Talk:Adem Ljajić

The situation so far...

Adem Ljajic is not currently registered as a Manchester United player, despite the claims of many reputable news agencies. FIFA rules prohibit the transfer of non-EU players to clubs in EU countries until they reach 18 years of age, and since Ljajic is currently 17 years old and a Serbian national, he cannot be transferred until his 18th birthday on 29 September 2009. However, since that date lies outside the FIFA-specified transfer windows, the earliest that his transfer can take place is 1 January 2010. Taking the above into account, therefore, Ljajic is still a Partizan player and he is not on loan from Manchester United. Any statement to the contrary on this article will be reverted. – PeeJay 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

it is only you that thinks this. Everybody else agrees that he is on loan. Ever heard of a consensus? you are not the almighty ruler and everything you say is not always true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.180.172 (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not only me that thinks this. See the discussion at WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 12:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply because he is not registered with the FA does not mean he isn't a Manchester United player. Other teams cannot sign him without the permission of Manchester United and paying the appropriate compensation to Manchester United. Ljajic is on loan to Partizan untill 01/2010. Ck786 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That is your understanding of the situation, I take it? I can't say I disagree with most of it. The bit I disagree with is the use of the term "loan". The Manchester United press release said that there was "an agreement" between Partizan and themselves that Ljajic would stay with Partizan until January 2010, but at no point did they mention the word "loan". That is a fabrication of the news agency that the BBC took their story from. – PeeJay 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I see what you are saying and United have said they will be holding a press conference next week regarding the transfers. I think you will find that it is the same situation as with Rafael and Fabio (who both could not transfer to United due to being u-18) they were united players on loan at Fluminese (Sp) until they could be registered in a UEFA sanctioned competition as transferred players. - 124.184.188.235 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was the case with Rafael and Fabio (being on loan at Fluminense until they turned 18, I mean). Can you provide a source that says that they were on loan at Fluminense? – PeeJay 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mirror Article - about halfway down. It is also touched on in his profile on manutd.com. Another reason why we should split it is so people can see how he plays between now and when he moves to United - Ck786 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That article says nothing about Rafael and Fabio being on loan at Fluminense. They merely stayed there until they turned 18. – PeeJay 12:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Although Rafael and Fabio signed for United last January, from Brazilian side Fluminense, they were unable to play a competitive game until the start of this season because of work permit regulations." Hence they stayed in Brazil. The BBC even have the transfer listed as: Adem Ljajic [Partizan Belgrade - Man Utd] Undisclosed Adem Ljajic [Man Utd - Partizan Belgrade] Season-long loan. Anyway, as I said above, do you not agree that it should be split so people can see how he plays between now and when he moves to United?? - Ck786 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC are incorrect. And no, I do not agree. – PeeJay 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Ck786 (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because FIFA does not allow U-18 transfers outside the EU — chandler — 11:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The rules clearly state that tranfers of players under the age of 18 are not allowed UNLESS

