Rival Watch

[Zip]

The rules may also scupper our hopes of re-signing crucial players like Swift, Rinomhota, Meite and Laurent all of whom are out of contract next summer. If we are restricted to offering them £8,500 per week they will all leave on frees next summer.

[Hound]

The rules may also scupper our hopes of re-signing crucial players like Swift, Rinomhota, Meite and Laurent all of whom are out of contract next summer. If we are restricted to offering them £8,500 per week they will all leave on frees next summer.

I’m confused how we tied McIntyre down to 3 years if this is the case

[STAR Liaison]

You are making that up. If you read the official EFL statement regarding the Derby Chorley game which was issued on 20 July in the notes it categorically gives the definition of a player of professional standing to be when they have played one game. It also says if a player goes out on loan they still count in the 23. So we have 24 current players who have been involved in at least one game as I said earlier. I imagine we are trying to get special dispensation to give us some scope to sign a few - perhaps one out on loan one in.

Head of legal at EFL said otherwise in response to a direct question, suggesting that it was wrong for just one app to count you in as one of the 23 allowed players. Five he said. Maybe we'd better get in touch with the club to make sure they know!

There are 2 different things:

Player of Professional Standing (23 allowed) - A Player who has made one first team appearance (including as a sub) for any Club in any first team competition (EFL Trophy appearances do not count).

Established Player (24 allowed) - A player aged 21 or over as at the 30 June immediately prior to the commencement of the season in which the Club is subject to the Embargo and who has been named in the starting XI on a total of at least five occasions.

We have more players in the first category than would allow us to make signings, but we do have scope in the second category.The published version of the rules does not make it clear whether it is "both" or "either/or" that go into decisions.

Thanks, that’s very helpful in explaining why there is a confusion - without actually resolving it. The rules do seem loose. Moreover, how do they cope with a situation like Meite who is out long term injured? Does he still count? If he didn’t, would we still be ok paying his wages (obvs yes but …)?

[Snowflake Royal]

Didn’t someone in the thread say that if we loan someone it doesn’t make any difference? Otherwise pretty sure we’d have shipped a load of u23 to our friendly non league mates like Bath and Maidenhead

Surprised we haven’t also paid McNulty off if that would make a difference

Someone did say that. No idea if true. But would make sense. As the FL could reasonably argue we should use who we've got, not send out someone so we can bring in someone different.


Certainly wouldn't make sense to loan out an academy lad on ~£1k a week and be allowed to sign an experienced player on ~£6k a week.

Actually makes your financial situation worse.

[Zip]

The rules may also scupper our hopes of re-signing crucial players like Swift, Rinomhota, Meite and Laurent all of whom are out of contract next summer. If we are restricted to offering them £8,500 per week they will all leave on frees next summer.

I’m confused how we tied McIntyre down to 3 years if this is the case

Did we offer him £8,500 a week? This would probably have been an improvement on his previous contract.

[Zip]

Head of legal at EFL said otherwise in response to a direct question, suggesting that it was wrong for just one app to count you in as one of the 23 allowed players. Five he said. Maybe we'd better get in touch with the club to make sure they know!

There are 2 different things:

Player of Professional Standing (23 allowed) - A Player who has made one first team appearance (including as a sub) for any Club in any first team competition (EFL Trophy appearances do not count).

Established Player (24 allowed) - A player aged 21 or over as at the 30 June immediately prior to the commencement of the season in which the Club is subject to the Embargo and who has been named in the starting XI on a total of at least five occasions.

We have more players in the first category than would allow us to make signings, but we do have scope in the second category.The published version of the rules does not make it clear whether it is "both" or "either/or" that go into decisions.

Thanks, that’s very helpful in explaining why there is a confusion - without actually resolving it. The rules do seem loose. Moreover, how do they cope with a situation like Meite who is out long term injured? Does he still count? If he didn’t, would we still be ok paying his wages (obvs yes but …)?

The injuries are a fair point. What if we end up with a Bristol City injury type crisis? We would be unable to field a proper squad.

[Snowflake Royal]

The rules may also scupper our hopes of re-signing crucial players like Swift, Rinomhota, Meite and Laurent all of whom are out of contract next summer. If we are restricted to offering them £8,500 per week they will all leave on frees next summer.

I’m confused how we tied McIntyre down to 3 years if this is the case

Did we offer him £8,500 a week? This would probably have been an improvement on his previous contract.

Yeah, more leeway as doesn't change the number of players in the squad, so if it remains withing the permitted range it would be OK

[Hound]

I’m confused how we tied McIntyre down to 3 years if this is the case

Did we offer him £8,500 a week? This would probably have been an improvement on his previous contract.

Yeah, more leeway as doesn't change the number of players in the squad, so if it remains withing the permitted range it would be OK

Could imagine him being on about that but it’s the 3 year bit which is at odds

Therefore we should be able to offer Rino the same and he may accept that. Doubt the others would

[Snowflake Royal]

Did we offer him £8,500 a week? This would probably have been an improvement on his previous contract.

Yeah, more leeway as doesn't change the number of players in the squad, so if it remains withing the permitted range it would be OK

Could imagine him being on about that but it’s the 3 year bit which is at odds

Therefore we should be able to offer Rino the same and he may accept that. Doubt the others would

Would think Rino is already closer to the limit, and he's been with us less long hasn't he? So less likely to compromise for love of club?

3 year is a bit odd.

[The Royal Forester]

You are making that up. If you read the official EFL statement regarding the Derby Chorley game which was issued on 20 July in the notes it categorically gives the definition of a player of professional standing to be when they have played one game. It also says if a player goes out on loan they still count in the 23. So we have 24 current players who have been involved in at least one game as I said earlier. I imagine we are trying to get special dispensation to give us some scope to sign a few - perhaps one out on loan one in.

