How's it a conflict of interests, though? As I've said before this really is a very minor grievance compared to the rest of the ways that billionaire owners treating clubs as playthings, have ruined football.
You asked Arteta to take a pay-cut when he joined, Piskie. It's not unlikely that Chelsea are paying some of Benayoun's wages, as it appears that he was on a higher wage than the ex-Evertonian. As it is, Chelsea are effectively paying for a 12th man to bolster their own chances and in the process hand Arsenal an unfair advantage. As it is, Arsenal are effectively paying for a 12th man to bolster their own chances and in the process hand Sunderland an unfair advantage.
If you either can't comprehend or can't argue against something that I post, then please feel free to leave replies to someone that can.
You have provided zero evidence to back up the following 2 claims. They are unsubstantiated rubbish, pulled out of thin air by a desperate and beaten shadow dweller.
To be fair, that's hugely speculative to say the least. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that we are paying Bendtner's wages or that Chelsea are paying Benayoun's wages. The usual arrangement is that the club where they player is loaned pay his wages. I'm happy to stand corrected if anyone can find any evidence to the contrary in the Benayoun and Bendtner deals, but as it is I would expect that the benefiting club are paying the wages. Thus making the Adebayor deal and excepetion to the rule. Given the vast sum of money paid - it is an advantage that you would not otherwise have if it were anyone else other than City.
I think the official answer is that there are 'different types of loan deals'. Some involving the parent club paying some or all of the players wages, some involving the benefiting club paying the wages and the parent club demanding a fee. That said however, the parent club paying the wages usually happens when a young player is loaned out to get experience, at either a club nearer the bottom of the league, or in a lower league, in order not to adversely skew the competition around the parent club. In the case of City and Spurs, there is a direct skewing of the competition as Spurs have been enabled to take points from City's direct rivals. It might not officially 'break the rules' - but it's clear that it is not healthy for the game.
Arsenal don't reveal the details of their transfers, including loans, generally speaking. It's impossible to prove either way, but the wage cut that Arteta took suggests that you didn't want to pay any new signing more than a certain amount. Benayoun's wages at Chelsea would appear to be higher than that amount, so it's not a massive leap to suggest that Chelsea are still paying a percentage of his wages. It's not an unusual situation. Bendtner's wages appeared to be a massive sticking point in his failure to secure a transfer away from Arsenal this summer, so it's doubtful that Sunderland are paying all of it.
The challenge? What happens if the challenge is failed, exactly? Most loans don't have any report on who's paying exactly what percentage of the players wages, bonuses or expenses. Find a newspaper report that says that Arsenal aren't paying any of Bendtner's wages and that Chelsea aren't paying any of Benayoun's.
The point is though PNP, that Spurs have been handed a massive advantage, of which City are also benefiting from - directly because of the huge sums of money involved, which without, you would not have had. If it were not for City's extreme wealth, Adebayor would not be playing for you - you would be further down the table and the competition around City would be closer to them. As it is, the competition has been unfairly skewed by this extremely unusual deal.
If it wasn't for City and Chelsea's extreme wealth, then we might be able to sign Adebayor permanently on a reasonable contract, Piskie.
You answer it. I asked you for your answer and had the courtesy to give you a straight answer to the question that you posed me. Extend the same courtesy in return.
That may be the case and I have some sympathy with that. But it doesn't negate the fact that the deal as it stands completely skews the competition and runs roughshod over the Gentleman's agreement of 'fair play' If City were to loan (and pay the wages) of some of their other players who can't get in the first team (for example Dzeko to Chelsea, or De Jong to Utd, or Nasri to Arsenal ) it would have an adverse effect on Spurs, which I'm sure your fans would be only to happy to point out as an example of handing those teams an unfair advantage.
It's 6 points. Though you can't be sure that other strikers wouldn't have scored in place of Adebayor if they'd be on the field.
I agree that the system is open to abuse Piskie, but it appears that you're one of the clubs abusing it and benefiting from it, as well. As I've already said, loaning players between clubs in the same division shouldn't be allowed.
Where's the edit, then? In which case you don't have a leg to stand on. There's no definitive proof either way, but the arguments that I've put forward are completely logical and you haven't even attempted to refute them.
