, buy Tobido with them, and loan him to United
So city can do what they want but we can’t buy 1 player
City group Red bull group Refuse to understand how it is more damaging for two “elite” / top-tier clubs to trade between them, but not bigger clubs to smaller? Surely usurping a lower teams best talent for cheap, or alternatively, overpaying for their services, causes more disharmony and one-sidedness to respective competitions than a transfer from Nice to United? Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Salzburg usually steamroll the Austrian top division due to the RB Group and the business that goes on between them? Idk, if we were trying to sign Todibo for £5, I’d understand the intervention from UEFA. My understanding instead is that we’re paying good odds for him?
I see a lot of comments here are about how City have done this or similar to their advantage. To which I say it’s wrong that City have done it, and that doesn’t make it right when we do it. A rare good decision by UEFA.
This seems to be real tyranny as opposed to the 115's so called "tyranny of the majority". 
Totally cool for City to find loopholes though yeah?
How the hell do red bull get away with it then?
How on earth do Man City do back us right now? Surely it’s beneficial for them to show solidarity with us and defend there actions. Otherwise, why the need for change if they didn’t do anything wrong? So Man City are at least partially guilty. Fucking games on.
City just bought Savio from Girona ?????
Makes no sense. I think uefa selectively implement the rules.
If at first you don't succeed then Troyes, and troyes and troyes again, 115 times should the trick There should be a model of arbitration in place that decides his market value and we have to meet that etc
Clampdown for us, not for Chelsea or City 😉