The role of Nice and Lausanne in our network…

[Rozay]

Perhaps last summer was too soon, but there has been limited talk of these two clubs fitting into a wider plan concerning United. Chelsea have their squad, then they have what seems to be a whole additional squad playing at Strasbourg getting good Ligue 1 experience.

I really hope we start using these clubs to loan young players and assimilate international youth into European football.

 

[Rozay]

No sooner than I write this I’m now reading that we’ll be signing a French kid and sending him to Lausanne next season!

 

[elmo]

plan won’t work if we suck.

We’re not allowed to have direct transfer with them if they’re on the same European tournament as us and I think loans are included in it. It’s why we couldn’t sign Todibo from Nice last summer.

So we need them to either not be in Europe or we don’t play in Europa.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I guess if CFG do it without getting punished we most certainly should as well.
The complication will come I guess if Nice/United both get CL and we/they want a transfer - sounds like it would be banned for that whole season.

 

[Skills]

Nice, good stuff

 

[golden_blunder]

plan won’t work if we suck.

We’re not allowed to have direct transfer with them if they’re on the same European tournament as us and I think loans are included in it. It’s why we couldn’t sign Todibo from Nice last summer.

So we need them to either not be in Europe or we don’t play in Europa.

Thank god

 

[Solius]

I think it’s not in the spirit of the game and multi club ownership shouldn’t be allowed. By all means have temporary partnerships with clubs to loan talent if both see a benefit but I don’t want to see us going down the road others have of just stockpiling them there or using them to buy for cheap ie Savinho.

 

[Rozay]

I think it’s not in the spirit of the game and multi club ownership shouldn’t be allowed. By all means have temporary partnerships with clubs to loan talent if both see a benefit but I don’t want to see us going down the road others have of just stockpiling them there or using them to buy for cheap ie Savinho.

I can agree with that. What Chelsea are doing is not right. They seem to want to engineer a situation where they are in control of the destiny of any decent young player across the globe. For example, they have gone and bought 4 or 5 of the most promising young goalkeepers, seemingly just to see which one they like after a while and then dispose of the rest. Players like Veiga will undoubtedly be sold having barely had a kick for them as will a number of players before they have even made their debuts I suspect.

That said, I’m not proposing to do something as excessive as them. Just a more organic system to develop players we have genuine plans for over a longer period. I’d want us to maybe have one player at Nice for example, with a real purpose rather than just to raise their value.

 

[Roboc7]

Lausanne is an ideal place to send some cheap youngsters and see how they get on.

Picking up players for free like Enzo Kana-Biyik and Zaid Bafdili, who are both being linked,and then loaning them out is ideal. Even if they don’t make it to Utd they might generate revenue from loans or being sold.

Nice is more complicated, I suspect we may seem loans there at some point but maybe Lausanne will be used more regularly.

One of the positives since INEOS arrived is the focus on recruiting talented youngsters outside of the first team and buying some players and loaning them out would be an extension of that.

 

[Damien]

Heavy stuff, even on May 1st! Aroun Benhaddou reveals in L'Informé that Jim Ratcliffe has commissioned Lazard to study the total or partial sale of OGC Nice.

Suppose it makes sense with Nice constantly challenging for European spots with the risk of the conflict and blind trust stuff (dunno how City will get away with it long term). My guess is at some point they'll go for another club in the 'network' but maybe on a different continent

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

Maybe Jassim can bid a few billion for them.

 

[Gandalf]

PIF supposedly looking to buy Nice. In the not too long run that could give PSG some real competition but it will be interesting to see how they navigate the issues with Newcastle if they do buy Nice.

 

[Teja]

Suppose it makes sense with Nice constantly challenging for European spots with the risk of the conflict and blind trust stuff (dunno how City will get away with it long term). My guess is at some point they'll go for another club in the 'network' but maybe on a different continent

What's the actual rule? Because Ratcliffe only has a minority ownership of United so far and it seems insane to say you must not have a stake in multiple clubs.

Hypothetically, if I buy one share of Man United and one share of Juventus is that fine? How far can I push it before UEFA yells at me?

 

[Damien]

What's the actual rule? Because Ratcliffe only has a minority ownership of United so far and it seems insane to say you must not have a stake in multiple clubs.

Hypothetically, if I buy one share of Man United and one share of Juventus is that fine? How far can I push it before UEFA yells at me?

I think it is more because despite Ratcliffe having minority stake he has a big stake in the actual football operation side of things including seats on the board.

 

[NotThatSoph]

What's the actual rule? Because Ratcliffe only has a minority ownership of United so far and it seems insane to say you must not have a stake in multiple clubs.

Hypothetically, if I buy one share of Man United and one share of Juventus is that fine? How far can I push it before UEFA yells at me?

1. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
   1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
   2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
   3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
   4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

In practice it looks like the cutoff is 30 %, or sporting control .

 

[Teja]

I think it is more because despite Ratcliffe having minority stake he has a big stake in the actual football operation side of things including seats on the board.

In practice it looks like the cutoff is 30 %, or sporting control .

Interesting, TIL - thank you! I looked at the strategy City employ with Girona and City both being CL clubs.

City Football Group (CFG) can own multiple clubs, including two in the Champions League, by reducing their stake in one club to below 30% through a sale to an independent third party, or by placing their shares in a blind trust overseen by UEFA. UEFA's rules on multi-club ownership aim to prevent one entity from having "decisive influence" over multiple clubs participating in the same competition.

"decisive influence" seems a bit sketchy like everything City does. It's clear they have some influence in how their feeder network is run - they can take youth players, give them minutes, get them back to City if there's ever a player doing really well and so on. The scouting information from these clubs I assume is shared with City for no cost.

How any of this is not decisive influence is beyond me. The only thing I'd believe is if City and Girona face off, the fixture will be fair / without match fixing. For all other purposes, they might as well be the same club.