Light the blue touch paper.....

As it has been a while since we had a good debate, I thought I would raise this one again. It will be interesting to see how managers now see the rules/relationships regarding Parent/Feeder clubs, as many managers now have them.

Just over a year ago, I was accused of cheating because I sold a player from Charlton to Bayern whose buycost was 2m, for the overpriced sum of 5m. I did this so I could swapbid said player for another, and justified the transfer because his value to Bayern was more than 2m. This, I accepted was wrong, and rectified the situation by offering any money I made to my rivals who were also in League 1. This was refused and as a result I sent the extra 3m back to Bayern.

Now, the reason I am raising this issue again, is due to the waters getting murkier and murkier as weeks go by. Personally I feel some of the deals going on now are a lot worse than the ones I did, and feel aggreaved that I was labelled a cheat.

I was wondering if views have changed on parent/feeder clubs, and just to guage an idea, how many managers would carry on managing both their clubs if transfers between them were banned. I know a few managers want them abolished completely and others couldn't play without them.

I know Paul would not abolish feeder clubs completely, since he would lose a fair bit of income, hence the poll to see if managers would continue managing both clubs if the ability transfer between the clubs was disabled.

I have been quite lucky in a way, or unlucky, depending on how you look at it, with my feeder club being in England. Following Pauls changes not allowing transfers from parent to feeder, which I agree with btw, it has stopped any temptation to send players from Bayern to Charlton either on the cheap, or store them at Bayern until Charlton can afford them, which seems to be happening quite regularly now.

Are we happy with managers striking deals with their foreign feeder club players for english based players, buying players for their feeder clubs who can play in england then selling them to parent on the cheap, storing players at the feeder until the parent can afford them, doing swap deals involving players at feeder clubs when the player coming in goes to the parent club or striking deals for players then moving them across for minimal value and then doing the swap afterwards with the parent club.

With the recent tightening of feeder clubs purse-strings by the grandmaster, involving the cancelling of stadium sponsors and takeovers maybe this will stop these kind of deals, and its Pauls way of calming the situation down. Does he need to go further, or leave it well alone? I agree that feeder clubs shouldn't get this money, although it really won't help Charlton at all.

Murky waters or acceptable behaviour? You decide.

Let the abuse begin....

Just so people know, although I don't agree with certain deals, that doesn't mean I am saying it is right, wrong or cheating.

Just wanting to know what people think.

I think Paul is making acceptable strides to curb the over-abuse of the feeder club facility.

Making money on the continent is ALOT easier than it is in England, and thus, I believe that Pauls actions have made it much harder to abuse the feeder club, asset strip and/or cash strip a feeder club.

Most of the people in this game who have the parent club in england and the feeder club abroad have alot more money at the feeder club. Matt's recruitment of 9 yr old Brazilian street children after bribing them with a free orange to sign for Gois, Will signing anything that might have once eaten a Belgian waffle...etc etc.

It's part of what makes the game fun. Playing in England is restrictive, but in a challenging way, which is great. Having a feeder club abroad and recruiting players that you hope might one day play in England is part of the fun.

Granted, I may have been guilty of a few minor offenses in the past. But it's the stripping of assets/cash of the feeder club, for the benefit of the parent club that I object to.

As long as the feeder club is being well run, I'm happy.

I've never done a transfer between parent and feeder but to have the option is nice. Even though 99% of my players at Gremio will never go anywhere near England!

As long as people are doing deals at buycost between the two clubs I don't see anything wrong with it to be honest.

It's also not easy making money in Brazil due to the poor economy of the country, counter balanced by the massive pool of talent there is!

Maybe a transfer window for parent-feeder deals could be set up?

So which deal has got your hackles up enough to start this debate Tommy?

None in particular, just the way the game seems to be going after the last few weeks.

It is all within the rules, so nobody is 'cheating', just trying to get clarification where the white meets the black, as the grey area is far too big at the minute and growing.

I agree with Rich's points here. And I particularly like the way Matt manages Goias and Tom at Bayern and Charlton plus some of the Italian feeder clubs are doing really well.

Personally I love managing Boca as a feeder club for Inter and a lot of good young South American talent has come to Inter through that source - Pastore and Coates are two of the latest. The other side of the equation is that the funds from these transfers have made Boca into potentially the World's most successful club in terms of trophies (2 leagues, 2 cups and 2 Libertadores in the last 3 seasons).

