I see the FA have woken up the the Watford subs scam and a change of rules is on its way. Watford had borrwed ten players from their Italian brothers last season which counted as signings under the then rules. The FA are going to stop that for next season, so it seems that Watford will have to buy a least 1/2 doz players just to raise a team for next season. I don't know why, but I feel so moneymarket dot com.
You fool! It's moneysupermarket dot com! Back onto the original topic, and I am glad they are changing this.
That will be a lot more risky as it will give the player a chance to renegotiate his deal at the end of the "loan" due to the need for separate contracts. If it has been a successful spell and the value of the player has increased, or there is outside interest then there is no guarantee the player will agree move back to the "parent" club as he is not contractually tied to the "loaning" club any more. It is not a secure way of doing it.
So they sell him for £1 with a 95% sell on fee. Make the player sign a 5 year deal and it's a win win for both player and club. Player gets a season in the shop window and if he delivers he gets a big money move to either another club or back to parent club
It's a perfectly secure way. You're transferring from the bigger club to the smaller club. You tell the player you're loaning out that you need to do it as a permanent deal to get round the restriction that's being imposed, but you'll transfer him back when he's ready. If he's on a 3 year contract with Udinese he signs an identical 3 year contract with Watford rather than a 1 year contract. At the end of the year he goes back and signs a 2 year contract, or if he angles for a payrise gets told he's going to be left at Watford for being a cheeky twat.
....and if a third party declares an in interest that the player quite likes the look of - and perhaps offers more money? I guess we'll have to wait and see how it works in practice, but I'm not convinced it will be as simple as you say..
We're talking about people owning more than one club moving players between the clubs. If I own Hull City and Scunthorpe and I transfer one of my players to Scunthorpe for a season, if I want them back at City the next season I don't care if Sunderland offer Scunthorpe more money, I'll reject their bid so I get my player back where I want him.
Which is why I said it wouldn't be a one year contract. How difficult is this? I own 2 clubs. I have a player at club 1 on a 3 year contract that I want to send to club 2 for a year. I tell the player we need to make it a permanent deal to get round the rules and I'll bring him back at the end of the year. To do this I get him to sign a 3 year contract on identical terms at the second club. At the end of the first year he can either rejoin club 1 by signing a 2 year contract or if he tries to play games I'll leave him at club 2 to see out the remainder of his contract. I won't accept bids from other clubs.
You can't sign contracts at two clubs at the same time, only one club can hold the players registration, or you break third party ownership rules.
If the current loan laws were so easily bi-passed by using 'temporary permanent transfers' as described,. clubs would have already tried it. There is also the possibility that with the stroke of a pen that loophole could also be closed which would mean the player's original clubs would lose them without any transfer fee. I suspect the rules are a bit more stringent than we think and if Watford in particular tried to blatantly manipulate the system again it could get a bit more 'personal' between them and the FA.
PL stays with 7 subs.!! The FL can do what they like but why change it anyway. Nothing to say you must have 7 subs ffs.
