I really don't see the issue if he's bought at fair market value.
I don't really see what the problem is if Red bull can get around the regulations with their two sides.
I genuinely can't see how it's not allowed as long as the deal is above board and isn't like 40% under market value. He's valued roughly around £40m according to transfer market website and media sources. If we pay that what is the issue? I seriously don't get it.
It's not an arms length transaction so can be influenced by either party, undermining the principle of fair or market value.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's not an arms length transaction so can be influenced by either party, undermining the principle of fair or market value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His market value is £40m. If we paid half that then questions could and should be asked.
If we pay £40m and nobody else matches that I
genuinely don't see the issue? If we publicly bid 40m and nobody else bids similar or more then surely that's his market value isn't it?
Sorry. Repeated myself then last sentence. Didn't delete it.
Point still stands though.
As the 2nd club of Manchester you are following the number 1 club in Manchester which is to hire lawyers if you don't get your way.
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's not an arms length transaction so can be influenced by either party, undermining the principle of fair or market value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His market value is £40m. If we paid half that then questions could and should be asked.
If we pay £40m and nobody else matches that I
genuinely don't see the issue? If we publicly bid 40m and nobody else bids similar or more then surely that's his market value isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The market sets the value, and in this market players usually sell for what someone is willing to pay AND / OR what a club is willing to sell them for.
There are numerous examples, such as your very own Antony, where no one on this earth believed he was worth the 100m euros you paid for him but thats what Ajax wanted and that's what you were prepared to pay. Indeed in June before you bought him, Transfermarkt had him as 35m euro.
By having 2 clubs owned by the same party, the ability for both sides to act solely in their own best interests is compromised, the more 'powerful' one bring influence to bare and, in this case the selling club, may be willing to accept a lesser sum than they might otherwise would.
TBH any rules that stop the big clubs from having an advantage is a good thing. But the authorities need to get their sh-t in order because clearly certain clubs are finding loopholes to exploit like the recent deals involving Chelsea, Villa and Everton.
But if United are genuinely offering a fair price that Nice are happy to accept then I don't really see any advantage.
Don't the Red Bull clubs get around it because technically Leipzig aren't Red Bull? The RB in their name now stands for RasenBallsport.
Yeah, I'm with Devonshire for once on this one.
There is no objective way of calculating fair market value in the absence of the market. If Nice and United are effectively under control of the same organisation, there's no way of proving that the price they agreed followed the commercial interests of both parties. The Red Bull clubs had to restructure their management to prove to Uefa's satisfaction that they act independently... to me the amount of business the two clubs do remains quite fishy. But United and Nice don't even have that degree of executive separation. It's inconvenient for us in the short term, if Todibo is the player we want, but that's tough. The integrity of the game is more important.
(I assume a lot of United fans would take the opposite position if City were buying a promising player at a reasonable price from Girona.)
So we need a stupid club to bid £40m as well which will help prove his worth? How can we convince Chelsea to do this?
I think it's fair to say we want to sign him, then? :D
I'd have thought some common sense could prevail and an independent arbiter could oversee the deal to ensure everything was above board. He has a valuation that's been widely reported long before INEOS had anything to do with United and it seem illogical that Jim would want to short change his Nice team anyway.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 4 minutes ago
TBH any rules that stop the big clubs from having an advantage is a good thing. But the authorities need to get their sh-t in order because clearly certain clubs are finding loopholes to exploit like the recent deals involving Chelsea, Villa and Everton.
But if United are genuinely offering a fair price that Nice are happy to accept then I don't really see any advantage.
Don't the Red Bull clubs get around it because technically Leipzig aren't Red Bull? The RB in their name now stands for RasenBallsport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is, what is a fair price, because it will probably be lower than what Nice would be asking if seeking to achieve best value.
And does that process allow for others to bid and for their bids to be considered. SO if Utd agree £40m and Spurs come in with £45m, any selling club is duty bound to sell for the most if they are acting in their best interests.
Point is that it cannot be a closed-shop deal because that is anti-competitive.
If United bid fair market value (I actually thought he had a release clause of around £40m) but there's no other bidders and this prevents the move happening even though all 3 parties are happy, would this not be a restraint of trade?
