|
Pissflops posted:But like I said earlier, that gives specific benefits to the clubs buying the players that other clubs do not have. It's not like only a few clubs are given permission to buy the players in question. Maybe they should gain an advantage if they're willing to put forward the best offer?
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
pik_d posted:It's not like only a few clubs are given permission to buy the players in question. Maybe they should gain an advantage if they're willing to put forward the best offer? There's only a limited number of players for sale - it would be impossible for every club to benefit equally even if they all could and wanted to. Read your post again and have a think about why this is counter-productive both in terms of fairness and financial responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:But like I said earlier, that gives specific benefits to the clubs buying the players that other clubs do not have. agree with this as rangers have be gaining an unfair advantage over other scottish clubs for years by not paying their tax bill and spending more then their means on players. if they go out of business it's their own fault, everyone else has to play by the rules
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:There's only a limited number of players for sale - it would be impossible for every club to benefit equally even if they all could and wanted to. Well either they get released on free's and whichever team can offer them the highest wages gets them, or they get sold and whichever team can offer the highest transfer fee/wages gets them. What's the difference, or what other alternative is there if the players have to go because they wont agree to lower wages?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:agree with this as rangers have be gaining an unfair advantage over other scottish clubs for years by not paying their tax bill and spending more then their means on players. if they go out of business it's their own fault, everyone else has to play by the rules The EBT scheme hasn't been decided on yet. The non payment of taxes was under Whyte only.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:The EBT scheme hasn't been decided on yet. The non payment of taxes was under Whyte only. I thought it was a formality though? i heard when the story broke that ranger's auditors had repeatedly warned the club that they would get hosed by it eventually
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
pik_d posted:Well either they get released on free's and whichever team can offer them the highest wages gets them, or they get sold and whichever team can offer the highest transfer fee/wages gets them. What's the difference, or what other alternative is there if the players have to go because they wont agree to lower wages? What's the difference between doing this and not you mean? The difference is that it breaks the transfer window and allows a minority of clubs to bring in extra personnel and gain an advantage over the majority of clubs that do not or can not. The alternative for players that have their contract terminated because their club can't afford them is to sign for another club in a league with an open transfer window, or wait until the transfer window opens and live off their savings, or find an alternative occupation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:What's the difference between doing this and not you mean? If their contract is terminated doesn't that mean that other clubs can sign them on a free transfer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
I didn't think so?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Why not? What's the difference (in terms of signing for other clubs) between being released on a free and having your contract terminated? Rangers surely can't keep their registrations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
One of us is getting confused now it might be me. Maybe I was too specific with 'contract terminated'. I thought we were talking about the idea that clubs in financial difficulties should get special dispensation to sell players in order to balance the books, breaking the transfer system rules. My objection to this is that it, necessarily, favours the few clubs who sign players from such clubs. If a club can't pay a player's wages, the player will have to find an alternative source of income, or wait until the transfer window opens. I don't think free agents - for whatever reason - can be signed outside of the transfer window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:If a club can't pay a player's wages, the player will have to find an alternative source of income, or wait until the transfer window opens. I don't think free agents - for whatever reason - can be signed outside of the transfer window. They can be. For example, Mahamadou Diarra just signed for Fulham on a free transfer despite the transfer window being closed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:What's the difference between doing this and not you mean? Agreed, scrap the transfer window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:They can be. For example, Mahamadou Diarra just signed for Fulham on a free transfer despite the transfer window being closed. This is from the BBC referring to last season's transfer window which I assume hasn't changed since quote:Players who are out of contract and do not have a club can be signed outside of the transfer window if they are unattached free agents when the window closes. So it wouldn't help Portsmouth or Rangers players as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Goosed it. posted:This is so true. I don't remember anyone from any aquarium. Seriously. And I have a good memory for people. What I do remember are the awesome fish, water tunnels and sharks!! Wouldn't the solution be to agree to special dispensation with a buy and loan back (with the new club taking the wages) or a buy but can only play reserve football until the window clause?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
How odd. Why would a club want to buy a player they can't play when they could wait until the summer and get the player without a transfer fee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Masonity posted:How did you manage to quote the wrong post from a different thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:How odd. Because it'd guarantee they were the only people able to talk to the player at that time, and would tie him to them. Plus remove the risk of them staying after a buyout. And the quote was the iPhone app I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Masonity posted:a buyout. ...and here we have a solution that doesn't involve favouring a few clubs and breaking the transfer window rules. quote:Because it'd guarantee they were the only people able to talk to the player at that time, and would tie him to them. Plus remove the risk of them staying after a buyout. Don't we already have pre-contract agreements? Would accomplish the same thing without a transfer fee. