Transfer Embargo

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

What’s gonna happen

  • Temporary blip

  • Complete ****ing collapse

  • It’ll all be ok

  • Relegation

Results are only viewable after voting.
On Puerta, assuming he does go back to Leverkusen as Baz suggests, I do wonder where that leaves us with respect to the obligation to buy him. From Leverkusen's point of view it's a right farce that we've been able to get out of that deal, presumably without paying anything, because of this ruling that's nothing to do with them. Maybe transfer agreements have allowances for such a strange event but if not then it could be messy you'd think.
 
PLT said:
On Puerta, assuming he does go back to Leverkusen as Baz suggests, I do wonder where that leaves us with respect to the obligation to buy him. From Leverkusen's point of view it's a right farce that we've been able to get out of that deal, presumably without paying anything, because of this ruling that's nothing to do with them. Maybe transfer agreements have allowances for such a strange event but if not then it could be messy you'd think.
Click to expand...

He will only give back if they agree to it and agree to wave the obligation, if they don't he'll stay and we'll have to pay it
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
PLT said:
On Puerta, assuming he does go back to Leverkusen as Baz suggests, I do wonder where that leaves us with respect to the obligation to buy him. From Leverkusen's point of view it's a right farce that we've been able to get out of that deal, presumably without paying anything, because of this ruling that's nothing to do with them. Maybe transfer agreements have allowances for such a strange event but if not then it could be messy you'd think.
Click to expand...
Maybe they all have some stock wording about needing the governing bodies sign off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
PLT said:
On Puerta, assuming he does go back to Leverkusen as Baz suggests, I do wonder where that leaves us with respect to the obligation to buy him. From Leverkusen's point of view it's a right farce that we've been able to get out of that deal, presumably without paying anything, because of this ruling that's nothing to do with them. Maybe transfer agreements have allowances for such a strange event but if not then it could be messy you'd think.
Click to expand...


Didn't we have offers of £5m for him i suppose Leverkusen could just sell him and bank more money so suppose they wont be to worried.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT and Howdentiger2
PLT said:
On Puerta, assuming he does go back to Leverkusen as Baz suggests, I do wonder where that leaves us with respect to the obligation to buy him. From Leverkusen's point of view it's a right farce that we've been able to get out of that deal, presumably without paying anything, because of this ruling that's nothing to do with them. Maybe transfer agreements have allowances for such a strange event but if not then it could be messy you'd think.
Click to expand...

I still don’t know where we stand with Puerta but I imagine we would still pay the obligation-to-buy fee to Leverkusen. Basically a lose-lose situation for us as we still pay the fee but he’s not our player.
 
I also wonder, does not having their registration mean that we can't sell them or loan them out, or just that they aren't eligible to play for us? If it was the latter than we'd have some options but I'm guessing it's the former.
 
Kalman II said:
I still don’t know where we stand with Puerta but I imagine we would still pay the obligation-to-buy fee to Leverkusen. Basically a lose-lose situation for us as we still pay the fee but he’s not our player.
Click to expand...

Unreal by the EFL to try and make us more financially sustainable if that's the case.
 
Kalman II said:
I still don’t know where we stand with Puerta but I imagine we would still pay the obligation-to-buy fee to Leverkusen. Basically a lose-lose situation for us as we still pay the fee but he’s not our player.
Click to expand...

We can't pay the fee so presumably he just goes back, if it's true there's a €6m bid on the table, Leverkusen are unlikely to care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger
I just don’t get how a professional club can **** up like this without financial problems?

We either have financial problems which explains the late payments, or it’s just pure incompetence in the boardroom? It’s just so so bad.

One of our most expensive assets (Puerta) now worthless, and that doesn’t take into account the human side of it with his career
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14, Evington, mazzer and 1 other person
originallambrettaman said:
We can't pay the fee so presumably he just goes back, if it's true there's a €6m bid on the table, Leverkusen are unlikely to care.
Click to expand...

That’s the EFL’s rules. FIFA or UEFA might order us to pay it anyway. Leeds were ordered to pay RB Leipzig for Jean-Kévin Augustin even though he never actually joined Leeds permanently.
 
Tigerboy98 said:
I just don’t get how a professional club can **** up like this without financial problems?

We either have financial problems which explains the late payments, or it’s just pure incompetence in the boardroom? It’s just so so bad.

One of our most expensive assets (Puerta) now worthless, and that doesn’t take into account the human side of it with his career
Click to expand...

Acun, maintains we don't have financial problems as he's funding the losses. However, we do/did have cashflow problems.

They've said already that a late payment to us led to our late payments. That's a cashflow issue, we'll all have to decide for ourselves if it's also a financial issue. I think it's semantics.

We were/are dancing on the head of a needle and fell off. As was said earlier lets hope we learn from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigerboy98, Jim the Tiger, SW3 Chelsea Tiger and 1 other person
Tigerboy98 said:
I just don’t get how a professional club can **** up like this without financial problems?

We either have financial problems which explains the late payments, or it’s just pure incompetence in the boardroom? It’s just so so bad.

One of our most expensive assets (Puerta) now worthless, and that doesn’t take into account the human side of it with his career
Click to expand...

It's not great obviously but he's had a pre season and clearly has plenty of interest in him. He'll go back to Leverkusen and they'll sell him on before the window ends I would have thought.

He'll be absolutely fine and from what he's said in interviews, he had no intention on having a second season with us anyway. The only disappointing thing here is the fact we'll lose 3 or 4 million quid profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigerboy98, Stockholm Tiger and Evington
FIFA could still order us to pay the transfer fee for breach of contract. This is where we get shafted because one governing body’s rules conflict with another’s regarding contractual obligations.
 
I just can't believe all this fannying around has left a couple of players stuck in limbo. The embargo says we arent allowed to pay for any players, but we had an agreement prior to the embargo.

Fine, EFL don't have to let us register them to play for us, but surely they can't force us to send them back?
 
Christophalophados said:
I just can't believe all this fannying around has left a couple of players stuck in limbo. The embargo says we arent allowed to pay for any players, but we had an agreement prior to the embargo.

Fine, EFL don't have to let us register them to play for us, but surely they can't force us to send them back?
Click to expand...

You would hope this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back