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
If United bid fair market value (I actually thought he had a release clause of around £40m) but there's no other bidders and this prevents the move happening even though all 3 parties are happy, would this not be a restraint of trade?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's a release clause, that's a different matter, I guess. Unless another club offers Nice a higher fee.
The deals Everton, Chelsea and Villa are doing seem far more dodgy tbh. Loopholes galore.
There are other options around too. It's not Todibo or bust surely?
Some other club should just offer more to p-ss off chemical Jim.
Surely there are cases where a club have received 2 differernt offers for a player but the player only wants to move to the club with the lower offer? Not saying this will happen, just that a bigger offer doesn't always mean the club have to sell to them if the player refuses to move to them.
I thought it only stopped us playing him in Europe anyway as it was an issue for two clubs in the same UEFA competition?
Do you think the Glazers have been consulted or even know whats happening?
If this is going to cause an issue then perhaps the multi-club ownership thing needs to be looked at?
In terms of the player though could this be a Bosman moment. What if he decided he wanted to come out of his contract? Could he do that if he paid it off and then be a free agent?
So if he signs a new contract today with them and a release clause is added, we can just pay it?
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 25 minutes ago
There are other options around too. It's not Todibo or bust surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's gonna be another De Jong summer window
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 12 minutes ago
Some other club should just offer more to p-ss off chemical Jim.
Surely there are cases where a club have received 2 differernt offers for a player but the player only wants to move to the club with the lower offer? Not saying this will happen, just that a bigger offer doesn't always mean the club have to sell to them if the player refuses to move to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is fair in principle, but hard to prove it's not a stitch-up.
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 5 minutes ago
So if he signs a new contract today with them and a release clause is added, we can just pay it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be a bit dodgy
Sign in if you want to comment
INEOS
Page 1 of 3
posted on 26/6/24
I really don't see the issue if he's bought at fair market value.
posted on 26/6/24
I don't really see what the problem is if Red bull can get around the regulations with their two sides.
posted on 26/6/24
I genuinely can't see how it's not allowed as long as the deal is above board and isn't like 40% under market value. He's valued roughly around £40m according to transfer market website and media sources. If we pay that what is the issue? I seriously don't get it.
posted on 26/6/24
It's not an arms length transaction so can be influenced by either party, undermining the principle of fair or market value.
posted on 26/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's not an arms length transaction so can be influenced by either party, undermining the principle of fair or market value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His market value is £40m. If we paid half that then questions could and should be asked.
If we pay £40m and nobody else matches that I
genuinely don't see the issue? If we publicly bid 40m and nobody else bids similar or more then surely that's his market value isn't it?
posted on 26/6/24
Sorry. Repeated myself then last sentence. Didn't delete it.
Point still stands though.
posted on 26/6/24
As the 2nd club of Manchester you are following the number 1 club in Manchester which is to hire lawyers if you don't get your way.
posted on 26/6/24
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's not an arms length transaction so can be influenced by either party, undermining the principle of fair or market value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His market value is £40m. If we paid half that then questions could and should be asked.
If we pay £40m and nobody else matches that I
genuinely don't see the issue? If we publicly bid 40m and nobody else bids similar or more then surely that's his market value isn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The market sets the value, and in this market players usually sell for what someone is willing to pay AND / OR what a club is willing to sell them for.
There are numerous examples, such as your very own Antony, where no one on this earth believed he was worth the 100m euros you paid for him but thats what Ajax wanted and that's what you were prepared to pay. Indeed in June before you bought him, Transfermarkt had him as 35m euro.
By having 2 clubs owned by the same party, the ability for both sides to act solely in their own best interests is compromised, the more 'powerful' one bring influence to bare and, in this case the selling club, may be willing to accept a lesser sum than they might otherwise would.
posted on 26/6/24
TBH any rules that stop the big clubs from having an advantage is a good thing. But the authorities need to get their sh-t in order because clearly certain clubs are finding loopholes to exploit like the recent deals involving Chelsea, Villa and Everton.
But if United are genuinely offering a fair price that Nice are happy to accept then I don't really see any advantage.