1) They provide the player with adequate training 2) Ensure they are receiving a proper education and 3) Ensure that they make all necessary arrangements to ensure that the player is looked after in the best possible way. All of the above are fulfilled when the player is loaned back out to his original team. Therefore in the eyes of FIFA there is absolutely nothing wrong with this transfer. 86.154.184.193 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right - if it was simply a case of FIFA not allowing a transfer of an u-18 player how did Fabregas transfer to Arsenal??? He was 16 when he signed. Regardless, the infobox should state he is on Loan at Partizan so his performance in this time can be tracked. Another point to make it that the only way Ljajic will NOT be transferred to United in 2010 is if another club PAYS COMPENSATION to United or if United terminate the deal (which they won't do considering they have already paid a transfer fee!) - Ck786 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that it unless only includes EU countries... Serbia is NOT a EU country. Fabregas joined Arsenal before this rule was in place. And from what I understand Fabregas didn't transfer to Arsenal, he joined them (while not being under contract) — _CHANDLER^#10 — 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. Serbia is not an EU country, and not only did Fabregas join Arsenal before before the rule came into force, but Spain is also in the EU, making it perfectly alright. I hope, Ck786, that you now realise how silly you've been. – PeeJay 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it is the same as Rafael and Fabio!!!!!! They were United players on loan back to their Brazillian club untill they turned 18 and could be transferred to United. I dont see why this is so difficult to comprehend??? As a United fan, I'd expect that you'd want to see how i=his development progresses in his transition period to United... It is not just the BBC reporting that he is on loan, its most major media outlets. The only place that isnt reflecting this is here. Prove to me that he ISN'T on loan... Ck786 (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been shown numeral times. FIFA does NOT allow U-18 TRANSFERS, unless it's inside of the EU (again, which Serbia is NOT a member of). That if anything is proof enough, FIFA does not allow it. — _CHANDLER^#10 — 12:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This is difficult... Am I not speaking english or something???? I know that FIFA does not allow transfers of u-18's. My point is that United have an agreement in place with Partizan stating that Ljajic will be transferred once he is 18. The fee has been agreed, a deal is in place. THEREFORE, if this does not happen, the club who signs Ljajic (even if it is Partizan resigning him) will have to pay United compensation. Therefore the Article should be broken up stating he is on loan until he is transferred to united... Ck786 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is up with the rule about having to turn 18 to register? Even ESPN Soccernet has him down as signed with United and loaned back to Partizan Belgrade. – Michael (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a measure against child labour — CHANDLER^#10 — 05:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, ask yourself how Freddy Adu made his professional debut at 14 years of age. – Michael (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But Adu didn't make a transfer out of the USA before making his debut. – PeeJay 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As PeeJay said, he didn't transfer, and again, that was before this rule was put in place. — CHANDLER^#10 — 08:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that just because a couple of people think their right, they insist on having it their own way. Every other news website has it down as him having signed and loaned back out, I have even heard commentators during games talk about how this is the case. How is that they are ALL wrong? there are numerous other rules that FIFA will overlook in certain circumstances, did you ever think they may have allowed this transfer because he's staying at his club and won't actually move to united until he is 18?? the fact is people are more willing to believe what is reported in the news rather than some user on wikipedia. - 86.131.175.52 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You just said it yourself. He's staying at his club and won't actually move to United until he turns 18. Because he can't! – PeeJay 15:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what i wrote? FIFA overlooks rules all the time in certain circumstances. The fact is you are wrong, you do not know more about this than the ALL the news websites and the commentators whose job it is to know about these sort of things. Would you like me to tell them that THEY are wrong because YOU say so?? - 86.131.175.52 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not me who's saying that the news agencies are wrong; FIFA's rules are. – PeeJay 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You seriously aren't reading what i wrote are you? Their FIFA's rules and they can choose to overlook them in certain circumstances. Something news websites and especially commentators would know about. - 86.131.182.15 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that any rules are being overlooked. Ljajic has not joined Manchester United – that much is evident from the fact that he is still at Partizan – and he will not join Manchester United until January 2010, which is the first transfer window after his 18th birthday, so there is no suggestion of a transfer, only something that news agencies have plucked from thin air. The Manchester United press release said that they have an agreement with Partizan that Ljajic will remain there until the end of 2010; that's all. There is nothing in that statement to suggest that it's a loan agreement. Q.E.D. – PeeJay 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All your saying is that because YOU think something's right then it has to be right. The news agencies don't just ALL pluck something from the air. You ever heard of WP:Consensus?? Try taking a consensus among all the news agencies and see what happens. You are wrong and you are just to afraid to admit it. Wikipedia articles requires sources, try giving a source that says that Adem Ljajic has not joined united. I can bet that would be very hard to do - 86.131.172.180 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of news agencies? Often, the news is written by a news agency, sold to the various news channels and websites, and then they re-work the news in their own words. That is, I think, what has happened here, and why the misinformation is so prevalent in the media. – PeeJay 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What more reliable source than FIFA regulation do you need? — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifa regulation isn't a reliable source, its just a general set of rules which, as i keep saying, fifa can choose to overlook in certain situations such as the player actually staying on loan at his original club, as in this case. And no, websites and channels do not "buy" the news, they each give their own "write up" of what has happened, getting reliable information. Also, do you think a commentator, hired by the FA (a member of FIFA), whould get their information from somewhere unreliable? They would have the most reliable information. - 81.132.45.41 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the Man Utd press release is the most reliable source we have, and they make no mention of any loan. Only an agreement that Ljajic is to stay with Partizan until January 2010. – PeeJay 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All loans can be be seen as just an "agreement" between two clubs. A quick google search for english football transfers 2009 brings up a whole list of sites that all agree that he is signed and back on loan at PB. I do not know why this site has to be the one site that is different. - 81.132.45.41 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find a solid source that says he is deffinately not on loan then it should be (and will be) changed. Find one source that does not talk about "agreements" and says that he is 100% a PB player and not MU's. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

