Why is Mascherano not on loan from West Ham in FM08

In real life Javier Mascherano is on loan from West Ham to Liverpool on an 18 month loan. On FM08, he is fully contacted to Liverpool. I know he is still a West Ham player because I have heard that Liverpool want to buy Mascherano for 18mil in the Jan transfer window. Any thoughts?

In real life Javier Mascherano is on loan from West Ham to Liverpool on an 18 month loan. On FM08, he is fully contacted to Liverpool. I know he is still a West Ham player because I have heard that Liverpool want to buy Mascherano for 18mil in the Jan transfer window. Any thoughts?

Although he is technically on loan I don't think he has anything to do with West Ham anymore but is in fact owened by the same company that Man Utd had all the hassle with when getting Tevez.

But I'm pretty sure you're correct in the fact that Liverpool don't currently own him outright.

Is he not on loan from some agency like Tevez? West ham aren't entitled to any of the Mascerano transfer fee as far as I understand it.

He is not a west ham player at all.

He is on loan from the company owned by kia jorbachim (i forget the name MSI maybe?) who own his sporting rights.

Or at least that is my understanding of the situation.

thanks guys, but it still doesn't say he is co-owned. Many of the Italien players say they are co-owned.

Mascherano is owned by MSI who are loaning him to Liverpool for something like 5 mil a season with the option of purchasing outright for 17 mil. Much the same as Tevez at Man Utd, which i think is a 30 mil outright to purchase him. SO when the 'loans' finish unless Liverpool and Man Utd purchase the players, MSI can tout them to other clubs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KingPazza:

thanks guys, but it still doesn't say he is co-owned. Many of the Italien players say they are co-owned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah SI have done the same with tevez, it just says he's a man utd player, when utd still have a lot to pay for him. Yet another SI shortcut

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KingPazza:

thanks guys, but it still doesn't say he is co-owned. Many of the Italien players say they are co-owned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think because of the unusual nature of the deal, i.e. there are probably only a handfull of deals like it in the world it is difficult for SI to implement it correctly, especially as i think FIFA are currently looking into reviewing the laws surrounding 3rd party ownership.

As MSI is not a team, it's pretty difficult to put them into the game. West Ham have nothing to do with Mascherano now. If he were to leave Liverpool, MSI would just set him up with another club until they got what they want for him, which seems to be around £15m.

SI Shortcut?

don't talk bloody rubbish. How the frig do you expect them to implement something like these deals? and really, what difference does it make to the game?

some people.

yeh in my liverpool game, if you went to look at the 'transfers' bit in finance then it would show that a third party will recieve 80% of any transfer that might go throguh with mascherano.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KingPazza:

thanks guys, but it still doesn't say he is co-owned. Many of the Italien players say they are co-owned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah SI have done the same with tevez, it just says he's a man utd player, when utd still have a lot to pay for him. Yet another SI shortcut </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a negative outlook you have !

bearing in mind the complexity of these two deals and the uniqueness of them (not even the premiership knew what was going on and I dont think West Ham really understood it) how on earth do you think SI should have implemented it ?

As time goes on and these types of deals become standard, if they ever do, then SI will no doubt built them in.

Just to jump on their case and accuse them of taking "shortcuts" is absurd.

If he was set as on loan from west ham with a future fee then the fee would be an unfair advantage to west ham.

As long as SI have reduced Liverpools budget by 17mil or so then its the fairest way to do it in the game world.

Tevez and Mascherano are on loan from MSI, but I understand that it is a bit hard for SI to implenment in the game.

After all, if someone buys the players outright, who does the money go to?

This was discussed extensively before the release of FM08, and the consesus from this forum was that MSI could be added as a team without ability to play games. 3rd party ownership is rife in South America so is an important part of football management, even if in europe we haven't seen too much of it yet, and consequently should really have been included in FM in some way.

Really is it that big of deal? Some people just never find enough to complain about......

it is a big deal. just as co-ownership is widespread in Italy, 3rd party ownership is a major part of the football system in south america. Just becuase it is uncommon in Europe doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in FM.

As I've already said, it would have been easy to at least include details of Tevez and Mascherano's deals by having MSI as an inactive team.

FIFA have said they are going to ban third party ownership, but this would have big consequences for the finances of south american clubs as third party ownership gives teams the financial freedom needed to search for and acquire exciting new talent.

They do already include co-ownership features in Italy.

The 3rd party ownership issue is currently applicable to 2 players (to the best of my knowledge) and it is probably not on the top of SI's to-do list, considering it does not effect many players.