Head of legal at EFL said otherwise in response to a direct question, suggesting that it was wrong for just one app to count you in as one of the 23 allowed players. Five he said. Maybe we'd better get in touch with the club to make sure they know!

There are 2 different things:

Player of Professional Standing (23 allowed) - A Player who has made one first team appearance (including as a sub) for any Club in any first team competition (EFL Trophy appearances do not count).

Established Player (24 allowed) - A player aged 21 or over as at the 30 June immediately prior to the commencement of the season in which the Club is subject to the Embargo and who has been named in the starting XI on a total of at least five occasions.

We have more players in the first category than would allow us to make signings, but we do have scope in the second category.The published version of the rules does not make it clear whether it is "both" or "either/or" that go into decisions.

So if a club decides not to bring in new players , even though they have not reached the limit of players allowed, they play some youngsters and reach the maximum permitted number. The youngsters then prove not good enough to step up, the club can't bring in any replacements. Seems like the club is being punished for trying to reduce their outgoings by playing youth players instead of buying/hiring free agents in the first place!

[Ascotexgunner]

Harry Wilson is such a f*cking diver.......common Boro.

[andrew1957]

Have heard direct from EFL that the definition is FIVE matches (maybe starts, not sure) not one, as mistakenly reported on BBC and elsewhere.

You are making that up. If you read the official EFL statement regarding the Derby Chorley game which was issued on 20 July in the notes it categorically gives the definition of a player of professional standing to be when they have played one game. It also says if a player goes out on loan they still count in the 23. So we have 24 current players who have been involved in at least one game as I said earlier. I imagine we are trying to get special dispensation to give us some scope to sign a few - perhaps one out on loan one in.

Head of legal at EFL said otherwise in response to a direct question, suggesting that it was wrong for just one app to count you in as one of the 23 allowed players. Five he said. Maybe we'd better get in touch with the club to make sure they know!

Having read the whole EFL rule in detail it definitely says club cannot bring in new players if they have 23 of a professional standing - player has been involved in one game. It then goes on to imply that if there are not 23 established players - players involved in 5 games, the club can seek permission to add to the squad but this will be decided on a case by case basis at EFL discretion. Presumably the EFL have not relented so far which is why we can sign no one. The rules also say that if players are sent out on loan they definitely sill count in the 23.

I assume this must mean we are trying to ship McNulty out on a permanent deal otherwise surely we would be better to keep him.

[NathStPaul]

Regardless of the result against Middlesbrough today, I can't see anyone stopping Fulham once they get going. Quality players in every position.

[Hound]

You are making that up. If you read the official EFL statement regarding the Derby Chorley game which was issued on 20 July in the notes it categorically gives the definition of a player of professional standing to be when they have played one game. It also says if a player goes out on loan they still count in the 23. So we have 24 current players who have been involved in at least one game as I said earlier. I imagine we are trying to get special dispensation to give us some scope to sign a few - perhaps one out on loan one in.

Head of legal at EFL said otherwise in response to a direct question, suggesting that it was wrong for just one app to count you in as one of the 23 allowed players. Five he said. Maybe we'd better get in touch with the club to make sure they know!

Having read the whole EFL rule in detail it definitely says club cannot bring in new players if they have 23 of a professional standing - player has been involved in one game. It then goes on to imply that if there are not 23 established players - players involved in 5 games, the club can seek permission to add to the squad but this will be decided on a case by case basis at EFL discretion. Presumably the EFL have not relented so far which is why we can sign no one. The rules also say that if players are sent out on loan they definitely sill count in the 23.

I assume this must mean we are trying to ship McNulty out on a permanent deal otherwise surely we would be better to keep him.

Did we give new contracts to some of those u23 lads in the summer out of interest. I know we did Azeez which looks a good call. But do wonder if we’ve put ourselves in a bit of a whole by offering one year deals to players who have had one game for us

Still doesn’t seem the right way out of the situation to not sign up youth players but a big oversight if it might cost us a place in the champ

[Pepe the Horseman]

Boro score with their first SOT. Oof.

[leon]

Stick that up your bollocks Fulham.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Stick that up your bollocks Fulham.

Not a fan, Leon?

[leon]

Stick that up your bollocks Fulham.

Not a fan, Leon?

I might have mentioned it a couple of times before.

[linkenholtroyal]

Would be interesting how they fit into positions in our squad.
Who are the 24 that have made an appearance?
I have
Rafael
Southwood
Yiadom
McIntyre
Holmes
Moore
Morrison
Tetek
Meite
Rinhomota
Laurent
Puscas
Joao
Mcnulty
Aruruna
Swift
Ejaria
Melvin-Lambert
Bristow
Samuels
Abbey
Azeez
Dorsett
Sackey

If Azeez has not started a game yet I think he will start on the right tomorrow so will qualify as another one.

I have updated after today so we have 24 players with at least 1 first team appearance. So officially we can’t sign anyone unless someone leaves.

You have Aruruna down twice on that list.

There you go then 23 with a first team appearance still stuffed.

[Royal_jimmy]

I have updated after today so we have 24 players with at least 1 first team appearance. So officially we can’t sign anyone unless someone leaves.

You have Aruruna down twice on that list.

There you go then 23 with a first team appearance still stuffed.

Probably why we are trying to get rid of McNulty and Puscas. So we can sign a left back + Kadeem Harris. We could turn around and say to the EFL we've got long term injuries in our squad so we should be allowed temporary loans to cover those absences