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:...and here we have a solution that doesn't involve favouring a few clubs and breaking the transfer window rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:The EBT scheme hasn't been decided on yet. The non payment of taxes was under Whyte only. Are you monumentally retarded or something? The tribunal is to decide whether what Rangers did is illegal or not. There is absolutely no debate on whether they paid that tax, they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:"Favoring a few clubs" is a silly argument. All transfers predominantly favor a few clubs. The point is that there's only a limited number of clubs that would need special dispensation to sell players to raise money to pay off debts. These clubs will only have a limited number of players they can sell. So this means that only a limited number of clubs would be able to acquire players off them. Which means that a few clubs (the ones able to agree a fee) would gain an advantage over the rest. Why should a promotion rival to my favourite franchise, for instance, be able to bring in additional players outside of the transfer window, when my own cannot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:Are you monumentally retarded or something? The tribunal is to decide whether what Rangers did is illegal or not. There is absolutely no debate on whether they paid that tax, they didn't. If it wasn't illegal then it was an avenue available to all clubs. Rangers gaining an advantage through using it wouldn't be unfair. 'The non payment of taxes was under Whyte only' was in regards to the definitely illegal poo poo he got upto, ignoring the tribunal decision for a moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:If it wasn't illegal then it was an avenue available to all clubs. Rangers gaining an advantage through using it wouldn't be unfair. EBT schemes in and of themselves aren't illegal. What's being argued is that Rangers' implementation of such a scheme was. Either way, Rangers have been avoiding paying tax for a decade (longer, perhaps if one believes Hugh Adam). The "wee tax bill" Whyte uncovered when he took over (which he's allowed to run and even built upon) was already 4+ years old! Considering Rangers' financial planning for the last 20yrs has involved robbing their investors by re-arranging the shareholdings, Murray moving zeros between the club and a company that was already in debt to the tune of £500m (and borrowing money from the bank but being deceptive about its origins), and relying on champions league qualification - gained with a group of players who had two contracts and thus contravened SFA and UEFA rules, playing in a tournament they shouldn't have been registered for due to an outstanding tax bill...
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:Why should a promotion rival to my favourite franchise, for instance, be able to bring in additional players outside of the transfer window, when my own cannot? ...But your "favourite franchise" has just as much of an opportunity to bring in additional players as any other club, which is why your argument is incredibly specious. The only way to solve what you're complaining about would be to have some neutral party appraise the price and wages a player is worth and then clubs are only allowed to offer that exact number.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:...But your "favourite franchise" has just as much of an opportunity to bring in additional players as any other club, which is why your argument is incredibly specious. Does it? Does every club have equal access to the players of one single club? I would say not. Finance is the first thing: can every club afford to sign the players being sold? Then other issues: does the player want to move to my club? Does the club want to sell it him to me? What if the financially troubled club is threatened with relegation: will they be more likely to sell to another relegation-bound team or one at the other end of the table? Agents are bound to want to have their say too. It's not specious, it's thinking it through. The difference between this and the normal transfer window is that during the window every club is free to attempt to bring in new players. A exception like this would not be an equal opportunity to do the same. quote:The only way to solve what you're complaining about would be to have some neutral party appraise the price and wages a player is worth and then clubs are only allowed to offer that exact number. No. The way to solve it is not to do it. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that what you're complaining about takes place whether it's inside or outside the transfer window. You're focussing on this small point to make your complaints about your club not being as rich or attractive-to-players as it used to be but it has to deal with those problems all the time. There are always a "limited number" of players available to purchase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
I understand you. I've explained why it's not the same. If Manchester United had a firesale of their first 11 tomorrow - at a weird fixed price of £1,000,000 each - which clubs would benefit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:You're focussing on this small point to make your complaints about your club not being as rich or attractive-to-players as it used to be but it has to deal with those problems all the time. There are always a "limited number" of players available to purchase. You're totally missing the point it's got nothing to do with any of my clubs. All players are available to purchase during the transfer window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
You're assuming that all of the players are top level for some reason. Some of rangers players will be premiership quality, some championship, some perhaps even lower than that. A wide range of teams will benefit, not just those at the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
I'm not assuming that. The level is irrelevant. The Saurus posted:A wide range of teams will benefit A few teams will benefit, and in doing so gain an advantage over clubs not able to purchase players at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:If Manchester United had a firesale of their first 11 tomorrow - at a weird fixed price of £1,000,000 each - which clubs would benefit? presumably the ones those players would actually want to play for the players still get a say right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Piss Man 94 posted:presumably the ones those players would actually want to play for Well yes, like with any transfer. Would Wigan or Bolton or Blackburn Rovers have the same opportunity to add to their squad, strengthen weaker positions and add cover as Chelsea or Arsenal or Liverpool?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:All players are available to purchase during the transfer window. Similarly, all players that are available to be sold from a team given special dispensation are available to be purchased by any other team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Azerban posted:Similarly, all players that are available to be sold from a team given special dispensation are available to be purchased by any other team. But there's only a limited number of players to buy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:But there's only a limited number of players to buy. This is always true, transfer window or no, unless you've found a stash of infinite players under your couch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Azerban posted:This is always true, transfer window or no, unless you've found a stash of infinite players under your couch. Great stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:Great stuff. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:Well yes, like with any transfer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:No. They never have the same opportunity. They don't have the same opportunity with the same players, but they have the same opportunity with other players from other clubs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:22
|
|