Premier League clubs have voted against a proposal to fast-track a ban on loan moves for players moving into England’s top flight between associated clubs in the January transfer window. The Athletic reported earlier this month that all 20 clubs were to vote on the proposed ban at the next shareholders’ meeting. The temporary measure was recommended to safeguard the integrity of the competition and provide the necessary time to find a more permanent solution. The vote at the meeting at The Churchill Hotel in Portman Square, London on Tuesday required at least a two-thirds majority...
  • milkonyourmustache@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    This doesn’t mean they won’t look to put something more permanent in place. A temporary measure was probably not favoured because of how reactionary and targeted it looked, also changing the rules halfway through a season is generally viewed in bad taste.

    • meganev@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Probably doesn’t help that a few sports lawyers suggested that this could be legally challenged as anti competitive. Might have given some clubs pause.

      • milkonyourmustache@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        We are living in warped times if what is considered anti competitive is to not allow financial doping or the sport to be treated like a game of monopoly.

  • SnooCapers938@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Might as well forget the restrictions on squad sizes now. Newcastle’s owners also own four clubs in Saudi Arabia so that is potentially 100 players they can call on if needed.

    • xScottieHD@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      We weren’t ever going to and are unlikely to ever actually use the Saudi league for loaning anyone. For 100 players there’s like a few players Max who would remotely be suitable and it’s just not going to happen.

    • meganev@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Can we call on a few of these 100 for the weekend? Our squad is absolutely fucked.

  • Ornery_Ad_9871@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    This is why Everton needed taking down a peg. Need to own at least 4 other clubs to be treated with respect. Props to the PL!

  • Daver7692@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    13-7 is interesting.

    We can pretty much assume that City, Chelsea and Newcastle voted against.

    Would also assume with United’s incoming owner also having ownership of Nice they probably voted against.

    Still leaves 3 “against” clubs who are unknown.

    I know FSG have looked at buying other clubs but haven’t as of yet, given the ban was temporary I don’t see any benefit for us to vote against.

    • BrewtalDoom@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Villa, Bournemouth, Brighton, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Nottingham Forest and Sheffield United are also part of multi-club owenership setups.

    • alb92@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      If you want to buy another club, or thinking about selling your club later, any precedent, temporary or not, towards the limitation of multi-club ownership might be something you’d vote against.

    • MemestNotTeen@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Sky claims 11 (12 with United) teams have ties to other clubs so it’s actually a chase for the 4/5 that voted against their own interests (to some extent)

      Of those 11 it doesn’t even include Wolves which surprised me because I thought they have links in Italy and Portugal.

  • Visionary_Socialist@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    What should be done to differentiate between PIF loan deals and more developmental ones is that there should be a cap on the total wages of players loaned in, relative to their total wage package in their contract and the total wage budget of the club seeking the loan. So Newcastle can’t bring in PIF players on 900 grand a week, United can’t get loans from INEOS clubs to get around them being on the limit for FFP such as happened with Amrabat, etc.

    Multi club ownership is its own conversation, but when it comes to loans, they need to be regulated with common sense and not just banned out of hand.

  • toonking23@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Good, this whole thing was ridiculous. I have no idea where this Newcastle loaning saudi players came from, there is zero indication we want to do that. There wouldnt really even be anynone we’d want…maybe get Maxi back, i’d support that.

    And other clubs have been doing it for years.

    • A94MC@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Also, the big thing people have missed in this is that if Newcastle want any player in the world they can just go and buy them, or just buy the club who has them under contract. They aren’t limited to just loaning in ASM or Neves because they play in Saudi.

    • Bendy_McBendyThumb@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Apparently it was Dan Ashworth when interviewed by The S*n, all he said was something to the effect of “I suppose we could do that, yes” when asked if it was possible.

  • tontotheodopolopodis@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I really hope we don’t go down the road of signing loan players from PIF owned clubs. Feels shady and underhanded and everyone who’s been rightfully questioning our owners another stick to beat the club with.

    • xScottieHD@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t even make a difference for us. We were never going to loan Neves for example anyways. This just helps other clubs continue to do what they’ve done for years.

  • ChocolateStill5901@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Hope newcastle take the piss. Bring in mane, Ronaldo, Neves and whoever else on loans and free transfers just to make piss boil.