Summer 2017 Transfer Thread

[Trumo]

Do PSG then pay Qatar? 

 

Hahaha, good one!

[Pidge]

3rd Party Ownership is banned by FIFA

 

This is essentially what seems to be happening here, pretty much like the deals that took place to keep him in Brazil for so long (and the deal that Barca used to get him).  If Barca were happy to play ball, they could get away with it.  But, at the moment they don't have to.  La Liga and Barca will be subject to the AML directive that became law at the end of June.  They have a responsibility to understand the source of the funds, if they want to push that they have every right. 

 

It seems either the answer is:

 

a ) Neymar - in which case I'm sure his tax situation gets a whole lot more complex.

b ) PSG - in which case they are fucked as far as FFP goes.

c ) a third party - in which case third ownership is the issue.

 

They all want it paid, but it's in no-one's interest to claim responsibility for the payment.  Like anything it'll probably go through, but neither La Liga, nor Barca want to open an avenue to let the league's best talent leave at the drop of a hat.

[Jockey]

As if FIFA will go against Qatar! 

 

They have ignored slave labour building the stadiums, moving the tournament to winter, and appalling human rights - but they'll draw a line under 3rd party ownership! 

 

I think we should apologise just in case! 

[Anubis]

This is how it works (according to the BBC)

 

The biggest difference between Spanish buyout clauses and release clauses more common in other big leagues around the world is the manner in which they must be triggered.

Rather than the buying club merely paying the selling club the amount set by the contract, the player himself must buy himself out.

This is done by depositing the amount of the buyout clause with La Liga to release the player from his contract. La Liga then pass the money onto the selling club.

Normally this will require the buying club to pay the player the sum of the buyout clause up front.

 

 

So, in theory, we wait for La Liga to release the player from his contract, then steam in before he get's to France and sign him up, and there's nothing PSG or Qatar can do about it.....

[setreal]

So, in theory, we wait for La Liga to release the player from his contract, then steam in before he get's to France and sign him up, and there's nothing PSG or Qatar can do about it.....

 

Unleash the Babelcopter!

 

[M_B]

This is essentially what seems to be happening here, pretty much like the deals that took place to keep him in Brazil for so long (and the deal that Barca used to get him).  If Barca were happy to play ball, they could get away with it.  But, at the moment they don't have to.  La Liga and Barca will be subject to the AML directive that became law at the end of June.  They have a responsibility to understand the source of the funds, if they want to push that they have every right. 

 

It seems either the answer is:

 

a ) Neymar - in which case I'm sure his tax situation gets a whole lot more complex.

b ) PSG - in which case they are fucked as far as FFP goes.

c ) a third party - in which case third ownership is the issue.

 

They all want it paid, but it's in no-one's interest to claim responsibility for the payment.  Like anything it'll probably go through, but neither La Liga, nor Barca want to open an avenue to let the league's best talent leave at the drop of a hat.

 

He isn't owned though. He has a contract with Qatar as an ambassador. They have no economic rights in him. He'll have a different contract with PSG to play football for them.

 

Under Spanish rules, the money he receives to pay his clause is a capital gain which can be offset by the payment. He pays no tax.

[Pidge]

He isn't owned though. He has a contract with Qatar as an ambassador. They have no economic rights in him. He'll have a different contract with PSG to play football for them.

 

Under Spanish rules, the money he receives to pay his clause is a capital gain which can be offset by the payment. He pays no tax.

 

What kind of ambassadorial role will it be where they get no rights in return?  My assumption is that the reason why the move is necessary is because they want something incompatible with Barca's contract with the player.  If they have an investment in his image, marketing and are dictating his deployment (with PSG on board, they must have discussed this) it is skirting third party ownership rules, hence the delay and concern.

[M_B]

What kind of ambassadorial role will it be where they get no rights in return?  My assumption is that the reason why the move is necessary is because they want something incompatible with Barca's contract with the player.  If they have an investment in his image, marketing and are dictating his deployment (with PSG on board, they must have discussed this) it is skirting third party ownership rules, hence the delay and concern.

 

The delay is La Liga not wanting to lose one of its star assets by questioning FFP over the deal. Its nothing to do with 3rd party ownership.

[TheHowieLama]

What kind of ambassadorial role will it be where they get no rights in return?  

 

I would say that is the situation for every ambassador - none of them give up any rights - they are being paid for a service.

[Gym Beglin]

Andrew Pierce‏ @toryboypierce

 Follow

More

Britain gives £80m aid to Brazil which breaks football transfer record by selling player 4 £198m. Something wrong here

[Pidge]

The delay is La Liga not wanting to lose one of its star assets by questioning FFP over the deal. Its nothing to do with 3rd party ownership.

 

In which case the payment structure will be cleared up pretty quickly, until it is - the questions remain because we don't know.  If Qatar, or whoever is specifically underwriting the deal, don't want to do it openly, there's a reason why not.

 

My post should have said "may be the issue", not "is". But it stinks regardless.  Just like that whole World Cup does.

[Pidge]

I would say that is the situation for every ambassador - none of them give up any rights - they are being paid for a service.

 

If it was simply a sponsorship deal I'm sure they could find a way to make it work at Barca.

