FFP

[CT Villan]

I'm probably delusional from the lack of transfer activity, but is there any way for NSWE (or another controlled third-party) to buy the player and pay his wages then 'donate' him to Villa for some nominal amount (or send him as a free agent). If NSWE aren't allowed to pay his wages after he is 'transferred' they could call it image rights or some such crap and then Villa would only need to pay a tiny amount on the books. Seems too easy, what am I missing ?

[Dave]

I'm probably delusional from the lack of transfer activity, but is there any way for NSWE (or another controlled third-party) to buy the player and pay his wages then 'donate' him to Villa for some nominal amount (or send him as a free agent). If NSWE aren't allowed to pay his wages after he is 'transferred' they could call it image rights or some such crap and then Villa would only need to pay a tiny amount on the books. Seems too easy, what am I missing ?

I think that's not a million miles away from about 80 of the charges that Man City are denying and that we're Very Cross About.

[paul_e]

The image rights bit is, indeed, part of what Man City were doing. The bit about signing him is third party ownership and was banned by Fifa about 10 years ago.

He also couldn't be signed by another NSWE club and then loaned to us (for a year I think), that one is down to Chelsea and their weird relationship with Vitesse from a while back.

All combined we'd be fucked if we tried it.

[CT Villan]

So I'm thinking like City and Chelsea accountants   I'm going somewhere quiet to take a long, hard look at myself and pray to McGrath for forgiveness...I may be some time.

Thanks for the info though.

[nordenvillain]

I'm probably delusional from the lack of transfer activity, but is there any way for NSWE (or another controlled third-party) to buy the player and pay his wages then 'donate' him to Villa for some nominal amount (or send him as a free agent). If NSWE aren't allowed to pay his wages after he is 'transferred' they could call it image rights or some such crap and then Villa would only need to pay a tiny amount on the books. Seems too easy, what am I missing ?

That's what Man City did when Kinkladze (?) played for them. He was owned by another entity who then invoiced City evety month for his wages,  then paid him a wage less their 'commission'. If it wasn't Kinkladze, it was another Eastern European player. I'm fairly sure that practice was deemed illegal by the FA.

[KevinGage]

The image rights bit is, indeed, part of what Man City were doing. The bit about signing him is third party ownership and was banned by Fifa about 10 years ago.

He also couldn't be signed by another NSWE club and then loaned to us (for a year I think), that one is down to Chelsea and their weird relationship with Vitesse from a while back.

All combined we'd be fucked if we tried it.

We are just the sort of club the PL and UEFA would fuck if we tried anything remotely like that.

Big enough to be made an an example of.

Not big enough to bend the world to our will and make any potential fallout uncomfortable for the PL empty suits and the grandes écoles types + similar variants in the UEFA hierarchy.