Jean-Clair Todibo | signs for West Ham on loan with option to buy

pascell said:
West Ham have had a €35m bid turned down according to lequipe.
Click to expand...

It won’t do us any favours in court if Nice are turning down the same money from other clubs that they were prepared to accept from us.
 
This is just one of them badly thought out rules.
Common sense suggests that if Nice accept an offer of lets say, 40m from West Ham, in what world should United not be able to match that.

Even if no other clubs were in for him, if fair market value was reached, which I know is always opinion based, then you shouldn't be able to stop a player choosing his preferred place of work.
Again, common sense should be used in situations like this.....Whereas, you have Kellyman moving to Chelsea for 19m, which is clearly way above market value, effectively committing a dubious transaction to cook some books, common sense should also determine a block on said deal
 
Igor Drefljak said:
This is just one of them badly thought out rules.
Common sense suggests that if Nice accept an offer of lets say, 40m from West Ham, in what world should United not be able to match that.

Even if no other clubs were in for him, if fair market value was reached, which I know is always opinion based, then you shouldn't be able to stop a player choosing his preferred place of work.
Again, common sense should be used in situations like this.....Whereas, you have Kellyman moving to Chelsea for 19m, which is clearly way above market value, effectively committing a dubious transaction to cook some books, common sense should also determine a block on said deal
Click to expand...
This is what I believe should happen to. If a club comes in with an official offer, then we should be able to match that.
 
bosskeano said:
a tall lanky mother fecker with big ears and big eyes
Click to expand...

Like the BFG?

Redivy said:
This is what I believe should happen to. If a club comes in with an official offer, then we should be able to match that.
Click to expand...

You would think essentially preventing him from working for a specific club on the grounds he works for another linked club is new Bosman territory. Under employment law, which seems to supersede football rules if the Bosman ruling is anything to go by, surely they can’t prevent him from working for us?
 
whitbyviking said:
You would think essentially preventing him from working for a specific club on the grounds he works for another linked club is new Bosman territory. Under employment law, which seems to supersede football rules if the Bosman ruling is anything to go by, surely they can’t prevent him from working for us?
Click to expand...

Amazed the rule hasn’t been challenged. Seems quite illegal in terms of employment law. No idea how it’s justified. Not like he’s joining on loan and still owned by Nice.
 
Red_toad said:
Amazed the rule hasn’t been challenged. Seems quite illegal in terms of employment law. No idea how it’s justified. Not like he’s joining on loan and still owned by Nice.
Click to expand...

More I think about it the more I am convinced it is a well intentioned but flawed attempt to control dubious financial and transfer activity between co-owned clubs. In theory stopping them shenanigans is sound, I wouldn’t want us doing anything dodgy with Nice, but the reality is if we pay fair market price for a permanent transfer then surely that is all above board
 
whitbyviking said:
You would think essentially preventing him from working for a specific club on the grounds he works for another linked club is new Bosman territory. Under employment law, which seems to supersede football rules if the Bosman ruling is anything to go by, surely they can’t prevent him from working for us?
Click to expand...

They're not blocking any transfers. They're simply saying that if the transfer happens, the clubs can't compete in the same competition.
 
This is bigger than todibo. It's essential Utd win this case as we want to place young south American talents at Nice.

Same as City have done with Savio and others.

I think UEFA will lose, there will be some EU employment law that UEFA are in breach of
 
With Todibo, West Ham for a season would be ideal, just make sure his agent puts in a Utd clause that allows us to buy him for the same price next summer. West Ham would surely accept because a) they're small time and should be grateful to have him for a season and b) they have form - Mascherano and Tevez.
 
I don't think we will sign Todibo if we sign De Ligt, still I hope we do argue our case as it seems complete bs that certain clubs are allowed to have deals while others are not. Seems we may have a chance to win as well. Even if we do not sign Todibo, this should help in the future.
 
NotThatSoph said:
They're not blocking any transfers. They're simply saying that if the transfer happens, the clubs can't compete in the same competition.
Click to expand...
Just fecking buy him and drop out of Europa league. Would piss eufa off. They’d hate for such a big club in that competition to drop out
 
hellhunter said:
Who belong to the City group as well.