read this and tell me how can he have signed a contract with united but not be a united player?? = 86.131.164.45 (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You've conveniently ignored the part where it says he "will remain in Partizan Fc squad until next January, when he will make a full move to Old Trafford". What Ljajic has signed is a pre-contract. He is not on loan, as he has not yet been registered by Manchester United, for the simple reason that non-EU players cannot make international transfers before the age of 18. – PeeJay 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He will remain with them because he is on loan with them. You just do not know when to accept that you are wrong. he has signed for united and is a united player. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Unless someone can prove that he is a current registered player with Manchester United with a reputable source - then it may not be said. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that verifability is the threshold for information - not just truth. Is there a reputable source clearly stating it? Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This clearly states that he has signed for United but will be staying at Partizan until January 2010 (a loan). Also see here under 2 January it says he has signed for United and returned on as season long loan to Partizan. There are many other websites that cooperate with this in a similar fashion. Why must Wikipedia be the only website displaying incorrect information? - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And this from ManUtd.com states "Tosic joins us immediately, his work permit is through; Ljajic will join us next year". Nothing saying it's a loan. –  LATICS  talk  17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing says its NOT a loan either. I have provided another link which says it is. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As there is some uncertainty over this, surely the easiest solution would be to keep Manchester United out of the infobox and mention in the article that United made some kind of agreement with Partizan, as he does still play for them. It may not be perfect, but at least its a start. DeMoN2009 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel The Daily Telegraph is a reputable source, when it states "The club released a statement saying: "(Manchester) United is pleased to announce it has reached an agreement with Partizan Belgrade and the players for Zoran Tosic and Adem Ljajic to join the club...while an agreement is in place for 17-year-old Ljajic to remain with Partizan for the rest of 2009"."...see Manchester United sign Zoran Tosic and Adem Ljajic. Seth Whales (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a "loan" deal there. – PeeJay 19:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players

Just to provide the information from FIFA's website... Commentary on the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players

1. International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18.

2. The following three exceptions to this rule apply:

a) The player’s parents move to the country in which the New Club is located for reasons not linked to football; or

b) The transfer takes place within the territory of the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area (EEA) and the player is aged between 16 and 18. In this case, the New Club must fulfill the following minimum obligations:

i. It shall provide the player with an adequate football education and/or training in line with the highest national standards.

ii. It shall guarantee the player an academic and/or school and/or vocational education and/or training, in addition to his football education and/or training, which will allow the player to pursue a career other than football should he cease playing professional football.

iii. It shall make all necessary arrangements to ensure that the player is looked after in the best possible way (optimum living standards with a guest family or in club accommodation, appointment of a mentor at the club etc.).

iv. It shall, on registration of such a player, provide the relevant Association with proof that it is complying with the aforementioned obligations; or

c) The player lives no further than 50km from a national border, and the club for which the player wishes to be registered in the neighbouring Association is also within 50km of that border. The maximum distance between the player’s domicile and the club’s quarters shall be 100km. In such cases, the player must continue to live at home and the two Associations concerned must give their explicit consent.

3. The conditions of this article shall also apply to any player who has never previously been registered for a club and is not a national of the country in which he wishes to be registered for the first time.

4. Each Association shall ensure the respect of this provision by its clubs.

5. The Players’ Status Committee shall be competent to decide on any dispute arising in relation to these matters and shall impose appropriate sanctions in case of violation of this provision.