[M_B]

In which case the payment structure will be cleared up pretty quickly, until it is - the questions remain because we don't know.  If Qatar, or whoever is specifically underwriting the deal, don't want to do it openly, there's a reason why not.

 

We do though. The payment is from Neymar. He is buying out his contract. How he got that money shouldn't be an issue for the deal (legally).

 

(Should be in the shitness of modern football thread)

[Pidge]

We do though. The payment is from Neymar. He is buying out his contract. How he got that money shouldn't be an issue for the deal.

 

It is an issue.  Due diligence over source of funds is a clear legal requirement for any transaction across the EU (I don't know how Spain have applied the directive, but it's pretty clear in our legislation).  If Neymar's saying its his money then does that have implications for his tax situation?  Probably.  If he says he was paid the money, likewise tax might be an issue, plus who paid him (and why - which is where FIFA would come back in with their own concerns).

[Trumo]

 

Andrew Pierce‏ @toryboypierce

 Follow

More

Britain gives £80m aid to Brazil which breaks football transfer record by selling player 4 £198m. Something wrong here

 

 

What's wrong is that Andrew Pierce is a clueless Tory fuckwit.

[Pidge]

 

(Should be in the shitness of modern football thread)

 

Agreed - I'm just interested in just how shitty it turns out.  Couldn't give a fuck about him or poor little Barca...

[M_B]

It is an issue.  Due diligence over source of funds is a clear legal requirement for any transaction across the EU.  If Neymar's saying its his money then does that have implications for his tax situation?  Probably.  If he says he was paid the money, likewise tax might be an issue, plus who paid him (and why - which is where FIFA would come back in with their own concerns).

 

He is saying its his money. Under Spanish rules its a capital gain. He would offset the gain using the payment to Barcelona as a loss. So no tax to pay.

 

Due diligence can be done, but it won't find anything. And that isn't what La Liga are questioning.

[TheHowieLama]

If it was simply a sponsorship deal I'm sure they could find a way to make it work at Barca.

 

I think the issue is HE does not want to make it work at Barca.

[Gym Beglin]

What's wrong is that Andrew Pierce is a clueless Tory fuckwit.

 

Staggering isnt it.

[Trumo]

Staggering isnt it.

 

Not really. Tory fuckwits are always clueless.

[Pidge]

He is saying its his money. Under Spanish rules its a capital gain. He would offset the gain using the payment to Barcelona as a loss. So no tax to pay.

 

Due diligence can be done, but it won't find anything. And that isn't what La Liga are questioning.

 

La Liga (no doubt in tandem with Barca) are saying they don't believe PSG can fund this deal and so are asking after who is.  I'm saying the AML directive gives them the backing to refuse to accept the money until they have conducted due diligence and are satisfied.  It's up to them how much they need to find or not find to be satisfied.

 

I don't know the Spanish tax system, so can't say much about what write-off he can apply, but know he's on dodgy ground from his history.

[Strontium]

La Liga are a disgrace. If they can't respect the terms of a player's legal contract, they should be expelled from UEFA.

[M_B]

La Liga (no doubt in tandem with Barca) are saying they don't believe PSG can fund this deal and so are asking after who is.  I'm saying the AML directive gives them the backing to refuse to accept the money until they have conducted due diligence and are satisfied.  It's up to them how much they need to find or not find to be satisfied.

 

I don't know the Spanish tax system, so can't say much about what write-off he can apply, but know he's on dodgy ground from his history.

 

 

Whether or not PSG can afford the deal and are breaking FFP has nothing to do with La Liga. Due Diligence is for money laundering, not FFP so if they conduct due dilligence its unlikely they will conclude Neymar and Qatar are laundering cash.

 

La Liga are just desperately trying to hold on to their star assets. I read (may not be true) that if Neymar hasn't bought out his contract by September then he can't so maybe they are trying to drag it out to that point.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Andrew and his brother Stuart both no fuck all about football then.

[Pidge]

Whether or not PSG can afford the deal and are breaking FFP has nothing to do with La Liga. Due Diligence is for money laundering, not FFP so if they conduct due dilligence its unlikely they will conclude Neymar and Qatar are laundering cash.

 

La Liga are just desperately trying to hold on to their star assets. I read (may not be true) that if Neymar hasn't bought out his contract by September then he can't so maybe they are trying to drag it out to that point.

 

Maybe they are.  FFP only applies where the payment comes from PSG.  If it's not from PSG, that's where AML regs come into play - and La Liga will ask, if the funds aren't from PSG, where did you get them.

 

If Neymar and his backers are unwilling to provide the information to clarify where the funds come from La Liga can be obstinate. Which, as you rightly say, they are motivated to do (and not just because they want to conduct their due diligence - I haven't been saying they are following the directive because they earnestly want to, but it can give them the power to delay the process).

 

My interest is, if they are not willing to clarify, why not?  Third party ownership issues seem like the most likely explanation.  Or, they just will and the deal will go ahead. Who knows...

 

To be honest I'm interested to see how many hoops the sleazy fuckers jump through.  Money shouldn't bypass the rules, although FIFA often seem to think otherwise.

 

Anyway, speculation... more interesting than whinging on about FSG for the 786th day in a row.