Winter 25-26 Transfer Window - hopes, speculation, rumours etc.

[VancouverLion]

Palmeiras rejects a 35M€ offer from Napoli for Allan. The player hag a significant inquiry from Newcastle and another from Aston Villa. He will stay in Brazil until after the World Cup. 100M€ release clause. https://as.com/futbol/internacional/palmeiras-no-a-35m-por-allan-f202601-n/

VancouverLion will be pleased if we sign him.

 

[paul_e]

Yes, but it explicitly says it's based on the uefa squad. They'd have to add new assessment criteria that aren't included to punish us for spending money outside that (that fits within the general financial rules). That's what I mean by there being no mechanism for it.

But let's say we go and spend £60m on Marmoush, don't include him in our Europa Squad on Feb 1st. Happy days, we go and win the league. As I said, I think that the level of player we'd hopefully sign in these circumstances wouldn't be all that arsed about not being involved in the Europa League this season.

But come the summer, UEFA say "but you still can't register any new players on your A list, because you now have a 'Football Earnings deficit' for this reporting period because you spent £60m on Marmoush back in January. So your punishment isn't suspended, you've got another year of it".

And those players will be arsed about next years (hoped for) Champions League campaign.

Put it this way, if it's all fine and we don't need to worry about future UEFA A list squads, there's no discernible reason we wouldn't be beefing up the squad and spending loads of money this January, is there?

Well we still need to meet all the other regulations so we'd still be restricted in what we can do but there's nothing in the ruling to say you must not only maintain a positive balance on transfers into the UEFA squad but you also can't do anything we don't like and if you do we might make up additional restrictions retroactively so we can punish you a bit more, despite you doing everything we asked.

Nothing in either the standard regulations or in the specific judgement they made allows them to add extra requirements down the line. As I said they're already pushing the limits of what they can do by deciding to adjust player transfer values in some circumstances because player values are subjective so what counts as a fair market rate is very difficult to say with any certainty.

[Dante Lavelli]

Aren’t the PL regulations migrating to something closer to the UEFA rules?

[Dave]

Well we still need to meet all the other regulations so we'd still be restricted in what we can do but there's nothing in the ruling to say you must not only maintain a positive balance on transfers into the UEFA squad but you also can't do anything we don't like and if you do we might make up additional restrictions retroactively so we can punish you a bit more, despite you doing everything we asked.

Nothing in either the standard regulations or in the specific judgement they made allows them to add extra requirements down the line. As I said they're already pushing the limits of what they can do by deciding to adjust player transfer values in some circumstances because player values are subjective so what counts as a fair market rate is very difficult to say with any certainty.

There's no talk of "making up additional restrictions retroactively" or "adding extra requirements".

Right now our UEFA restrictions apply unconditionally for this season. The same restrictions apply conditionally for 26/27 and 27/28 (and potentially even 28/29).

As you see it, what do we need to avoid doing this month and in the summer that would make that current conditional punishment turn into an actual punishment?

[Somniloquism]

Aren't the conditions if we fail to get within a set level of the target this year? In theory if we have our wages at the correct level and had a positive transfer target then we don't get restricted next season.

[Dave]

Aren't the conditions if we fail to get within a set level of the target this year? In theory if we have our wages at the correct level and had a positive transfer target then we don't get restricted next season.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think so.

e.g

2. Duration
• The Settlement Regime shall cover:
• The three reporting periods ending in 2025, 2026, and 2027; and
• The three sporting seasons 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28

If it's this year only, why is it talking about "reporting periods" going up to 2027?

In the 2026/27 season, the Club will have a maximum Football Earnings deficit of
EUR 0 million for the reporting period ending in 2027 (“2026 Target”)

The "having our house in order = we're now in the clear" bit (to my reading of it anyway) applies from the season after next:

In the 2027/28 season, the Club will comply with the stability requirements (i.e., the
Football Earnings rule), having an aggregate Football Earnings surplus, or an
aggregate Football Earnings deficit within the acceptable deviation with regard to the
reporting periods ending in 2025, 2026 and 2027 (“Final Target”)

[Ads]

I expect we’ll replace Malen with a central striker that can hold up the ball and also defend. But who is also happy being a sub/rotated

My feelings too.

