[Albion] Premier League clubs vote against ban on player loans from same ownership group

[Bozza]

Premier League clubs have voted against a proposed ban on loan moves for players between associated parties in a potentially huge boost for Newcastle United.

90min previously reported that a shareholder meeting would be attended by all 20 Premier League clubs to vote on a 'fast track' measure intended to protect the integrity of the competition.

For the motion to be passed, 14 clubs needed to vote in favour of changing the current regulations that are in place. But although the majority of clubs did agree with the proposal, only 13 voted for a change to be implemented for the January transfer window, meaning no amendments will be made this season.

Premier League clubs vote against ban on player loans from same ownership group

Premier League clubs vote on whether to ban loan moves for players between associated parties.

www.90min.com

 

[Milano]

I find it absolutely stunning that 19 out of 20 clubs would not have voted for this. WTF are 6 clubs doing enabling what is basically corruption?
I guess we'll find out when some of these clubs start doing business with this obscenity of a 'league' in January/July.
Is it a closed vote? I would like to know how our club voted.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Which clubs would have voted against it along with Newcastle, City and Chelsea? I assume we didn't but who knows?

 

[Bob!]

Would this have affected ( in a non Europa season) loans between us and USG?

 

[Gabbiano]

Given our relationship with USG, I don't think it's a given that we are one of the 13 clubs who voted to block this.
Even if we can't currently trade players with USG due to UEFA competitions, it wouldn't surprise me if the club didn't want to set a precedent against such trade in the future, should either club not make it to Europe in another season.

There are a few clubs operating multi-club ownership models. Us, City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Villa, Leicester (although no longer PL)...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Which clubs would have voted against it along with Newcastle, City and Chelsea? I assume we didn't but who knows?

Bloom owns 2 clubs? would not be shocked if he voted it down.

 

[Milano]

Which clubs would have voted against it along with Newcastle, City and Chelsea? I assume we didn't but who knows?

It's going to be those 'Super League' clubs. The ones who gain the most out these pointless clubs in this corrupt, money laundering, league buying 30+ year old, over the hill players for vastly disproportionate fees allowing these clubs to then take the piss out of local FFP rules. I wish they would all just f*** off to their 'super league'.
Wankers.
I bet Everton wish the Saudi league existed 12 months before it did.

 

[Bozza]

Bloom owns 2 clubs? would not be shocked if he voted it down.

Not any more.

He reduced his stake to a minority holding in the summer after we qualified for Europe.

 

[American Seagle]

Would this have affected ( in a non Europa season) loans between us and USG?

Absolutely would have I would think. It is good news for us that it didn't pass. As long as fair market pricing is applied to players I don't see a problem. Maybe to move between related clubs clubs should have to prove market rate by supplying three offers from other unrelated clubs. Could be a very simple process.

 

[WhingForPresident]

Ah so the inevitable Neves to Newcastle loan in Jan will happen after all. Almost as if they knew Tonali would get banned and didn't want to risk spending more cash on a replacement, so just got their sugar daddies to absorb the cost instead til he is back.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Would this have affected ( in a non Europa season) loans between us and USG?

Yes the aim is to introduce a blanket ban of clubs owned by the same person/group from loaning players to each other. So all the time Tony Bloom has shares in USG those moves could no longer happen.

Although we’ve used the relationship to get players experience and in some cases playing in a league that gets them a work permit we haven’t exploited the system in the way it’s feared Newcastle and other state owned clubs might. Big money signings to Saudi clubs then loaned to Newcastle with no transfer fee impact on FFP etc.

 

[Milano]

Bloom owns 2 clubs? would not be shocked if he voted it down.

Those are UEFA rules, nothing to do with Saudi.
USG are not buying player X for £50m then loaning him to BHA for a £2m loan fee.
We are using USG as a pathway/dev team for our ~£5m buys, whilst they get to improve with players that they otherwise couldn't afford.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Not any more.

He reduced his stake to a minority holding in the summer after we qualified for Europe.

Thanks, I guess he could still vote with the future in mind.

A bit like Joe Lewis apparently having no say in Tottenham anymore after he gave his shares away lol

 

[KZNSeagull]

Absolutely would have I would think. It is good news for us that it didn't pass. As long as fair market pricing is applied to players I don't see a problem. Maybe to move between related clubs clubs should have to prove market rate by supplying three offers from other unrelated clubs. Could be a very simple process.

This is about loans, not purchases. PIF could buy loads of players in Saudi and then loan them all to Newcastle bypassing FFP rules etc.

 

[Bozza]

Thanks, I guess he could still vote with the future in mind.

A bit like Joe Lewis apparently having no say in Tottenham anymore after he gave his shares away lol

Sorry, my post might have been misleading.

Bloom doesn't have a controlling interest in USG, but the clubs could still be considered "associated parties" in terms of this vote - I've not tried to research the criteria used.

If Albion and USG are still considered associated in this way, I would imagine we'd like to retain the ability to trade between the two clubs.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The Neves loan was a done deal as soon as the Saudi side bought him.

 

[Wozza]

 

[Giraffe]

Not any more.

He reduced his stake to a minority holding in the summer after we qualified for Europe.

Doesn't it seem conceivable that he has an agreement to buy it back if the conflict is no longer there?

 

[Weststander]

Because clubs are jumping on the ‘global group of clubs’ bandwagon.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Happy that we didn't join them, assuming that is true. Piss poor from Sheff Utd and Forest though.