Here's How Cfg Gets Around The Affiliated Clubs Loan Rule

[Ulrich]

For those that don't know the current MLS rule, simply stated says that two teams affiliated with the same owner cannot Loan a player from one to the other at a reduced salary level. Obviously the rule is in place to maintain a competitive balance between teams that have (a benefactor) and ones that don't. However, two teams that are not affiliated can loan a player from Team 1 to Team 2 with Team 1 picking up nearly all of the salary (what a true loan is around the rest of the world).

This is why the recent Loan attempt between MCFC and NYCFC for Demichelis fell through - to complete it, Demichelis' salary would place him in DP status but NYCFC does not have an open DP spot, and MLS would not allow MCFC to absorb/pay the majority of the salary to keep him below DP status.

However, nowhere is there a rule stating that Team 1 (MCFC) cannot loan a player to Team 2 (Feeder team in non-EPL league), and Team 2 loans a separate player to Team 3 (NYCFC). Many big clubs have non-official agreements with Feeder teams, one of the best examples is ManUtd & Royal Antwerp. But in this case, MCFC could send a player to Team 2 to cover for the loss of their player when they are loaned to Team 3 (NYCFC) for the cut-rate of $60K/year with Team 2 picking up the difference. MLS could not stop the Loan citing Affiliation/competitive advantage because Team 2 is not part of CFG (i.e. there is a break in the chain).

Pushing the boundaries of rules is the only way any team in any league stays competitive - (e.g NE Patriots - don't like them but admire their tenacity to discover variations on how to apply rules or actual loopholes). MLS cannot close this loophole because how would they determine which loans are using it and which are not - it's just not possible, especially if the informal arrangement is with a wink, nod, and handshake and the Loan between Teams 1&2 take place after Teams 2&3. Unfortunately, I doubt NYCFC's front office has thought of this to suggest to CFG......

 

[mrplow2000]

For those that don't know the current MLS rule, simply stated says that two teams affiliated with the same owner cannot Loan a player from one to the other at a reduced salary level. Obviously the rule is in place to maintain a competitive balance between teams that have (a benefactor) and ones that don't. However, two teams that are not affiliated can loan a player from Team 1 to Team 2 with Team 1 picking up nearly all of the salary (what a true loan is around the rest of the world).

This is why the recent Loan attempt between MCFC and NYCFC for Demichelis fell through - to complete it, Demichelis' salary would place him in DP status but NYCFC does not have an open DP spot, and MLS would not allow MCFC to absorb/pay the majority of the salary to keep him below DP status.

However, nowhere is there a rule stating that Team 1 (MCFC) cannot loan a player to Team 2 (Feeder team in non-EPL league), and Team 2 loans a separate player to Team 3 (NYCFC). Many big clubs have non-official agreements with Feeder teams, one of the best examples is ManUtd & Royal Antwerp. But in this case, MCFC could send a player to Team 2 to cover for the loss of their player when they are loaned to Team 3 (NYCFC) for the cut-rate of $60K/year with Team 2 picking up the difference. MLS could not stop the Loan citing Affiliation/competitive advantage because Team 2 is not part of CFG (i.e. there is a break in the chain).

Pushing the boundaries of rules is the only way any team in any league stays competitive - (e.g NE Patriots - don't like them but admire their tenacity to discover variations on how to apply rules or actual loopholes). MLS cannot close this loophole because how would they determine which loans are using it and which are not - it's just not possible, especially if the informal arrangement is with a wink, nod, and handshake and the Loan between Teams 1&2 take place after Teams 2&3. Unfortunately, I doubt NYCFC's front office has thought of this to suggest to CFG......

There are rules and what you have said, citing man u and Royal Antwerp would give NYCFC a problem.

The rule was FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, Chapter III: Registration of Players, Article 5.3 stated:
Players may be registered for a maximum of three clubs during the period from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. During this period, the player is only eligible to play in Official Matches for two clubs.

Why would anyone take Demi for 6 months, the next transfer window, knowing if he played he could not then play for NYCFC. Someone at Cork City had the idea you had back in 2006, whilst the football group thing was not the problem, playing for clubs is, particularly as they need international clearance to play when switching countries. As a result, the Finnish Football Federation, an association that also has its season within a calendar year, just like Ireland, and the US simply ignores this rule, because their season is "out of sync" with the FIFA designated season. Any player who signs for a Finnish club, and who is in the same situation as Colin Healy or Gareth Farrelly were at Cork, is allowed to play in official matches in Finland. Substitute Demi for those players and NYCFC for a club that plays in an out of sync season.
FIFA took this on board and added to the above rule with the following
As an exception to this rule, a player moving between two clubs belonging to associations with overlapping seasons (i.e. start of the season in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring) may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club during the relevant season, provided he has fully complied with his contractual obligations towards his previous clubs. Equally, the provisions relating to the registration periods (article 6) as well as to the minimum length of a contract (article 18 paragraph 2) must be respected.

So we are good to go. Except the fly in the ointment is that if he moves he will have to complete a six month loan at the second team, which would make him available mid season ie) at the same time Lampard and Pirlo arrived.
I am not sure he nor NYCFC would be happy for him to "waste" 6 months at the second club waiting to go the US bearing in mind he has repeatedly stated he would like to go back home to finish.
I hope i have explained ok, any q'e let me know.

 

[BxLio91]

I'd rather not blatantly cheat the rules.

