Transfer Window 26/27 Summer Embargo Window

[SteMerritt]

 

[Scotchegg]

Not what I read on here when someone put the rules up.

This prevents additional payments or endorsements that may bypass rules around not paying loan fees.

 

[Swaby39]

Well I’ve seen him still training in numerous videos so from that point of view he’s still around the squad and training.

If he was refusing to train or had a bad attitude I’m not sure he’d be training with the rest of the group.

I mean bringing Roosken’s family into it would be uneccessary as he could just say something else that doesn’t involve another player and his family.

Time will tell, at least if he does go we are at least getting top dollar.

I’m with you on that, I think Ramsey would shut him out of training if he were being disruptive. So I’m not saying he is flipping tables in the dressing room.

I think the Roosken thing is true - true enough to say it publicly. I just think right off the back of missing 3 or 4 games with the longest bout of crippling sniffles, it feels like we’re reaching a bit to protect what’s is a slightly deeper situation - and that’s fine, we know this goes on in football. It’s not criticism of anyone, I’m just not falling for “he’s happy here and has been for ages”…

 

[Royalstandard74]

I'd happily except BDK and Vaulks leaving , if that means no else goes.

 

[Scotchegg]

I've literally done the "talking to someone who would know and has no reason to lie" stuff.

BdK was in full training with the team on Monday and Thursday (and photographed by the club doing so). But he also has his own additional training programme to bring him up to speed. He completed this Tuesday, but missed Wednesday due to the Roosken situation. It was decided Friday that he wouldn't feature on Saturday as a result and there has been a further change to his training plan for this coming week.

BdK was genuinely ill after returning from Spain (as Mills was before Spain) and was working with the club doctor throughout his "absence".

There has been interest in BdK but only enquires rather than formal bids, and most fall below the clubs valuations who don't want to sell. There is at least one club that is considering meeting the release clause but nothing formal.

If the clause is met, I think BdK goes. But I don't believe he is engineering a move. I think its far more likely that he will be looking to get match fit and playing to a high standard to get a possible move in January than to sulk around now.

Others, I'm sure, will have a different view. Many have throughout the summer and recent events will only reinforce their views.

 

[EastStandKieran]

I wonder if we could sell both Vaulks and BDK that would take us under the number of players 23 then we could possibly replace them with a striker that knows how to score . Obviously we would be looking at the dregs players no body else want but we could find a gem

 

[holdsteady]

“My boss doesn’t respect me or see me as a human being” is one of my favourite Yellows Forum boasts.

I don’t think many of them do sadly, they might pretend to but work for enough of them and you realise they don’t. Then again their boss thinks the same of them.

 

[oufcbenjyp]

It's going to be an interesting one for any club wanting to sign BDK. His role is as a playmaker - the key player for any side. I don't know what the release clause is - let's say it's £2.5m, the purchasing club will know he came to OUFC with a good reputation, he then played for half a season, looked good in patches but got run into the ground and then got injured. If I'm the purchasing club I'm not going to take the risk of wanting to build a side around him, he's going to be a squad player at best until he proves himself. There's also the fact he's played no pre-season and so will need time to get match fit. It's hardly screaming 'buy me now!'. A lot depends on that release clause and whether a club will want to take a punt on him. Personally I think BDK has overplayed his hand (others will no doubt disagree), he could well be here for a little longer.

 

[Jason]

It's going to be an interesting one for any club wanting to sign BDK. His role is as a playmaker - the key player for any side. I don't know what the release clause is - let's say it's £2.5m, the purchasing club will know he came to OUFC with a good reputation, he then played for half a season, looked good in patches but got run into the ground and then got injured. If I'm the purchasing club I'm not going to take the risk of wanting to build a side around him, he's going to be a squad player at best until he proves himself. There's also the fact he's played no pre-season and so will need time to get match fit. It's hardly screaming 'buy me now!'. A lot depends on that release clause and whether a club will want to take a punt on him. Personally I think BDK has overplayed his hand (others will no doubt disagree), he could well be here for a little longer.

I reckon he will stick with us until the January window opens. He'll regain match fitness, get a few decent games in and see what happens from there... Might be here for the whole season.

Also, should the Roosken situation be true, surely having a good mate in the team will be a positive as well as playing under the stewardship of Ramo.

Guess we will see...

 

[Marked Ox]

Maybe it was a slight dig at BDK from Ramsey.

But why bring Roosken into it?

Also Ramsay doesn't strike me as that type?

