The transfer that could change how transfers work forever - and spark fan protests

Negotiations have taken place. A deal is almost done. Julio Enciso looks like he’s leaving Brighton. That much is clear. The question nobody seems to have a straight answer for is which club he’s actually joining.

If you need bringing up to speed: Brighton have been in negotiations with BlueCo, the company that owns Chelsea and Racing Club Strasbourg. But according to reports, even Brighton themselves are not entirely sure which club Enciso will actually be going to.

There are particular details about the situation here that help make sense of the confusion, but still… feels weird, doesn’t it? Is this the beginning of a completely different way of approaching transfers?

Strange Julio Enciso transfer situation makes sense for clubs but not for fans

Well… in practical terms, mostly no. In many ways, there is nothing entirely new about this. It is partly media confusion about the structure of the deal and Chelsea’s/BlueCo’s intentions that make the Enciso deal seem so notable, but there are plenty of examples of clubs signing players and then farming them straight out to a sister club.

Even in the days before multi-club ownership was common, clubs would have trusted homes for their young prospects.

Manchester United, for instance, started sending their prospects to Royal Antwerp in the 1990s and continued to do so into the 2000s, with the likes of Fraizer Campbell, Jonny Evans, Tom Heaton and John O’Shea all spending time on loan with the Belgian club.

As any Football Manager player knows, those loans could also be a way to help a player get an EU work permit: Dong Fangzhou went straight to Antwerp after joining United in 2004 for that reason.

The difference now is rooted in the growing prevalence of that multi-club model and the tighter financial constraints now imposed by financial regulations. Previously, it didn’t especially matter if a club splashed a load of cash on one for the future; it was their money to spend and their risk to take.

But in the bold new age of PSR, clubs have to account for every pound spent much more carefully. So if you see a player you think might be good enough for the club in your stable one day, but aren’t entirely certain, it makes sense to initially transfer them to another of your clubs first.

If he’s good enough to step up, great; just transfer him to the bigger club at a later date. In that case, it serves pretty much the exact same purpose as a good old-fashioned loan. And if they're not good enough not… well, one of your clubs probably still has a very good player for that level who may well attract transfer interest from elsewhere and deliver a profit.

On top of all that, while it may seem strange that Brighton is negotiating with BlueCo, rather than Chelsea, there is a wrinkle in this specific deal that makes it even more sensible to allocate Enciso to Strasbourg first.

Chelsea have already sent their maximum three permitted loan players to Strasbourg for the 2025/26 season, so if Chelsea were to sign him now, they wouldn’t be able to loan him there for this campaign.

That kind of approach is not entirely without risk. Premier League rules say that clubs must pay a fair market value for intra-group transfers, otherwise they will not sanction the move.

So if, for example, Enciso absolutely rips up Ligue 1 and scores a gazillion goals next season, Chelsea could end up having to pay Strasbourg significantly more next year than the £13.8m fee Brighton are said to have agreed with BlueCo this summer.

But as far as an ownership group is concerned, doing things this way is still a far less risky approach for their organisation as a whole and makes sense for each individual club.

Strasbourg fans disagree with that approach, of course; they have vehemently protested against BlueCo's ownership since being taken over in 2023, and recently re-stated their opposition.

"The transfer window conducted so far proves to an absurd extent that Racing is no longer a club that makes decisions in its own interest," a fan group said in a statement. "We are instead witnessing a headlong rush where Chelsea is steering the ship to the detriment of our club's independence."

There have recently been echoes of that closer to home: Newcastle fans are increasingly unhappy with the perception that their club’s owners, PIF, are prioritising the Saudi Pro League’s interests over Newcastle’s.

Both Crystal Palace and Lyon have had reason to feel aggrieved at being connected to one another, meanwhile. Fans of the French club felt now-resigned chairman John Textor had switched his focus (and his money) to the London club and that that had contributed to their now-overturned demotion to Ligue 2 for financial breaches.

Meanwhile, Palace were left to rue their demotion to the Conference League after the club failed to anticipate they might come into conflict with Lyon for a Europa League place.

That side of the story should not be overlooked. Unless you happen to support Real Madrid, losing your best players is a fact of life at all levels of football. Even behemoths like Liverpool are never entirely immune, as Michael Owen, Fernando Torres, Raheem Sterling, Trent Alexander-Arnold and Luis Diaz can attest.

But even if in a practical sense it makes little difference to what went before, it stings a lot more to think that your own club’s owners do not entirely have your best interests at heart.

Nobody likes to feel like they only receive parental affection when it suits because daddy would much rather play with their favourite child instead.

Multi-club owners would surely like their fans to feel a kinship for one another, but when it causes this much friction, that's not going to happen.