I have to say it's not about asset stripping and I'm not sure that really goes on in most cases. There are numerous real examples of this type of relationship in reality (see below) and look at the wiki list at the end.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/102524-celtics-new-hungarian-feeder-club-ujpest/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/7244803.stm

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-line-up-feeder-club-deal-with-Paris-St-Germain-Exclusive-article28244.html

http://sport.stv.tv/football/128960-rangers-line-up-two-foreign-feeder-clubs/

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/676605/LIVERPOOL-EYEING-GENK-AS-FEEDER-CLUB.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feeder_teams_in_football

Oh and ......... once you look at United's affiliated clubs didn't Fabio and Rafael come from Fluminense? And Charni Ekangamene came from Royal Antwerp (he's in the youth team). And Heart of Midlothian ....... isn't their skipper Marius Žaliūkas from their feeder team Kaunas and so is Adrian Mrowiec. Actually I just copied the first few links I found. Looks like the real relationship between Hearts and Kaunas by far extends any in game relationships between parent and feeder clubs.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/hearts/2010/03/04/hearts-bring-in-starlets-marius-forest-and-thomas-snapkauskas-from-kaunas-86908-22084579/

http://scotzine.com/2010/08/02/hearts-sign-fbk-kaunas-keeper-marian-kello-permanently/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart_of_midlothian/8227948.stm

http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=560618.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Football%3A+Hearts+count+in+two+more+from+Kaunas-a0150431009

http://www.heartofmidlothian-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/kaunas_forward_set_for_hearts_335842/index.shtml

I think my thoughts on feeder clubs are pretty well known here.

My solution: I feel an U23 limit on transfers from feeder to parent would not only be realistic but would cut down on a lot of the dodgy deals bringing foreign players to the English leagues. It would also emphasis the grooming element that feeder clubs were designed for.

my only two opinions for change to feeder clubs is the same as previously suggested:

i) that deals between parent and feeder should co-exist, but all deals must be at the higher 'buycost' valuation that paul has created or at the same transfer fee paid by the other club (whichever is higher). this would mean you couldnt sign a player to your feeder club for 25m and then sell them to your main club for the lower resell, you'd have to pay at your main club what the purchase price was for the feeder team or the value of the player if that is higher.

ii) all players signed at a foreign club cannot move to the parent club for 2 seasons. (48 turns)

i do sympathise with tom as the rule change seems to have gone against his feeder club so i can see why he feels a little aggreived, and its unfortunate for him or whoever else to have such previous criticism levelled at them. i think at the time tom was being criticised i think what he was doing was pretty revolutionary (if thats the word?) though the suggestion here is it is now a running theme? is that right? which i think is one of his questions as to whether such deals are universally acceptable?

it really doesn't bother me in anyway what people are doing since i cant really criticise anyone else here when i may have done something just as bad myself at some point. personally i think every person on the forum has made some deal favour one or the other of their clubs at one point (me included) so i guess nobody should be labelled anything or shitting on other people's doorsteps.

in truth my only viewpoint on the matter is im quite happy how it is, but if people want a change then the only way to rectify it is to either ban transfers i guess like tom is suggesting - which i think creates more problems than solutions or to do as i say in points 1 and 2 as this means players can continue to do as they wish with talent at their feeder clubs though will have to pay the 'going rate', and only after 2 years. this would mean the player has been 'groomed', which atleast means a feeder club is run how paul thinks they should be operated.

to be honest though, there's enough rules in the game now its close to doing my head in. maybe two more can't hurt..............ultimately most rules are off the back of a fag packet in the game anyway arn't they...c'est la vie!

Like these ideas. Only change is I think a 24 week season is long enough for point 2.

quite agree with Rob

maybe a 24 week/1 season ruling would be better. i can't see paul having a problem with it. pretty easy for him to work out what a parent club pays for a feeder clubs player. either the buycost if thats higher or the purchase price if that is. simple

atleast i think this way there is a rule which we are all administered with which makes it black and white. it just means feeder clubs are given better protection and that there is no chance of them being 'fucked over' so to speak on one of their players and should see to the end of shady looking deals. none of us will be able to complain then either as we'll all have to abide by the same code of practice. which means asset stripping becomes no more, atleast without a few quid being involved.

Stuart@Roma wrote:

we'll all have to abide by the same code of practice. which means asset stripping becomes no more,

Amen to that

to make sense of it here's some examples

exhibit 1:

michael carrick has a buycost of 17m and a resell value of 8m.

rich buys him at chievo for his resell of 8m.

under current rules he would be within his right to sneak him over to leicester for 8m, his resell value.

under the new rule he would have to pay 17m for the priviledge, but only once carrick has spent 24 turns at chievo.

(higher buycost applied)


exhibit 2:

matt signs sandro at goias for 4m.

sandro has a buycost of 11m and a resell of 4m.

under current rules matt can sign sandro at hull the following turn for 4m

under the new rules matt would have to pay 11m for sandro after one season at goias.