[paul_e]

Well we still need to meet all the other regulations so we'd still be restricted in what we can do but there's nothing in the ruling to say you must not only maintain a positive balance on transfers into the UEFA squad but you also can't do anything we don't like and if you do we might make up additional restrictions retroactively so we can punish you a bit more, despite you doing everything we asked.

Nothing in either the standard regulations or in the specific judgement they made allows them to add extra requirements down the line. As I said they're already pushing the limits of what they can do by deciding to adjust player transfer values in some circumstances because player values are subjective so what counts as a fair market rate is very difficult to say with any certainty.

There's no talk of "making up additional restrictions retroactively" or "adding extra requirements".

Right now our UEFA restrictions apply unconditionally for this season. The same restrictions apply conditionally for 26/27 and 27/28 (and potentially even 28/29).

As you see it, what do we need to avoid doing this month and in the summer that would make that current conditional punishment turn into an actual punishment?

The ruling gives all the details but the short version is that there were steps to resolution that we need to meet which effectively end up with us operating within the standard regulations for the 2027 reporting year. However the limitations are conditional for 26/27 and 27/28 because if we're operating at that level for the 2025 reporting year then the judgement is satisfied. There is nothing in there to allow for that to change because they don't like the way that we complied with the ruling. That means for them to say "you are in line for every financial regulation we have and you operated within the restrictions we set but we think you were a bit cheeky so we're activating the conditional restrictions" they'd have to create a way for them to basically ignore the rules they've set if it suits them.

[paul_e]

Clause 7 contains the important bit regarding what they are judging us on:

The sporting restriction is foreseen as follows:
• It unconditionally applies in the 2025/26 season;
• It conditionally applies in the 2026/27 season, if the Club has a Football Earnings
deficit in the reporting period 2025;
• It conditionally applies in the 2027/28 season, if the Club exceeds the 2026 Target;
and
• It conditionally applies in the 2028/29 season if the Club exceeds the Final Target
by less than EUR 20 million.

That's the conditions set, they can't change those retrospectively, which is what they'd be doing if they decided the sporting restrictions no longer apply to the UEFA list A squad but actually apply to anyone they decide should be included.

Then clause 8 is the settlement conditions:

8. Compliance with the Settlement Agreement
• The Settlement Agreement shall expire when the CFCB confirms that the Club has reached
compliance with the Football Earnings rule, at the latest at the end of the Settlement Regime.
• Where the Club complies with the Final Target of the Settlement, the Club will be able to exit
the Settlement Regime.
• If the Club demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the CFCB, compliance with Football Earnings
rule on an aggregate basis for the reporting periods ending in 2024, 2025 and 2026, the Club
will be granted an “early” exit from the Settlement Regime and any Sporting Disciplinary
Measures shall cease to apply starting from 2027/28 season

I.E. if we meet the targets set for 27/28 this year then it expires.

[olaftab]

This Jan window looks very different from Jan 25.

[Dave]

The ruling gives all the details but the short version is that there were steps to resolution that we need to meet which effectively end up with us operating within the standard regulations for the 2027 reporting year.

I've read the ruling. My question was in your reading of it, do you think we need to have a position transfer balance at the end of this window?

My reading of it is that we do, or we risk summer '26 having the same issues as summer '25.

However - if we decided to, we could go and chuck £150m on superstars to win us the league. But then UEFA say that we've not met the requirements of the settlement agreement, the currently conditional punishment becomes unconditional and they don't let us add those superstars to our European squad next season.

Have I got any of that wrong?

[frank black]

This Jan window looks very different from Jan 25.

Feels similar to the summer window right now, doesn’t it

[PaulWinch again]

We do have to have to have a positive balance don’t we? It applies across this season unconditionally.

[wolfman999]

Apologies if this has already been asked/answered as I haven't read the whole thread but didn't Chelsea get a more severe punishment than us, as their offences were deemed more serious than ours, yet they carry on as if nothing has happened while we carry on as a paupers with no end in sight to this ongoing bullshit.

[Ads]

Selling him gives us the chance to sign somebody for up to £29m and still be in a neutral position cost wise for the sanctions.