Hi Galy,
I asked blue the same question and he told me that the rules were clear.
So I guess there's no problem in doing that!

Above all, it is impossible to prove that this is actually a "disguised" loan.

In your example, you're talking about 56 days, but you can use the same process for the same purpose over a longer period, 2-3-4-5-6 seasons.

How can we, as admins, prove that this is a loan and not simply a purchase followed by a totally conventional sale?

Even before this new change, it wasn't impossible to see players making an A/R 56 days later or even over a longer period.

Socrate: [b][color=#556B2F] Il est surtout impossible à prouver que cela est effectivement un prêt « deguisé »

Dans ton exemple tu parles de 56 jours, mais tu peux faire le même procédé avec la même finalité sur une durée plus longue 2-3-4-5-6 saisons.

Comment en tant qu’admin on pourrait prouver que cela est un prêt et non pas simplement un achat puis une vente totalement classique.

Même avant ce nouveau changement il n’était pas impossible de voir des joueurs faire un A/R 56 jours après voir sur ...

I quite agree, I just wanted to be sure of that :p

In short, we've reached the level of the "balekouille".

Is chimeblick profitable? 😁😁😁

The current regulations read as follows

It is forbidden to give players and money to other clubs, even in the event of a stoppage in play (break of several weeks or permanent stoppage).

However, we have all witnessed the sale of players for 100k (or thereabouts) by clubs who more or less openly announce that they are stopping the game, at least temporarily, without any penalties being imposed.

So I take it that a 100K sale to your friends isn't a donation?

That still needs clarification: because if I take the rules literally, selling for €0 would be forbidden, but selling for €100k is open season because you're paying a trifle.
And what's a break of several weeks? ??????? That needs clarification too.
In French, 2 is already several. So under the guise of a supposed two-week break, all 'quasi-free' transfers would now be authorised.
If that's the case, it's a sad development!

In a previous post, I asked the question: what is the advantage of these new transfer rules?
So far, no-one has been able to name one (I'm talking about an objective advantage, because obviously there are those who can say that it's an advantage for them to be able to cheat at will).

If you can sell a player for 100k or 300 million, why ask yourself about donations if the game stops?
What difference does it make? That's the way it is

Rull43: Si tu peux vendre un joueur 100k ou 300 millions, pourquoi se poser la question sur les dons en cas d'arrêt du jeu?
Cela change quoi? C'est comme cela basta

So the published rules don't comply (I'm putting myself in the shoes of a newcomer to the game).

The hunt for multiple accounts by admins really does exist, but obviously it can't be exhaustive, no doubt because of a lack of time but also no doubt because of a lack of resources.

The proposal I made for double authentication when creating a new account is now more topical than ever, something that cheaters naturally fear under the guise of alleged breaches of their privacy.
#forum?topic=169080
This was widely approved

It won't stop 100% of multi-accounts being created to take advantage of the 'free' market, but it will undoubtedly dissuade some from venturing into it.

jul068: Par contre tous les niv1 qu’on voit actuellement profiter des 4 ou 5 transferts à 3M (aide aux débutants) et qui achètent juste derrière un 33 ans pot 15 pour 10M à un club installé sur vf, j’espère que c’est toujours chassé par les admins anti triche?

Le transfert est évidemment autorisé mais tout indique que ces niv1 sont "pilotés"

I hope it's clear enough that this is cheating.