 

[mrplow2000]

I'd rather not blatantly cheat the rules.

Usually the best option.

I just hope CFG have learnt some lessons from some pretty dumb and stupid decisions.

 

[Ulrich]

There are rules and what you have said, citing man u and Royal Antwerp would give NYCFC a problem.

The rule was FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, Chapter III: Registration of Players, Article 5.3 stated:
Players may be registered for a maximum of three clubs during the period from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. During this period, the player is only eligible to play in Official Matches for two clubs.

Why would anyone take Demi for 6 months, the next transfer window, knowing if he played he could not then play for NYCFC. Someone at Cork City had the idea you had back in 2006, whilst the football group thing was not the problem, playing for clubs is, particularly as they need international clearance to play when switching countries. As a result, the Finnish Football Federation, an association that also has its season within a calendar year, just like Ireland, and the US simply ignores this rule, because their season is "out of sync" with the FIFA designated season. Any player who signs for a Finnish club, and who is in the same situation as Colin Healy or Gareth Farrelly were at Cork, is allowed to play in official matches in Finland. Substitute Demi for those players and NYCFC for a club that plays in an out of sync season.
FIFA took this on board and added to the above rule with the following
As an exception to this rule, a player moving between two clubs belonging to associations with overlapping seasons (i.e. start of the season in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring) may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club during the relevant season, provided he has fully complied with his contractual obligations towards his previous clubs. Equally, the provisions relating to the registration periods (article 6) as well as to the minimum length of a contract (article 18 paragraph 2) must be respected.

So we are good to go. Except the fly in the ointment is that if he moves he will have to complete a six month loan at the second team, which would make him available mid season ie) at the same time Lampard and Pirlo arrived.
I am not sure he nor NYCFC would be happy for him to "waste" 6 months at the second club waiting to go the US bearing in mind he has repeatedly stated he would like to go back home to finish.
I hope i have explained ok, any q'e let me know.

You TOTALLY missed my point. Team 1 loans Player 1 to Team 2. Team 2 loans Player 2 (not Player 1) to Team 3. No player is playing for 3 clubs during one year, and the overlapping seasons aren't an issue.

My example of ManU & RAFC was simply to show that clubs do have feeder clubs they loan to - nothing more than that; the "arrangement" would have to be unofficial between clubs so that it doesn't run afoul, but that's already part of transfer culture.

Demi was simply an example of a failed loan. There's nothing stopping MCFC from Loaning Demi to an Argentine Club for 6 months (and likely longer once the contract runs out he can sign on with them), and that same Argentine club Loans NYCFC a very talented player for 2016.

As to blatantly cheating the rules.... it's not, it's a loophole - still within the rules. Until FIFA (or MLS) changes their statues to say any/all Loaned Players' full contracts are the responsibility of the landing club and cannot be partially picked up by the sending club, then it's still within the boundaries of the rules.

 

[LionNYC]

For those that don't know the current MLS rule, simply stated says that two teams affiliated with the same owner cannot Loan a player from one to the other at a reduced salary level. Obviously the rule is in place to maintain a competitive balance between teams that have (a benefactor) and ones that don't. However, two teams that are not affiliated can loan a player from Team 1 to Team 2 with Team 1 picking up nearly all of the salary (what a true loan is around the rest of the world).

This is why the recent Loan attempt between MCFC and NYCFC for Demichelis fell through - to complete it, Demichelis' salary would place him in DP status but NYCFC does not have an open DP spot, and MLS would not allow MCFC to absorb/pay the majority of the salary to keep him below DP status.

However, nowhere is there a rule stating that Team 1 (MCFC) cannot loan a player to Team 2 (Feeder team in non-EPL league), and Team 2 loans a separate player to Team 3 (NYCFC). Many big clubs have non-official agreements with Feeder teams, one of the best examples is ManUtd & Royal Antwerp. But in this case, MCFC could send a player to Team 2 to cover for the loss of their player when they are loaned to Team 3 (NYCFC) for the cut-rate of $60K/year with Team 2 picking up the difference. MLS could not stop the Loan citing Affiliation/competitive advantage because Team 2 is not part of CFG (i.e. there is a break in the chain).

Pushing the boundaries of rules is the only way any team in any league stays competitive - (e.g NE Patriots - don't like them but admire their tenacity to discover variations on how to apply rules or actual loopholes). MLS cannot close this loophole because how would they determine which loans are using it and which are not - it's just not possible, especially if the informal arrangement is with a wink, nod, and handshake and the Loan between Teams 1&2 take place after Teams 2&3. Unfortunately, I doubt NYCFC's front office has thought of this to suggest to CFG......

Would Man City to Yokohama F. Marinos to NYCFC work?

Since Yokohama is only 20% owned by CFG, they aren't the majority owner.

 

[Ulrich]

Would Man City to Yokohama F. Marinos to NYCFC work?

Since Yokohama is only 20% owned by CFG, they aren't the majority owner.

I doubt that would work because CFG has a stake in both clubs. For my concept to work, CFG cannot have any stake in the Team 2 club. They'd have to "recruit" a neutral club that has a player that fits NYCFC's needs, that Team 2 would be willing to part with for a year, and MCFC would have to have a player that fits Team 2's needs as a replacement.

To keep MLS from saying they'd rather the Team 2 player play somewhere else instead of NYCFC, it could be argued that the player wants to test the waters of living in New York and the cosmopolitan nature of the city.