(higher buycost applied)


exhibit 3:

antonio valencia has a buycost of 17m and a resell of 11m

will signs antonio valencia off the transfer list for 24m at vicenza.

under current rules will could sign valencia at fulham for 11m.

under new rules will would have to pay 24m for valencia at fulham after one season at vicenza

(higher purchase price applied)

Agree 100%.

makes sense , is realistic and is black and white with none of those horrible grey shady areas.

would be a big improvement i reckon

i hope those are figures you're plucking out of thin air Mr Foster, cos you is wrong wrong wrong.

Guys, listen, I'm all for tightening the rules, and I dont disagree with the proposals at all.

Lets just be mindful of new managers coming in, dont ruin the game by making it too hard to do deals.

I dont actually think there's anything wrong with the rules as they stand. It's each persons moral obligation to take care of their feeder club to the best of their ability.

I think you'll find that Paul's newly introduced manager rating system, might just take care of the whole problem.

If as I understand, for example...Stu trys to sign Valencia from Will, Valencia is highly likely to turn round and refuse the move because Stu's rating wont be high enough due to constant player movement, unhappiness of players exiting etc etc...

it might just force people to stick a core of players and try to get the best out of them instead of transffering players every two mins.

I suggest waiting to see how Pauls new rules will work before we lobby for further changes. You never know, Paul may have cured the problem we're debating already.

At the end of the day if im paying my money and wanna get players in that are in England or might be coming to England at Cremonese then sell them to Chelsea i will, I could'nt give to shits if it upsets someone, i mean how many fucking rules to we need, some of you guts take my enjoyment out the game some times with ya moaning and makes me wonder if im not better off in the other game with the people that left game one cos of the forum.

Im all for the U23 rule and the 1 or 2 season rule too. I'd prefer 2 seasons.
Anything that makes our dealings more transparent and agreeable with all is a good thing.

Just a note on Sandro Stu, nothing to do with this thread really.
But Ive had feedback this week to say that transfers of players to English teams will not go ahead anymore unless the player has actually made his competitive debut.
No AWPs anymore, you can't buy em if they havent made a debut. So Sandro for example, probably wont be joing Hull for atleast another 6 weeks and he's already been at Goias for atleast a season overall.

matt btw i didnt even know you had sandro, it was just an example i used cos i know you're a spurs fan lol.

for the record (again) i have no problem with the rules as things stand but if people are all for the two ideas i put forward their then they certainly would improve the transparency of dealings and stop a lot of quarreling. i think we all would like to see a solution where nobody is talking about deals between feeder and parent clubs and i think some of these suggestions might go some way to achieve that if that is what people want.

Rich@Leicester wrote:

i hope those are figures you're plucking out of thin air Mr Foster, cos you is wrong wrong wrong.

yes rich all examples are just values and names taken at thin air, i didnt even realise matt had sandro, it could be marlon harewood in that example or anyone!

Gaz@Chelsea wrote:

At the end of the day if im paying my money and wanna get players in that are in England or might be coming to England at Cremonese then sell them to Chelsea i will, I could'nt give to shits if it upsets someone, i mean how many fucking rules to we need, some of you guts take my enjoyment out the game some times with ya moaning and makes me wonder if im not better off in the other game with the people that left game one cos of the forum.

there's another game?? I'm not entirely certain those people existed Gaz.

Like I said above, the new rules that have been implemented in my opinion need time to gel before Paul is lobbied for amendments. this game is supposed to be fun too.

In need of a proper poll before you approach him Stu, referendum required.

yes you're right. i think its important we actually get everyone to agree on soemthing one way or the other. like you say, what we dont want is so many fucking rules that we rule ourselves and other new managers out of signing anyone, ever. its getting harder and harder to trade as it is without too many more rules! though, since feeder clubs are a reccurring debate its obviously something which still needs some remedying

Personally I say keep it simple and within what is already tracked.

2 rules

i. Must stay for 24 weeks

ii. You can't sell the player for less than you paid for him.

yeah thats a perfect shorthand version of my two magna carta posts

Gaz@Chelsea wrote:

At the end of the day if im paying my money and wanna get players in that are in England or might be coming to England at Cremonese then sell them to Chelsea i will, I could'nt give to shits if it upsets someone, i mean how many fucking rules to we need, some of you guts take my enjoyment out the game some times with ya moaning and makes me wonder if im not better off in the other game with the people that left game one cos of the forum.

No-one is moaning Gaz, just looking for clarification on what is allowed, not allowed, right or wrong. If everyone is happy that this can go on then so be it, just want everyone to be on a level playing field. The people who are missing out, ie, Dan and Lee, need to know what they are missing out on, and that they have an opportunity to do the same if required.