If they made MSI a team we would people on here complaining that they aren't a team. :-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stokes_83:

They do already include co-ownership features in Italy. (i was pointing out that coownership was included, so 3PO should be too)

The 3rd party ownership issue is currently applicable to 2 players (to the best of my knowledge) and it is probably not on the top of SI's to-do list, considering it does not effect many players. those are the only cases known of in England, I am sure there are more at cases not known about in England, as well as Europe, and 3PO is widespread in South America, even if it isn't going to exist much longer under new FIFA guidelines.

If they made MSI a team we would people on here complaining that they aren't a team. :-) true, but certain national youth academies are included as teams, so 3PO companies could be included in a similar way without much difficulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Hopefully what will happen is that FIFA will make 3rd party ownership illegal (as it is the closest form of slavery I have seen in quite some time) and SI Games won't have to worry about it.

IMO the murky world of football financing could be fixed easily if all financial transactions involving a club had to use their FA as an intermediary. It would help prevent dodgy transfer deals, 3rd party influences and backhanders to agents and managers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KingPazza:

thanks guys, but it still doesn't say he is co-owned. Many of the Italien players say they are co-owned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah SI have done the same with tevez, it just says he's a man utd player, when utd still have a lot to pay for him. Yet another SI shortcut </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it doesn't say he's co-owned because he's not co-owned.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pob:

FIFA have said they are going to ban third party ownership, but this would have big consequences for the finances of south american clubs as third party ownership gives teams the financial freedom needed to pay their players </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fixed

Easy fix for SI...

Put the players on loan from West Ham and give them a sell on clause of something like 95% going to a third party so West Ham get nothing for them when they leave.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dazza pb:

Easy fix for SI...

Put the players on loan from West Ham and give them a sell on clause of something like 95% going to a third party so West Ham get nothing for them when they leave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But when the loan ends they would go back to West Ham. West Ham have no rights over the players IRL anymore so this wouldn't be right either.

Unless SI coded 3rd parties into the game (not a great idea, as it's something that people are trying to eradicate) this is the best way to do it. As it stands, Liverpool and Man United receive very little should they sell the players (80% goes to 'a third party') which is about fair.

It's hardly a massive part of the game - I think these two along with Manuel Fernandes - are the only arrangements of this type which I have heard of, and to be fair I'd imagine many people are in the same boat because it was so prominant in the papers over the summer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KK2003:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dazza pb:

Easy fix for SI...

Put the players on loan from West Ham and give them a sell on clause of something like 95% going to a third party so West Ham get nothing for them when they leave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But when the loan ends they would go back to West Ham. West Ham have no rights over the players IRL anymore so this wouldn't be right either.

Unless SI coded 3rd parties into the game (not a great idea, as it's something that people are trying to eradicate) this is the best way to do it. As it stands, Liverpool and Man United receive very little should they sell the players (80% goes to 'a third party') which is about fair.

It's hardly a massive part of the game - I think these two along with Manuel Fernandes - are the only arrangements of this type which I have heard of, and to be fair I'd imagine many people are in the same boat because it was so prominant in the papers over the summer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right it ain't a big part of the game but I do enjoy the detail in most parts of FM so it might be good to get it right. I also see this happening more often.

Best is to put the player's contracts at the same length as the loans along with my first suggestion???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as it is the closest form of slavery I have seen in quite some time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I don't often post but come on.

Kids working in sweatshops making football kits and young girls sold into the sex trade would be a tiny bit closer to slavery than a guy having to give up even 60,000 a week of an 80,000 salary to his 'owners'.

But MSI is really underhand it seems.

Quick points:

In real life, it is possible that Tevez and Mascherano will leave their current clubs over the next 2 years and move to another one for free (or relatively low amounts).

In the game, this scenario is not possible.

In real life, if Man United identified a great player they wanted to buy, they could decide not to buy Tevez and use £30m on this new great player.

In the game, this decision is made for us.

In real life, Man United have not spent £30m yet on Tevez.

In the game, I would suspect some money has already been deducted from their accounts. This is a little unfair as it takes away a decision that a Man United manager taking over in 2007 would be making in real life.

In SI's defence, (must be a fanboy ), this is a pretty new part of football to many of us in Europ, (although I appreciate that it has been working effectively in South America for some time now), but I think we are expecting an awful lot if we expect SI to come up with a way to introduce this feature into the game at such relatively short notice.

Let's be honest, if it is here to stay, (the owning of players by companies other than football clubs I mean), (and I'm not 100% sure that it is), then I'm sure that it will be introduced into the game in probably the next couple of issues.

The problem that I see is that this has huge and far-reaching impact upon the finance model in the game. Let me explain.

