Hull City remain hopeful of being able to sign Reda Laalaoui from FC Rabot after hitting a stumbling block owing to their EFL transfer fee restriction ban. The Tigers had agreed a deal worth in the region of £400,000 to sign the talented midfielder permanently back in June, but his move was thrown into doubt when City were slapped with a three-window block by the Football League at the beginning of July. City had their appeal heard by an independent panel on Wednesday and if their sanction is lifted then the move will be able to go through as planned - they expect to hear the outcome within 48 hours. If not, the Tigers plan to loan the 20-year-old in the short term before making his move permanent at the end of any potential transfer ban, though that agreement could not be made in writing owing to the terms of their restrictions. Laalaoui took part in a recent media day at the MKM Stadium and remains at the club as he waits to find out what happens next with the club's appeal, but has not trained having been struck down by injury. While there is some clarity about Laalaoui's City future, doubts continue to remain about Gustavo Puerta's move from Bayer Leverkusen. Puerta's appearance at Swansea City on Good Friday triggered an obligation to buy him for £3m, but as it stands, that deal has not gone through under the terms of the transfer ban. City hope that can be approved by the EFL, though that is another deal dependant on the outcome of their appeal hearing.
it's almost setting a bizarre precedent where if you end up having to sign a total lemon due to an obligation, you could try get out of it by paying players late one month, taking a one window ban and avoiding signing someone, I mean v v unlikely but possible? I just don't agree with the EFL stance on puerta, it was an agreement made well before the transfer ban so it really should stand.
This is something I've found a bit weak about the reporting around Puerta. It's repeatedly been said that the move is up in the air, but no one has said what actually happens if we can't confirm it with the EFL. Does he just go back to Leverkusen somehow? Do we get our money back? Could they then get us in trouble for not fulfilling our contractual obligation to sign him?
Yes it's one of those weird ones that seems to be getting over-simplified by the EFL with no one actually thinking through the implications. The other way around of course would be that it sets a precedent of a club knowing they're about to get in trouble signing a bunch of players on loan-to-buy deals to get around it. A bit like Chelsea did.
It just seems like such an arbitrary restriction that you can't sign somebody for a fee but you can can sign somebody like McBurnie who will obviously be on a substantial weekly wage Is it about making sure clubs are run sensibly or is it just a punishment for breaking particular rules ?
Again, why would we loan him from FUS Rabat when he’s already OUR PLAYER? The EFL does not have the authority to seize assets. Not even the UK government has that authority. If they did, they should’ve seized half a dozen clubs from arsehole owners by now. Either something is seriously wrong with Baz’s reporting on this or the EFL are breaking the law. Just because you’ve been banned from driving, doesn’t mean you no longer own your car.
Agree fully on this, it just makes absolutely zero sense. I'd understand more if it was saying we'll loan him OUT until the end of the restriction, as we can then register him?
We have 19 players (20 if you include Gelhardt) either sold, released or out on loan so we have significantly less commitments wage wise. We have 8 arrivals with potentially 3 to come. With the transfer fees also received, I can’t believe we will be worse off (Alzate and Sinik were on a fair amount - not sure what is covered by Omur’s loan and Racioppi and Mehlem were also on significant salaries). It also now looks like Hughes will be our next big sale and it wouldn’t surprise me if he goes for £10million+ at the end of the season. So while we are still on a financial knife edge, it does look like we are trying to put this right.
It is a bit weird. According to chatGBT "If the EFL club is under embargo before the player is officially registered, the transfer will not proceed automatically. It is subject to EFL review and approval under embargo rules. Without registration, the player remains with their current club and cannot play for the buying club." I don't know what that means for any fees paid to them, which probably aren't due yet. I assume we are paying his wages though.
We should be looking to use the restrictions as an excuse to pull out of the deal without facing any repercussions, that would be the ideal scenario. We don’t need him, he’s overpriced and I’m not convinced we’d be able to sell him on for a profit.
Opinions eh? I think he’s exactly what we need and I think with another good season or 2 he’d easily go for over £3m
There have been two high-profile cases of English clubs trying to get out of obligations to sign players from other clubs in the last few years. There was the tragic situation of Emiliano Sala who Cardiff signed from Nantes for £15 million in January 2019 but died in a plane crash in the English Channel as he was travelling from France to the UK. FIFA and CAS both ruled in Nantes favour and ordered Cardiff to pay the transfer fee according to the original payment plan agreed between the clubs. There was also the case involving Jean-Kévin Augustin. Leeds signed him in January 2020 from RB Leipzig on a season-long loan with an obligation to buy if Leeds were promoted to the Premier League. Leeds argued that the obligation to buy was nullified because the contract specified that it was only valid if Leeds were promoted by 30th June. As this was the first season impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the English football season was halted in March and the season’s remaining fixtures were postponed. Leeds didn’t achieve automatic promotion until 17th July due to this. Leeds argued that the obligation to buy was no longer valid because they didn’t achieve promotion before 30th June. Leipzig argued that under the “spirit of the rules” and extenuating circumstances of the pandemic, the transfer should’ve gone through. FIFA agreed with Leipzig and CAS upheld the ruling and Leeds were ordered to pay the original transfer fee they agreed with Leipzig. Regarding Puerta and Laalaoui, we agreed fees with Leverkusen and FUS Rabat, the players have signed contracts with City and both players have presumably been paid their full wages by City for July. They are our players. The EFL have no right to say they aren’t our assets or that we can’t sell them or loan them out this summer. They can prevent us from registering them for EFL competitions but that’s where their jurisdiction begins and ends. If the EFL try to argue they don’t belong to us, then it would bring them into conflict with FIFA and CAS as the latter two organisations will argue that the transfer fees must be paid to Leverkusen and FUS Rabat according to the original agreements. We don’t need the EFL’s permission to sell Puerta. We can sell Puerta tomorrow if we want and if the EFL kick up a fuss then they can **** off because it’s nothing to do with them.
Yeah everyone will see things differently. For me, he looked good on the ball but rarely had an impact on the game, admittedly I think he’d be more effective in this years team. If we cash in the bank and no restrictions then sure, take a punt on him. But in our current position I think the money could be better spent.
Yep he’ll be absolutely perfect in our midfield with the players around him. He reminds me a lot of Honeyman but with a lot better ball skills.
