No blocking of loans between related parties

[ClaretTony]

Premier League clubs have voted today on a move to block loan signings from clubs with the same ownership but it wasn’t passed. Like all votes it needed 14 clubs to vote in favour of the motion but just 13 voted in favour.

It will now allow Newcastle to bring in loan players from the Saudi clubs they own in January.

[Chester Perry]

I posted this earlier on the MMT - gives a bit more detail

This is hardly a surprise give that so many Premier League clubs are now (or are trying to become) part of multi-club models - from The Athletic

Premier League clubs vote against banning loan moves between related parties in January
https://archive.li/HYpUY

[Jimmymaccer]

Is this the way round FFP? Pump money (investment of course)! into Saudi Club, buy player for £150m paying £1m a week…….then loan him to the PL club with sod all loan fee and just a share of the wages? Surely can’t be that simple (unlike me) - or is FFP based on the Group position ie all entities “related”?.

[Chester Perry]

Is this the way round FFP? Pump money (investment of course)! into Saudi Club, buy player for £150m paying £1m a week…….then loan him to the PL club with sod all loan fee and just a share of the wages? Surely can’t be that simple (unlike me) - or is FFP based on the Group position ie all entities “related”?.

Actually it is exactly that - which is why the Premier League Executive suggested a temporary ban - it forms part of the related party - fair value conversation that includes sponsorships, which is why Chelsea had a proposed sponsor refused at the start of the season (didn't help it was a rival to a Premier League broadcast partner), which Necastles was passed because of the values of the respective deals

[CoolClaret]

Disgusting league

Realy hope a super league is formed and the 'elite' teams p*ss off so we can get back to having an actual sporting pyramid.

[Chester Perry]

Disgusting league

Realy hope a super league is formed and the 'elite' teams p*ss off so we can get back to having an actual sporting pyramid.

We have seen and heard that the majority owners of our club I wanting to be a multi-club entity - this kind of rule would also apply to us if that became a reality - it would also theoretically impact Bournemouth, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Nottingham Forest and Wolves,

Note Brentford are no longer part of a multi-club group

[bfcjg]

Falling out of love with football, it's getting further and further away from why I got into the game.
Perhaps I'm just an old fart.

[RammyClaret61]

I’m guessing the 7 who voted against are the so called big 6 plus Newcastle?

[Chester Perry]

I’m guessing the 7 who voted against are the so called big 6 plus Newcastle?

It could easily be the teams I listed - Arsenal Manchester United, Spurs, Chelsea and to a lesser extent Liverpool (their is a limited link to AC Milan) have no real stake in the game - though they may want to find ways of hindering Newcastle's changes of Champions League qualification for next season

[ecc]

Pointless voting.

[ecc]

All of this is due to one man who died earlier this year namely Silvio Berlusconi.

[CoolClaret]

We have seen and heard that the majority owners of our club I wanting to be a multi-club entity - this kind of rule would also apply to us if that became a reality - it would also theoretically impact Bournemouth, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Nottingham Forest and Wolves,

Note Brentford are no longer part of a multi-club group

Yep and it’s something I have no interest in supporting at all.

(also to me our board pursuing that avenue attempting to buy another club when we’ve been as poor as we have absolutely stinks - let’s sort our own house out first eh?)

[daveisaclaret]

It was inevitable that other clubs benefitting from, or planning to benefit from, these arrangements would put their own interests ahead of the interest of the sport in this country. Just as unfortunately it's inevitable that fans do time after time. It's a path that's heading one way and I don't really see any way out of it.

[Westleigh]

Wasn’t this something we were hoping to do by buying another club? Whoops just seen an earlier comment.

[BurnleyFC]

It absolutely stinks.

[KRBFC]

I’m guessing the 7 who voted against are the so called big 6 plus Newcastle?

Why would you guess that?

I’d guess Brighton and Forest were more likely to vote against banning it than Man United. Those two clubs have an owner who owns more than one club.

[ClaretPete001]

A sad but unsurprising turn of events....

[RVclaret]

‘NEW: The seven clubs that blocked ban on signing loan players from partner teams were (according to sources) Newcastle, Sheff Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Forest.

Some other clubs angry that Saudi-owned Sheff Utd joined the opposition bloc.‘

[Chester Perry]

The key to remember here is that the proposal was only for a temporary ban (just the January window) until the framework for all the related party issues is defined and agreed on - some may just prefer to wait for that

[Paul Waine]

‘NEW: The seven clubs that blocked ban on signing loan players from partner teams were (according to sources) Newcastle, Sheff Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Forest.

