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

[Black Rod]

I wonder if the outcome of this vote will change the Albion's viewpoint on an independent regulator?

Probably not given the disdain they treat the independent ombudsman with whenever that body rules the club are in the wrong. But we can live in hope.

 

[chrisg]

If Sheff Utd are Saudi owned , why isn’t there millions being poured in for transfers, like at Newcastle.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If Sheff Utd are Saudi owned , why isn’t there millions being poured in for transfers, like at Newcastle.

Because Sheffield United are owned by a Saudi individual, rather than the NATION STATE of Saudi Arabia.

 

[portslade seagull]

Can't understand why the top seven clubs with feeder clubs would vote against this amendment. Sighs loudly

 

[A1X]

 

[Slum_Wolf]

Sheffield United is the one in there that really stands out. No benefit to them as a club at all as far as I'm aware, so a blatant move by the Saudis to help Newcastle. It's not corrupt but it still stinks. This could become a key moment in the argument for an independent regulator - which shouldn't really be needed but the Premier League can no longer protect its own product.

Prince Abdullah is involved with various (or soon to be) lower league clubs - Sheffield United, Beerschot (Belgium), Al-Hilal United (Dubai), Châteauroux (France) and Kerala United (India).

 

[Krafty]

The Premier League is corrupt.

 

[trueblue]

The Premier League is corrupt.

Well, strictly speaking, the ‘Premier League’ isn’t. The last thing it wants is a club to be able to circumvent the rules and destroy what remains of the competitiveness that makes the matches so popular. That’s why it wanted the ban to go through. The trouble is, the system no longer works with so many owners whose primary interest is no longer football. The league has sleepwalked over many years into a situation that could ruin the whole thing.

 

[trueblue]

Prince Abdullah is involved with various (or soon to be) lower league clubs - Sheffield United, Beerschot (Belgium), Al-Hilal United (Dubai), Châteauroux (France) and Kerala United (India).

Hard to see any of those signing global superstars for peanuts to send to Sheffield United though. It’s all about Newcastle.

 

[trueblue]

Because Sheffield United are owned by a Saudi individual, rather than the NATION STATE of Saudi Arabia.

Indeed. Who will know it’s a very good idea to keep the nation state of Saudi Arabia happier. Might even get a bit richer in the process.

 

[HillBarnTillIDie]

Sorry but why is it only the premier league clubs that had a vote? Shouldn’t the FA be taking the lead in a decision of this magnitude?
Would the loan player from sister clubs be eligible for other competitions?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Smeddie:
"It's the same for everybody".
"There is no advantage for us in my eyes"
Tosspot

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Sorry but why is it only the premier league clubs that had a vote? Shouldn’t the FA be taking the lead in a decision of this magnitude?
Would the loan player from sister clubs be eligible for other competitions?

https://www.premierleague.com/about

Because the Premier League is a private company owned by the 20 clubs that make up the league at any one time. Each hold a single share and any changes to the rules of the competition are voted on by the shareholders. A two thirds vote is needed to pass any changes, hence 14 clubs needing to vote in favour if the temporary transfer ban.

That said the FA, UEFA or FIFA could impose a ban on loan transfers between what they are now calling "related parties" but that would be far more wide reaching, and effect a lot more clubs. Maybe one day FIFA will look into multiple club ownership and put some rules concerning transfers in place but it certainly won't be happening before the January window which is what the Premier League wanted to block, while further discussions could take place over a longer term solution.