 

[Jaboysmith]

Do Vaulks and one other have to go for us to be able to bring in a loan? Or would just Vaulks be enough?

 

[Scotchegg]

Currently 23 permissible players.

 

[HillBilly]

There are no rules to say that we can't make wage contributions on any loan agreements.

It's now saying this on the banner at the top of this thread ('so long as the loan does not include any salary contribution'), but I don't see it anywhere in the rules.

Where is this information coming from?

Aren't the rules clear? A club under embargo 'cannot pay additional wages on top of the salary'. That doesn't mean we can't contribute to a loan player's basic salary does it?

If a club in a higher division looks at our squad, the injuries we've had, and the way we've played in preseason, we're an attractive destination for a sixth-month loan, especially for a striker or a winger. It's worth bearing this in mind.

On top of that, as many of the better young players are kept with the first-team squad until later in the window to get experience and provide insurance if targets don't come through, and many loaning clubs will prefer to get their players into the squad sooner rather than later, we could actually be in a strong position in the loan market if either Brian or Vaulks do leave.

This thread might take a U-turn. It's not impossible.

 

[Jaboysmith]

It's now saying this on the banner at the top of this thread ('so long as the loan does not include any salary contribution'), but I don't see it anywhere in the rules.

Where is this information coming from?

Aren't the rules clear? A club under embargo 'cannot pay additional wages on top of the salary'. That doesn't mean we can't contribute to a loan player's basic salary does it?

If a club in a higher division looks at our squad, the injuries we've had, and the way we've played in preseason, we're an attractive destination for a sixth-month loan, especially for a striker or a winger.

In addition, as many of the better young players are kept with the first-team squad until later in the window to get experience and provide insurance if targets don't come through, and many loaning clubs will prefer to get their players into the squad sooner rather than later, we could actually be in a strong position in the loan market if either Brian or Vaulks do leave.

Unless it is a different rule for us than it was Sheff Wed, I know they could not contribute to any loan players wages

 

[Scotchegg]

It's now saying this on the banner at the top of this thread ('so long as the loan does not include any salary contribution'), but I don't see it anywhere in the rules.

Where is this information coming from?

Aren't the rules clear? A club under embargo 'cannot pay additional wages on top of the salary'. That doesn't mean we can't contribute to a loan player's basic salary does it?

If a club in a higher division looks at our squad, the injuries we've had, and the way we've played in preseason, we're an attractive destination for a sixth-month loan, especially for a striker or a winger. It's worth bearing in mind.

In addition, as many of the better young players are kept with the first-team squad until later in the window to get experience and provide insurance if targets don't come through, and many loaning clubs will prefer to get their players into the squad sooner rather than later, we could actually be in a strong position in the loan market if either Brian or Vaulks do leave.

You're right, the rules are clear that salary contributes are allowed, as long as no additional payments are made.

@SteMerritt could you please amend the banner to prevent another thousand posts on this?

 

[Scotchegg]

Unless it is a different rule for us than it was Sheff Wed, I know they could not contribute to any loan players wages

Its clear on the EFL rules.

Embargoes and Fee Restrictions - The English Football League https://share.google/c4heZ6cTcATGeSrYV

 

[londonyellow]

You're right, the rules are clear that salary contributes are allowed, as long as no additional payments are made.

@SteMerritt could you please amend the banner to prevent another thousand posts on this?

Is it clear? I think you're right but I don't think it specifically says that salary contributions are allowed or maybe I've missed that

 

[werthersoriginal]

Is it clear? I think you're right but I don't think it specifically says that salary contributions are allowed or maybe I've missed that

It says we can’t make additional payments or pay loan fees. Presumably we’d be allowed to pay the players basic salary but this isn’t explicitly stated.

 

[londonyellow]

It says we can’t make additional payments or pay loan fees. Presumably we’d be allowed to pay the players basic salary but this isn’t explicitly stated.

Yeah that's what I'm getting at. That's my reading too, but it isn't explicit so I don't think we can definitely say it's the case

 

[OX14]

But why bring Roosken into it?

Also Ramsay doesn't strike me as that type?

Perhaps it is true and BDK is refusing to play and using the excuse he is looking after his house mate and fellow country man Roosken.

Ramsey could have said BDK isn't up to speed yet or has a slight knock but he didn't

 

[Marked Ox]

Perhaps it is true and BDK is refusing to play and using the excuse he is looking after his house mate and fellow country man Roosken.

Ramsey could have said BDK isn't up to speed yet or has a slight knock but he didn't

Or Ramsay thought it was better for him not to play considering where he's fitness is.