Some other clubs angry that Saudi-owned Sheff Utd joined the opposition bloc.‘

I guess you've seen this reported by Martin Ziegler in The Times. I was about to post the same.

[Paul Waine]

The key to remember here is that the proposal was only for a temporary ban (just the January window) until the framework for all the related party issues is defined and agreed on - some may just prefer to wait for that

Hi CP, RV has already posted the 7 clubs, possibly from same report I've seen in The Times. Martyn Ziegler's report is more extensive than just naming the seven clubs.

Seven clubs that blocked ban on signing players from sister sides
Newcastle, Sheffield United, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves and Nottingham Forest are said to have voted against the proposed Premier League rule change

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter Tuesday November 21 2023, 7.00pm, The Times

A proposed ban on Premier League sides signing players from related clubs in the January transfer window — which would have blocked Newcastle United signing players on loan from the Saudi Pro League — has been defeated by a single vote.

Saudi-owned Sheffield United and Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City were among seven clubs who opposed the temporary ban, while 13 voted in favour at the Premier League meeting in London. At least 14 of the 20 top-flight clubs needed to back the proposal to pass the rule change.

Sources said the seven clubs that voted against the ban were: Newcastle, Sheffield United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Nottingham Forest. Most of those clubs are linked to multi-club ownership models so the defeat of the proposal means they can take players from partner clubs on loan.

A separate vote on tougher rules on commercial deals between associated parties was also defeated.

One club chief said there was particular anger among some of the 13 clubs in favour of the ban that Sheffield United had voted against it. Their owner is the Saudi prince Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud.

The proposed loan ban had been put forward after the move in the summer by the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund (PIF), which owns Newcastle, to buy four clubs in the Saudi Pro League.

There has been speculation that Newcastle could move for Rúben Neves to replace Sandro Tonali after the Italy midfielder was banned for ten months for breaching betting rules. Sources close to the club insist there was no intention of signing Neves, who plays for Al-Hilal, one of the clubs owned by the PIF.

There has been growing concern that multi-club ownership and associated party deals are providing some clubs with an unfair advantage. In December 2021 it was agreed that every associated party transaction — including transfers of players — involving Premier League clubs over the value of £1million a year would be checked to ensure it was of fair market value.

The rules now say that if the Premier League’s board has reasonable grounds to suspect “that it is an associated-party deal or ‘otherwise than at arm’s length’ ” then an independent firm will determine whether it is of fair market value or has been artificially inflated.

The regulations also cover any extra payments from associated parties to a club’s senior officials, managers or players earning more than £1 million a year.

Each club have had to provide financial details of all sponsorship deals they have done since 2016 to form a “databank” that will be used to determine fair market value.

[RammyClaret61]

Why would you guess that?

Because it was exactly that… a guess.

[ClaretTony]

Now reported that eight clubs voted against the ban - the eighth club was BURNLEY

[Bordeauxclaret]

Not overly surprising

[FeedTheArf]

Could the Saudi clubs not just sell the player to Newcastle on a free transfer and then transfer the player back in the summer?

[Rumbletonk]

I’m guessing the 7 who voted against are the so called big 6 plus Newcastle?

Absolute set of W#####s. Totally ruining our national game

[Paul Waine]

Now reported that eight clubs voted against the ban - the eighth club was BURNLEY

Yes, Martyn Ziegler has updated his article at 9:15pm - quoted above:

Eight clubs that blocked ban on signing players from sister sides
Newcastle, Sheffield United, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Nottingham Forest and Burnley are said to have voted against the proposed Premier League rule change

[daveisaclaret]

Now reported that eight clubs voted against the ban - the eighth club was BURNLEY

Shameful imo.

[Rumbletonk]

Now reported that eight clubs voted against the ban - the eighth club was BURNLEY

Get in! Rightly so. Can't see the problem at all

[ClaretTony]

Shameful imo.

Absolutely

[spt_claret]

Disgusting league

Realy hope a super league is formed and the 'elite' teams p*ss off so we can get back to having an actual sporting pyramid.

I share the sentiment but it won't happen. They'll take all the TV and sponsor money with them and every club outside the clique will collapse financially, it'll be the NFL system of soulless faceless corporate/international investment brands, with no other club able to sustain itself.

I think there is a serious danger that within the next 10-20 years global professional football will cease to exist outside of a small number of international megabrands. Especially as the money men the world over seem to want this to happen.