Company A owns both Tevez & Masch and is paid £5M per year per player for the next 3 years, (I'm not saying that's the amount or the term involved, just using it as an example). Well that means that there has eddectively been £30M removed from the games finance model that will need to be replaced if the finance model is going to continue to run smoothly. At the moment 1 fee goes to 1 club and it effectively just gets moved around the structure of the game while the clubs also, (I believe but can't prove), slowly generally accumulate wealth overall.

By introducing a system that will involve HUGE amounts of money effectively being "removed" from the game, it risks upsetting the status quo in one of the areas of the game which seems at least to be moving in the right direction, (credit where it is due) .

I not only understand SI's unwillingness to introduce this feature at the drop of a hat, but I actually applaud it.

Before they introduce a feature such as this, I would like to see them introduce the Salaray Cap that is in effect in the lower reaches of the Football Leage in England.

Read this. It makes a pretty good read on the subject;

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5211026...022041543#5022041543

i remember this argument from ages ago, wasn't SI's explanation as to why this wasn't in the game because they didn't consider it a positive part of football (like hooliganism)? my memories hazy but personally i'm glad this seedy business isn't in the game

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by muncherdave:

i remember this argument from ages ago, wasn't SI's explanation as to why this wasn't in the game because they didn't consider it a positive part of football (like hooliganism)? my memories hazy but personally i'm glad this seedy business isn't in the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my understanding of the situation as well. Cant see in being implemented anytime in the near future either.

will 3rd party ownership be in th next fm game

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by allanshearer:

will 3rd party ownership be in th next fm game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Highly unlikely.

i think it willed be banned by the time the next one is made, hopefully anyway, im reckoning the only reason the fa dont like it is because they make no money from it, but selling out to japan and america for a few quid, thast taking the game 'forward'

You think third party ownership will be banned?

No chance, do you realise just how many players world wide are involved in 3rd party ownership deals? Players you dont realise are involved are! And it wouldn't be allowed to be banned as it would be an infringemnt on EU law of free trade.

And as for your claim about the FA...............what pish. They dont make money from regular transfers, so that is not an issue. They dont like it because it can complicate matters if inappropriately handled.

I see it as a huge part of football these days, and it is growing.

Third party ownership could be banned FIFA could rule that all players must not be owned/part-owned/controlled by a third party.

But that would only then force clubs to pay stupid amounts to secure the service of a thrid-party owned player before the ban came in.

The companies that own the players (e.g. MSI) would be able to almost open up a free auction and that would end up with more money going out of football. That is simply not in the interest of FIFA.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Swindon69:

Third party ownership could be banned FIFA could rule that all players must not be owned/part-owned/controlled by a third party. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would have no practical effect. In Brazil and Uruguay, for example, to avoid any such risk, agents simply set up or buy a club, and register a player there.

So, MSI could buy say Carlisle United or some other obscure club and register their players there. Then these players would be loaned to whoever pay what MSI want.

Think the Tevez / Mascherano problem could be solved quite easily...

Just set a future transfer date with a fee of 17mil for Mascherano and 30mil for Tevez (say end of season one)

If ManU & Liverpool don't have the finances (or technically could still cancel the transfer) bith players would leave and become "free agents"...

You could set a signing on fee in the players contract negotiation, equivelant to the transfer fee.

where would the future transfer money goes to though?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by andyinuk:

where would the future transfer money goes to though? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was the point that I made back in December that everyone chooses to ignore.

Implemenbting this system into the game will have far reaching and catastrophic effects on the finance model, and should therefore be avoided like the plague.

I think this 'removal' of funds could do well to curb the inflation in transfer fees that many are seeing - basic economic principles, the less money there is, the less money is spent. This result in lower demand and a drop in price of supply. Obviously its not as simple as this but with a lot of balancing it could have an overall positive effect in terms of realism as well as transfer fee inflation

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtuck01:

No chance, do you realise just how many players world wide are involved in 3rd party ownership deals? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

New rule: Players must be owned by the club which holds their registration. While the player may be loaned out, ownership resides with the team the player is contracted to, and who own his registration. Only teams playing in competative football may own a player's registration.

Tahts all it would take. Doesn't impact free trade at all.

Of course, the 3rd party would just create a pub team, pay some local lads £100 a week to play sunday league football and use that club to hold the players registration, but meh.

But like I said before, that ruling would open up a scramble for clubs to get full ownership of Third Party Owned players, letting the said Third Party to charge ridiculous amounts of money for clubs to gain ownership of the player.

way round it - go on the editor and click on the third party, put Masch on loan from there with the 17m buy out clause and rename the '3rd party' MSI....sorted