 

[Scotchegg]

Ruben Roosken - Dutch
Brian de Keersmaecker - Belgian

 

[HillBilly]

Unless it is a different rule for us than it was Sheff Wed, I know they could not contribute to any loan players wages

Initially I believe they were allowed to pay salaries to newly registered players up to a cap of 7k under staffing up rules, but as they were repeatedly failing to pay wages to their staff, this was amended by the league. It was reported in the press, but the specific figure for the wage cap is not given publicly by the EFL.

Clubs are usually prevented from arranging unpaid loans because this practice is specifically prohibited in the EFL Handbook ('The Club taking a Player on loan is required to contribute towards the wage costs of the Player e.g. by way of bonus schedule and/or contribution to weekly wage'). Wednesday were only permitted to do this because they were operating under a Fee Restriction. We are not.

So the idea we can loan in players without making any wage contribution contradicts the EFL's Regulations, and I'd like to know whether there's a reliable source suggesting we aren't allowed to contribute to salaries. It sounds wrong.

Back in 2021 under their transfer embargo Fleetwood Town had a wage cap of 2.5k in League One (which was said to be the same figure applied in League Two). No newly registered player could be paid more than that. Apparently Fleetwood and Oldham (in League Two) eventually signed something like 10 players each in that summer while under transfer embargos, where the restrictions sound almost identical to the ones we are operating under. They were all free transfers and loan deals (with wage contributions).

Fleetwood Town: Business as usual despite EFL's transfer embargo

It’s business as usual for Fleetwood Town despite being under an EFL transfer embargo.

www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk

Oldham Athletic placed under transfer embargo by EFL

OLDHAM Athletic have been placed under a transfer embargo by the EFL.

www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk

 

[battman]

Do Vaulks and one other have to go for us to be able to bring in a loan? Or would just Vaulks be enough?

Vaulks going out means we can register Kent as an Oxford player (remembering club registrations and squad registrations are different things). Anyone out after that means we can bring in a free transfer or loan to replace them

 

[holdsteady]

Vaulks going out means we can register Kent as an Oxford player (remembering club registrations and squad registrations are different things). Anyone out after that means we can bring in a free transfer or loan to replace them

How long is Kent out injured for.

 

[Scotchegg]

Vaulks going out means we can register Kent as an Oxford player (remembering club registrations and squad registrations are different things). Anyone out after that means we can bring in a free transfer or loan to replace them

Do we have to register Kent first?

 

[Jaboysmith]

How long is Kent out injured for.

The official statement said 'most of the season'

 

[holdsteady]

The official statement said 'most of the season'

Be surprised if we registered him as a player then, wouldn’t solve any problems for us.

 

[Jster]

Do we 100% know that he wasn't registered? I know Jerome hinted at it, but haven't seen anything official about it.

 

[Scotchegg]

Do we 100% know that he wasn't registered? I know Jerome hinted at it, but haven't seen anything official about it.

I think all registrations need to be ratified by the EFL, and whilst we may have submitted it before the embargo, I'm not sure that it would have been finalised.

No official information (on anything) but assume that he's currently being held on a non-playing contract to ensure he's still being paid and supported during his recovery.

 

[Raymond O'Leary]

I've literally done the "talking to someone who would know and has no reason to lie" stuff.

BdK was in full training with the team on Monday and Thursday (and photographed by the club doing so). But he also has his own additional training programme to bring him up to speed. He completed this Tuesday, but missed Wednesday due to the Roosken situation. It was decided Friday that he wouldn't feature on Saturday as a result and there has been a further change to his training plan for this coming week.

BdK was genuinely ill after returning from Spain (as Mills was before Spain) and was working with the club doctor throughout his "absence".

There has been interest in BdK but only enquires rather than formal bids, and most fall below the clubs valuations who don't want to sell. There is at least one club that is considering meeting the release clause but nothing formal.

If the clause is met, I think BdK goes. But I don't believe he is engineering a move. I think its far more likely that he will be looking to get match fit and playing to a high standard to get a possible move in January than to sulk around now.

Others, I'm sure, will have a different view. Many have throughout the summer and recent events will only reinforce their views.

Sounds credible.
If the Roosken injury was thought to be serious (head, neck?) then a friend who speaks the language offering support would be reasonable.
Most decent employers would be flexible there.
Long term fitness of BDK and welfare of RR and family more important than a PSF.

The next couple of weeks should show if there is anything else in the background.