[spt_claret]

Now reported that eight clubs voted against the ban - the eighth club was BURNLEY

Disappointing. Propping up the King's table in the hope we can scarf some scraps.

[ClaretTony]

I share the sentiment but it won't happen. They'll take all the TV and sponsor money with them and every club outside the clique will collapse financially, it'll be the NFL system of soulless faceless corporate/international investment brands, with no other club able to sustain itself.

I think there is a serious danger that within the next 10-20 years global professional football will cease to exist outside of a small number of international megabrands. Especially as the money men the world over seem to want this to happen.

Worryingly it might not take as long as that

[spt_claret]

Worryingly it might not take as long as that

Was trying to be optimistic but honestly I agree.

[DCWat]

If we voted that way, for a rule in place for January, does this suggest we are near to some sort of deal, or more of a strategic vote, thinking longer term?

[CoolClaret]

I share the sentiment but it won't happen. They'll take all the TV and sponsor money with them and every club outside the clique will collapse financially, it'll be the NFL system of soulless faceless corporate/international investment brands, with no other club able to sustain itself.

I think there is a serious danger that within the next 10-20 years global professional football will cease to exist outside of a small number of international megabrands. Especially as the money men the world over seem to want this to happen.

Agreed, well, half agreed.

Think they’re will always be some sort of professional football outside of that potential ‘bubble’, it’ll just be quite far removed from what we’ve been used to. Probably more like a league one/two type.

As for the money men- they care not one jot about what sport actually is - it’s just a business to them. Capitalism at its very worse.

Disappointing. Propping up the King's table in the hope we can scarf some scraps.

we at least now stop pretending that ALK are anything but moneymen as well?

A bit of PR here and there might win the simpletons over but it’s all a front. Yet another disappointing decision.

[Chester Perry]

the report in the Telegraph shows that while Burnley voted to block the related party player loans (multi-club) approach but switched sides on the related party commercial deals - nothing unusual in the fact that they voted in self interest

Revealed: Premier League’s rebel eight who blocked ban on loan deals between associated clubs
Chelsea, Man City, Newcastle and Everton among those who defeated temporary ban as League tries to get to grips with multi-club ownership
https://archive.li/D35Ro

[Clive 1960]

Falling out of love with football, it's getting further and further away from why I got into the game.
Perhaps I'm just an old fart.

Same here , played the game and watching it being ruined by everything what's not right with the game.

[Nori1958]

If we voted that way, for a rule in place for January, does this suggest we are near to some sort of deal, or more of a strategic vote, thinking longer term?

Burnley voted to block the temporary loans, so would appear to have nothing lined up that we could have benefited from in January

[Kilson810]

The turkeys have voted against Christmas and this is why we need the independent regulator asap.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Was there as much outrage when City signed Lampard ? I don't recall much fuss

[Chester Perry]

Burnley voted to block the temporary loans, so would appear to have nothing lined up that we could have benefited from in January

Burnley voted to block the temporary loan ban - or in much clearer wording (I am guilty of not doing this up the thread) voted to allow temporary loans between related parties

[Nori1958]

Burnley voted to block the temporary loan ban - or in much clearer wording (I am guilty of not doing this up the thread) voted to allow temporary loans between related parties

Sorry, misunderstood your previous post

[Chester Perry]

Further detail on the votes yesterday including some of the thinking behind them, also why the related parties commercial issue is likely to be the bigger concern/prize going forward (not sure I totally agree with that notion btw, but it will be significant if finally passed as described within)

So it turns out that there was no vote on the New Deal for football,, though there are reports of two hours of discussions about it in the meeting - what was voted on - the related parties stuff - con tinues to shape the headlines

from The Athletic

Why a plan to ban related-party January loans failed, how clubs voted, and what’s next
https://archive.li/pojBz

[NewClaret]

Get in! Rightly so. Can't see the problem at all

[ClaretTony]

Get in! Rightly so. Can't see the problem at all

Really?

[KRBFC]

Absolute set of W#####s. Totally ruining our national game

It wasn’t the big 6……. It was us

[beddie]

Really?

I read it as a wind up CT, either that or he/ she doesn’t understand the long term implications.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Makes me wonder if our club have done a deal with one of the rebels if that is allowed, e.g. “you vote our way and we will loan or sell you these players in January”.

Because it sounds like the club have little to gain from it otherwise in the short term.

[claretandy]

It would be pointless for us to vote to ban inter club loans while we have been actively trying to buy another club.