Transfer Embargo

I feel certain that sort of terminology is non existent in contracts. This seems to be a one off that the EFL have created.

 

To be fair in terms of getting worked up, we'd profit if there is a €6m offer on the table, which we're losing out on annoyingly.

Laalaoui is the one I'm hoping for a positive resolution on, as his future is with our first team by the sounds of it, rather than an attempt to 'flip' him.

 

The issue is that when he triggered the clause on April 19th, we will have almost certainly paid some money to Leverkusen up front. So do we get that back now that the deal is void? We've presumably been paying his wages for the last month and a half, do we get that back too? When he became a Hull City player full time, his Leverkusen contract ended. If he "goes back to Leverkusen", then how would they contract him unless it's on some weird month to month deal (which would mean he would be valued less than the offer on the table).

This is the problem, the EFL state that they're doing this to help us be financially sustainable, yet every action they've taken represents the complete opposite.

 

People are wondering whether he’s legally our player since we signed a contract with him and our ****wit local reporter doesn’t seem to do any research on the matter.

There’s no precedent for a player being told by the EFL that they must return to their previous club that belongs to a different league.

 

Everything started to shift once he got Vice President JD Vance involved.

 

Super Dave

 

I think you're right here, the more I think about it.

It just seems absolutely impossible, especially as Toast suggests above regarding his contract with Leverkusen.

 

The EFL can’t compel Puerta to go back to Leverkusen and they can’t compel Leverkusen to take him back and pay him wages no more than the DFL could force us to take Mehlem back and pay his wages if Arminia Bielefeld were hit with a transfer fee restriction that retroactively came into force on 8th July.

It should be fairly simple; Puerta and Laalaoui are our players but we can’t register them for EFL competitions until 1st July, 2026. The fact it isn’t this simple is just bizarre and should be challenged. If the EFL are trying to tell us that we cannot sell Puerta to someone else or loan Laalaoui out then we should take them to CAS.

 

It's Ludicrous. They can't play for us until July 26, yet we can't sell them as they aren't registered as our players? It leaves the 2 players in limbo - surely that is restraint of trade or something like that?

 

I’m pretty sure it is this simple, I’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise. There is a gray area to who holds (and currently owns) his registration and who that can be moved between. Can we loan him out or sell him on before we register him?

What happened with players that couldn’t get work permits before the Brexit rule change? I’m sure they just got loaned out to somewhere they were able to play, but now I’m not so sure because I also know multi-club ownership models would buy them with one club where the work permit rules were looser then sell them on to the intended club once eligible.

 

I just don't understand why the EFL or the club have not clarified what exactly will happen with both. Its bonkers.

 

Obviously it was his missive to Vance that swung it.

 

Why would we?

 

We have bought him. He’s no longer a Leverkusen player. He signed a contract with Hull City. In order to go back to Leverkusen, he would have to sign a new contract with them. As it stands, we owe them €3.8 million and have probably already paid the first instalment as that’s how most transfers work.

 

Right, I'm off for a wicked ****.

But that's the last time I go for the vindaloo.