Mascherano

[Red Chilli]

Liverpool FC do. Maybe we can sell his left thumb for £100m to Newcastle, who knows?

We should sell him. I'd prefer to do that than lose him for nothing in the summer

[AFII]

We should sell him. I'd prefer to do that than lose him for nothing in the summer

I wonder what the PL and UEFA would do if we did that

[Red Chilli]

I wonder what the PL and UEFA would do if we did that

Kia might have something to say about it too

We should sell him but have first refusal on him

[Charlie_B]

Possibly because MSI owns him and he plays where MSI wants him to play rather than where he wants to play?

It's all speculation though isn't it? The last time Mascherano "played where MSI wanted him to" he ended up royally ****ed off. I'd wager he'll sign for us at the end of this loany thing

[Red Chilli]

It's all speculation though isn't it? The last time Mascherano "played where MSI wanted him to" he ended up royally ****ed off. I'd wager he'll sign for us at the end of this loany thing

Could well happen, but won't happen if someone outbids us.

[Red_Polo]

So, if we loaned him from MSI, then MSI own him.

Is that a correct assumption?

If so then that's a clear case of 3rd party ownership which I thought was against Premiership's rules.

It's more complicated than that though. There are ways around it. For example, (purely speculating on one way around it here) we could have actually bought him but have agreed to pay £1.5m up front, followed by £250m after 18 months, meaning we own the player but in effect it is a loan because we will surely default on payment after 18 months, with it stipulated that in this case ownership is transferred back to MSI. Alternatively there may be a realistic fee already agreed for us to keep him after the 18month period.

[Red Chilli]

It's more complicated than that though. There are ways around it. For example, (purely speculating on one way around it here) we could have actually bought him but have agreed to pay £1.5m up front, followed by £250m after 18 months, meaning we own the player but in effect it is a loan because we will surely default on payment after 18 months, with it stipulated that in this case ownership is transferred back to MSI. Alternatively there may be a realistic fee already agreed for us to keep him after the 18month period.

Hmmm, wouldn't that first scenario be breech of contract though?

I've never heard of a deal like that.

[Red_Polo]

Hmmm, wouldn't that first scenario be breech of contract though?

I've never heard of a deal like that.

Not saying this is necessarily what's happened, just giving an example of how there may be ways around it. The possibilities are endless and the bottom line is the details of it all are far from public. The impression I get is that we do own his contract, but the complex aspects of it mean that from our pov we may as well treat it as though it were an 18 month loan deal.

[Mattshark]

Could well happen, but won't happen if someone outbids us.

Not if we have already agreed a fee.

[Red Chilli]

Not saying this is necessarily what's happened, just giving an example of how there may be ways around it. The possibilities are endless and the bottom line is the details of it all are far from public. The impression I get is that we do own his contract, but the complex aspects of it mean that from our pov we may as well treat it as though it were an 18 month loan deal.

But seriously, his contract with us will expire in 12 months time. So in 6 months time, if we own him, he is free to discuss a Bosman with any other club.
If we don't own him, who does? If it's MSI then that's 3rd party ownership = against premier league rules.
If Ice Ham owns him then that's different.

[Rich]

But if MSI owns Corinthians, then maybe his contract returns to the Corinthians club?

I'm confused about this whole ****-storm...

[Red_Polo]

But seriously, his contract with us will expire in 12 months time. So in 6 months time, if we own him, he is free to discuss a Bosman with any other club.
If we don't own him, who does? If it's MSI then that's 3rd party ownership = against premier league rules.
If Ice Ham owns him then that's different.

As I said, although it appears we do own the player for now it's clear that the technicalities mean we should treat it as an 18 month loan deal. So after that period we either pay to keep him for longer, or someone else snaps him up.

[Red Chilli]

As I said, although it appears we do own the player for now it's clear that the technicalities mean we should treat it as an 18 month loan deal. So after that period we either pay to keep him for longer, or someone else snaps him up.

But who are we loaning him off? If it's Ice Ham then he can't play against them, right?

[Diego]

But who are we loaning him off? If it's Ice Ham then he can't play against them, right?

don't think we are, i agree with what redpolo is saying, and hence in the press surounding it the FA made it clear that there needed to be a clause to make the move permanent in it, that way they would go around that msi owned him cause we had a contract saying we would sign him permanently. i can assure you that he is not able to negotiate his contract in 6 months time, we would never do a deal like that...

[Red Chilli]

don't think we are, i agree with what redpolo is saying, and hence in the press surounding it the FA made it clear that there needed to be a clause to make the move permanent in it, that way they would go around that msi owned him cause we had a contract saying we would sign him permanently. i can assure you that he is not able to negotiate his contract in 6 months time, we would never do a deal like that...

Isn't that the European law though? If you are in the last 6 months of your contract you are free to negotiate with other clubs without requiring your current club's permission.