–  LATICS  talk  18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The player is still playing for Partizan therefore:
  

2a) his parents are in the country where he is playing
2b) Staying in his home country means that he is being provided adequete training, adequete education and he is being looked after in the best posssible way - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2a is when the parents MOVE to the country for NOT for football reasons, so that doesn't give exception. 2b What is hard to understand about the FIRST sentence, rendering anything else useless. "The transfer takes place within the territory of the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area (EEA)", Serbia IS not of the EU or EEA — CHANDLER^#10 — 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is hard to understand about fifa choosing to allow something even if it may go against the rules. Andrei arshavin was allowed to move even though it was a day late. FIFA still chose to allow this even though it broke the rules. Did you ever think they may allow it because Serbia are actually trying to become a member of EU? Also he is still in serbia, therefore his parents have never had to move for fottball reasons and he meets the criteria for the first exception. IF he had not been loaned back and had stayed at united then he would not have been allowed to transfer as his parents would then be moving for purely football reasons. In this case the only part important is 2a) where his "New Club" is actually his "old club". I feel like a broken record having to repeat myself so much - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arshavins deal was made before the deadline, it was confirmed by the FA later, as many last minute transfers always are, that's not even bending the rules. Serbia is not trying to become a EU member, they're not even a candidate. I dont think you understand the exceptions when you say "his parents have never had to move for football reasons"... The exception is that IF his parents had moved to another country, for being offered better jobs etc, and their son moves with them THEN he has a right to be bought from his current contract. Again, there are THREE exceptions for u18 transfers, he does not meet any of them. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2. The following three exceptions to this rule apply:

 a)  The player’s parents move to the country in which the New Club is located for reasons not linked to football; or

His parents have not had to move because he is still in serbia. If he had tried to come to england and actually play for united then it would not be allowed. His "New Club" is Partizan Belgrade as he is on loan there, and i would hope that his parents are'nt just living there for the sake of his football. Even your holy rules of footbal say his transfer is allowed, why do you keep arguing?? He meets the exception in 2a) and therefore you are wrong. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No 2 a only applies to players who move to a new country, to a new club. You see the part about "The player's parents move to the country", well they haven't moved country, they're still in Serbia. — CHANDLER^#10 — 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mister Anonymous Editor 86.131.164.45, why are you arguing so vehemently that FIFA have broken their own rules? If they had, I'm sure the international football community would be up in arms about this transfer. All that has happened is that Ljajic has signed a pre-contract agreeing that he will join Manchester United at the earliest possible opportunity, i.e. the first FIFA-designated transfer window after his 18th birthday. None of the press releases from either club have indicated that the "agreement" is a loan, and very few news agencies have indicated as such either. In fact, it seems like only the BBC have made any mention of a loan. None of Sky Sports, The Times, The Mirror, The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent make any mention of a loan agreement between the two clubs, only that Ljajic will remain at Partizan. Are you still not convinced? Then, Sir, you are a stubborn fool. – PeeJay 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mister PeeJay2K3, if you read what i have wrote above your post you will see that there is no reason for them to have broken their rules. He falls in the exception 2a) as his parents have not moved for football reasons and they are still in serbia (where his new club, Partizan, are located). - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be on loan from a club that you have not joined. For Ljajic to have been registered with Manchester United, his parents would have had to have moved to England in the first place. The fact remains that he has not been registered with FIFA as a Manchester United player, there is only an agreement that he will remain with Partizan until the first transfer window after he becomes old enough to join Manchester United. There is no loan. – PeeJay 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry i didnt know you worked at FIFA. For the loan to have happened his parents would only have had to be in england for a day. Perhaps they go on holiday (not a football reason), he joins United then the loan move is completed and he goes back to Partizan with his parents after they finish their holiday. Perhaps his parent may actually have a home in England as well, they would then be able to say they were going to move over there because they had found a new job, but then decide that the job is serbia was better so Ljajic would then go on loan back to partizan. There are many loopholes that would get around this. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're really desperate not to be proved wrong. Your theories are just getting wilder and wilder! FIFA would obviously not be so stupid as to go along with a plan as idiotic as that. "Moving to the country of the New Club" kinda implies a permanent move, i.e. for the duration of the player's contract, not just a holiday! – PeeJay 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He would only need to be there until he signs his contract to go on loan to Partizan, so yes his parents would be there for the duration of his contract. They would only need to be there for, at most, a couple of days. They would then have to be in Serbia for the duration of his loan. And I am not the one who is desperate not to be proved wrong. Unlike some I could admit if I was wrong, however I am trying to ensure that Wikipedia only publishes information that can be sourced and verified. So far there are many sources that say he is on loan, and all you have to the contrary is the rules which can not be used as a source as they do not make any mention of Adem Ljajic specifically. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you TALKING about?! His parents would need to be in ENGLAND for the duration of his contract with Manchester United, and in SERBIA for the duration of his "loan" with Partizan, and since it's impossible for them to be in two places at once, that would make your whole silly little scenario impossible too. Anyway, since they would not be in either country for reasons other than football, that would violate FIFA regulation 2a) – PeeJay 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:86.131.164.45