I know, same competition in Europe and all that, but it feels really hollow when everyone is abusing the same ownership system but we're the one club not allowed to
Click to expand...

Of course we are allowed to. We can buy players from Lausanne and Nice, just like City can buy players from Troyes and Girona.

The only instance where deals have happened between clubs in a situation that is even remotely similar is Leipzig and Salzburg, because they have managed to convince UEFA that they are being managed completely independently. That is United and every single club in Europe minus two on one side, and those two on the other. Not United on one side and all other clubs on the other.
 
What’s at stake in this case is that there should be stricter rules against owning several football clubs, and that owning several football clubs in the same competition should obviously be a non starter.

The issue is not that Man United’s owners aren’t allowed to ignore these rules. It’s that the rules aren’t strict enough to make it a non starter, because the rules have allowed Red Bull and The Mansour family to criss cross their way far into the territory by speculative loopholes and double book keeping. It’s this that should be closed down, and Ratcliffe suing is not gonna help matters, unless it inspires UEFA and EU competition laws to tighten those holes.
 
Grande said:
What’s at stake in this case is that there should be stricter rules against owning several football clubs, and that owning several football clubs in the same competition should obviously be a non starter.

The issue is not that Man United’s owners aren’t allowed to ignore these rules. It’s that the rules aren’t strict enough to make it a non starter, because the rules have allowed Red Bull and The Mansour family to criss cross their way far into the territory by speculative loopholes and double book keeping. It’s this that should be closed down, and Ratcliffe suing is not gonna help matters, unless it inspires UEFA and EU competition laws to tighten those holes.
Click to expand...

They've loosened the rules, if anything. I'm pretty sure Milan's owners didn't get a grace period, and neither did Villa's. We did.
 
It's a weird situation with West Ham bidding. Can they accept a bid from you of the same number they rejected from West Ham? I bet they can, I can't imagine there's a rule saying otherwise.

Tobido can always say "I'm not remotely interested in playing for West Ham", which is perfectly reasonable.
 
The Urban Goose said:
With Todibo, West Ham for a season would be ideal, just make sure his agent puts in a Utd clause that allows us to buy him for the same price next summer. West Ham would surely accept because a) they're small time and should be grateful to have him for a season and b) they have form - Mascherano and Tevez.
Click to expand...

Would probably still breach the rule as it also refers to indirect transfers. Transferring to a 3rd party (West Ham) with an agreement to resell to us a year later probably wouldnt fly with Uefa at all.
 
duffer said:
It's a weird situation with West Ham bidding. Can they accept a bid from you of the same number they rejected from West Ham? I bet they can, I can't imagine there's a rule saying otherwise.

Tobido can always say "I'm not remotely interested in playing for West Ham", which is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

We can bid £1 more, Arsene Wegner style.
 
if 35m is a bit put in by west ham, why can't Utd match that bid as fair market value??? i mean feck right off UEFA
 
bosskeano said:
if 35m is a bit put in by west ham, why can't Utd match that bid as fair market value??? i mean feck right off UEFA
Click to expand...
I mean technically we still can. Or even better sign him for less but the issue is we would have to drop out of Europa League. Those are the rules apparently.
 
hellhunter said:
Because it apparently got rejected?
Click to expand...
haha...no what i meant by that is the market was established as a bid another club was willing to make so it would be like Nice and Sir Jim were selling him at a reduced price
 
What a joke. They are making these rules up on the fly. There is simply no reason why Man United can't buy Todibo for example if we pay the same fee that is also agreed with let's say West Ham. So if Nice accept a fee from West Ham for 40m, and we agree the same, then what's the problem? It's still 40m regardless into Nice's accounts. They may want to claim the 40m into Nice's account is also 40m into INEOS's accounts and that can be used by Man United, but that's clearly not the case. A simple yearly audit of the accounts by UEFA can sort any discrepancy or suspicion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.