Don't the Red Bull clubs get around it because technically Leipzig aren't Red Bull? The RB in their name now stands for RasenBallsport.
posted on 26/6/24
Yeah, I'm with Devonshire for once on this one.
There is no objective way of calculating fair market value in the absence of the market. If Nice and United are effectively under control of the same organisation, there's no way of proving that the price they agreed followed the commercial interests of both parties. The Red Bull clubs had to restructure their management to prove to Uefa's satisfaction that they act independently... to me the amount of business the two clubs do remains quite fishy. But United and Nice don't even have that degree of executive separation. It's inconvenient for us in the short term, if Todibo is the player we want, but that's tough. The integrity of the game is more important.
(I assume a lot of United fans would take the opposite position if City were buying a promising player at a reasonable price from Girona.)
posted on 26/6/24
So we need a stupid club to bid £40m as well which will help prove his worth? How can we convince Chelsea to do this?
posted on 26/6/24
I think it's fair to say we want to sign him, then? :D
I'd have thought some common sense could prevail and an independent arbiter could oversee the deal to ensure everything was above board. He has a valuation that's been widely reported long before INEOS had anything to do with United and it seem illogical that Jim would want to short change his Nice team anyway.
posted on 26/6/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 4 minutes ago
TBH any rules that stop the big clubs from having an advantage is a good thing. But the authorities need to get their sh-t in order because clearly certain clubs are finding loopholes to exploit like the recent deals involving Chelsea, Villa and Everton.
But if United are genuinely offering a fair price that Nice are happy to accept then I don't really see any advantage.
Don't the Red Bull clubs get around it because technically Leipzig aren't Red Bull? The RB in their name now stands for RasenBallsport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is, what is a fair price, because it will probably be lower than what Nice would be asking if seeking to achieve best value.
And does that process allow for others to bid and for their bids to be considered. SO if Utd agree £40m and Spurs come in with £45m, any selling club is duty bound to sell for the most if they are acting in their best interests.
Point is that it cannot be a closed-shop deal because that is anti-competitive.
posted on 26/6/24
If United bid fair market value (I actually thought he had a release clause of around £40m) but there's no other bidders and this prevents the move happening even though all 3 parties are happy, would this not be a restraint of trade?
posted on 26/6/24
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
If United bid fair market value (I actually thought he had a release clause of around £40m) but there's no other bidders and this prevents the move happening even though all 3 parties are happy, would this not be a restraint of trade?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's a release clause, that's a different matter, I guess. Unless another club offers Nice a higher fee.
posted on 26/6/24
The deals Everton, Chelsea and Villa are doing seem far more dodgy tbh. Loopholes galore.
posted on 26/6/24
There are other options around too. It's not Todibo or bust surely?
posted on 26/6/24
Some other club should just offer more to p-ss off chemical Jim.
Surely there are cases where a club have received 2 differernt offers for a player but the player only wants to move to the club with the lower offer? Not saying this will happen, just that a bigger offer doesn't always mean the club have to sell to them if the player refuses to move to them.
posted on 26/6/24
I thought it only stopped us playing him in Europe anyway as it was an issue for two clubs in the same UEFA competition?
posted on 26/6/24
Do you think the Glazers have been consulted or even know whats happening?
posted on 26/6/24
If this is going to cause an issue then perhaps the multi-club ownership thing needs to be looked at?
In terms of the player though could this be a Bosman moment. What if he decided he wanted to come out of his contract? Could he do that if he paid it off and then be a free agent?
posted on 26/6/24
So if he signs a new contract today with them and a release clause is added, we can just pay it?
posted on 26/6/24
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 25 minutes ago
There are other options around too. It's not Todibo or bust surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's gonna be another De Jong summer window
posted on 26/6/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 12 minutes ago
Some other club should just offer more to p-ss off chemical Jim.
Surely there are cases where a club have received 2 differernt offers for a player but the player only wants to move to the club with the lower offer? Not saying this will happen, just that a bigger offer doesn't always mean the club have to sell to them if the player refuses to move to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is fair in principle, but hard to prove it's not a stitch-up.
posted on 26/6/24
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 5 minutes ago
So if he signs a new contract today with them and a release clause is added, we can just pay it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be a bit dodgy
Page 1 of 3