2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[TugaysMarlboro]

2 minutes ago, arbitro said:

The window opens on June 1st, closes on June 10 for six days then reopens on June 16th until September 1st. The window cannot exceed 89 days hence the break.

 

Means we can get some practice in not pressing the send button.

[KentExile]

1 minute ago, K-Hod said:

We probably won’t bother opening it until the 16th of June July August, even then, will only be slightly ajar.

fixed it for you 🙂 

[davulsukur]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

Chelsea signing dingle Egan-Riley on a free transfer via the back door

Imagine he will stay in France for 6 months or so before being transferred to Chelsea in some form of swap deal

 

Can they not just loan him straight over? or are there rules against that now?

[KentExile]

9 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Can they not just loan him straight over? or are there rules against that now?

I suppose that they could, but I imagine due to the ownership situation, the dingles may then petition that compensation should be paid as Egan-Riley is 22, so if he moved directly to Chelsea, then a fee/compensation would be due. 

I would guess that 1 transfer window is probably enough time for them to negate those claims

But the above is all just guesswork on my part

Edited 15 hours ago by KentExile

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

IMO, multi club ownership should just be banned. There is zero reason the sport needs it, and it raises too many dubious scenarios.

But that would require the authorities to have morals and turn down money from billionaires for the betterment of the game.

Their snouts are far too deep in the trough for that to ever happen. 

[davulsukur]

37 minutes ago, KentExile said:

I suppose that they could, but I imagine due to the ownership situation, the dingles may then petition that compensation should be paid as Egan-Riley is 22, so if he moved directly to Chelsea, then a fee/compensation would be due. 

I would guess that 1 transfer window is probably enough time for them to negate those claims

But the above is all just guesswork on my part

Was it Watford who abused that system a few years back? I'm sure some new rules were brought in to close that loophole. Could be wrong on that though.

[KentExile]

13 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Was it Watford who abused that system a few years back? I'm sure some new rules were brought in to close that loophole. Could be wrong on that though.

you may well be right, but I cannot say for certain

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

you may well be right, but I cannot say for certain

They had the same owners as Udinese I believe it was. They got quite a few players from there, mostly or entirely on loan. I assume at very reasonable rates if any cost at all. I don't remember hearing anything about them getting in trouble for it, though I feel like it eventually stopped for some reason (rule change?). Maybe they're still doing it, I dunno.

It was seen, probably rightly, as being a way to skirt FFP rules by getting good players for bugger all, and it helped them get promoted. I don't know if it ever went as far as Udinese actually buying a player just so they could loan them to Watford without it ruining Watford's books. They did have an excellent youth system at the time though, and may have sent the odd bought player who wasn't cutting the mustard in Serie A.

[KentExile]

21 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

They had the same owners as Udinese I believe it was. They got quite a few players from there, mostly or entirely on loan. I assume at very reasonable rates if any cost at all. I don't remember hearing anything about them getting in trouble for it, though I feel like it eventually stopped for some reason (rule change?). Maybe they're still doing it, I dunno.

It was seen, probably rightly, as being a way to skirt FFP rules by getting good players for bugger all, and it helped them get promoted. I don't know if it ever went as far as Udinese actually buying a player just so they could loan them to Watford without it ruining Watford's books. They did have an excellent youth system at the time though, and may have sent the odd bought player who wasn't cutting the mustard in Serie A.

That was and is definitely still the case, they also owned Granada in Spain at one point as well.  They definitely buy and loan players from Udinese too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c805xx7jrrlo#:~:text=Watford have signed goalkeeper Egil,year contract at Vicarage Road.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp9xngvjrd9o

The part I wasn't sure about is if they had been in trouble about anything, or that the rules/laws had been changed because of their actions

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

That was and is definitely still the case, they also owned Granada in Spain at one point as well.  They definitely buy and loan players from Udinese too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c805xx7jrrlo#:~:text=Watford have signed goalkeeper Egil,year contract at Vicarage Road.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp9xngvjrd9o

The part I wasn't sure about is if they had been in trouble about anything, or that the rules/laws had been changed because of their actions

I wasn't sure if it had stopped, I just hadn't heard about it for a long time so I thought it had. I see now they loaned 4 players from Udinese last season and 'bought' 2, for, of course, undisclosed amounts, even though almost every other transfer that shows on transfermarkt has a fee shown.

They also sold Vakoun Boyo to Udinese for a mystery fee...then loaned him back immediately. And he's a 27 year old so it's hardly a development thing. A player Watford had paid 5.8 million Euros for the season before. Obviously trying to bump Watford's FFP figures.

Given the scale they're still doing it at, it seems clear a punishment wasn't given and the rules didn't change, or if they did they were so inconsequential as to be easily skirted.

[wilsdenrover]

5 hours ago, KentExile said:

I suppose that they could, but I imagine due to the ownership situation, the dingles may then petition that compensation should be paid as Egan-Riley is 22, so if he moved directly to Chelsea, then a fee/compensation would be due. 

I would guess that 1 transfer window is probably enough time for them to negate those claims

But the above is all just guesswork on my part

Players who go abroad when their contracts expire need permission (from the EFL board) to move back within the first twelve months.

Such permission being granted can then lead to their former club being due compensation.

Edited 10 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[StubbsUK]

On 12/05/2025 at 08:38, Herbie6590 said:

One for @StubbsUK 😁 #delegation 👀

@KentExile

[KentExile]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Players who go abroad when their contracts expire need permission (from the EFL board) to move back within the first twelve months.

Such permission being granted can then lead to their former club being due compensation.

Thanks for that 🙂 

In which case, he may not move on to Chelsea until next summer, probably on loan with an undisclosed option to buy, or similar

Edited 9 hours ago by KentExile

[KentExile]

7 minutes ago, StubbsUK said:

@KentExile

Wonderful, thank you 🙂 

[wilsdenrover]

6 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Thanks for that 🙂 

In which case, he may not move on to Chelsea until next summer, probably on lona with an undisclosed option to buy, or similar

You’re very cynical - and almost certainly correct 😁

[NeilInBristol]

2 hours ago, KentExile said:

Thanks for that 🙂 

In which case, he may not move on to Chelsea until next summer, probably on loan with an undisclosed option to buy, or similar

I think we are speculating quite a lot here

Yes he is a good player but Chelsea spend so much money whenever they want-I don't think they are linked to this deal.

He will go to France for free and they will probably keep him, talent develop him (similar to how Chelsea operate) and sell him on eventually for a larger fee, maybe back to man city after a couple of years.

I don't think Chelsea will take him on loan or after a season to avoid paying a small compensation that is quite unlikely based on Chelsea's track record 

[roversfan99]

Even if they dont actually use him themselves, the link ensures that similar to the many, many other players that their umbrella of clubs have signed, if he goes on and becomes worth big money theyve got first refusal on the value he will generate in the market.