{{editprotected}} Could someone please undo this user's most recent edits? Obviously the admin who protected this article had no way of knowing this, but the article in its current state is incorrect, as proven by the above discussion. Ljajic is not on loan at Partizan. The only people who seem to think this are news agencies that have misinterpreted the nature of Ljajic's transfer to Manchester United and those who blindly follow said news agencies. – PeeJay 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The last thing Wikipedia editors should start doing is criticising news agencies as "wrong". Yes journalists sometimes know nothing about what they are writing. However, it is not for us to judge because of WP:V WP:NOR. An idiot whose article happens to be published by a verifiable and reliable source, such as the BBC, is in a stronger position than Einstein writing on wikipedia. --Msuker (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please read above. According to the links that I posted in the above section, of the major British news agencies, it is apparently only the BBC who believe that Ljajic is on loan to Partizan. All of the others have appropriately stuck to the facts, and the fact is that he has not left Partizan because he is too young to move. – PeeJay 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

My information can be verified by many websites including the partizan belgrade website itself. Your argument is based on trying to analyse other information to try and find some way to prove yourself right. Your trying to publish your opinion, i am trying to publish the facts. So the article is correct in its current state. I believe there are just certain users that hate to admit when theyy are wrong. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "verified information" has already been disproved by FIFA regulations, which are the most reliable source on transfers there is. You have to understand that you are wrong, he is NOT allowed to join Manchester United until after he's 18. — CHANDLER^#10 — 12:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

These rules are all down to interpretation. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, where is it published that he is not on loan?? You are trying to publish what wikipeida would call "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material". - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 12:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And where, other than the BBC, is it published that he is on loan? – PeeJay 12:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

here under january 2 - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 12:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

and here, two sports channels each saying the same thing - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 12:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)How about Partizan and Man Utds sites who don't mention "loan" but only "will be staying until next year". And there is no interpretation here, there are clear rules, 3 exceptions to the U18 rule, he does not qualify for any of them. It's just as much "OR" to use FIFA regulation documents as sources for transfers as for the Laws of the Game — CHANDLER^#10 — 12:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That again would be down to how you interpret it, saying that he will stay there till next year could mean that he will stay there till next year because he is on loan there?? - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 12:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If he was on loan there, they would say he was on loan there. Alex Ferguson's exact words were, "Tosic joins us immediately, his work permit is through; Ljajic will join us next year." It is quite plain to me that Ljajic has not joined Manchester United, and therefore cannot be on loan to Partizan. He is a Partizan player with a pre-contract agreement to join Manchester United at the earliest possible opportunity, i.e. the first transfer window after his 18th birthday. – PeeJay 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still all down to interpretation. "Ljajic will join us next year" could be because he will be going back on loan. The only way you could prove you are right is to get some statement from fifa confirming what you say, because the majority of the other websites are all either inconclusive (ie, could be interpreted different ways by different people) or say he is on loan such as this one - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 13:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is only User:86.131.164.45 who is trying to interpret the FIFA regulations so they would favour him... where the family moving for a new country is the same as a one day holiday to sign a contract... I don't think FIFA give clubs the interpret the rules the way they want to, nor does UEFA (see Real Madrid not getting both Huntelaar and Diarra in even when Real say "we interpret the rules to give us this right"). The 2a, it is clearly stated here. And this isn't a case where his parents have moved to another country with their child(ren) and Ljajic wanting to play football, this is Man Utd going down to buy. His parents have NOT moved to England, and had they moved to England for any reason making him able to transfer, he wouldn't have had to be loaned back. — CHANDLER^#10 — 13:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I hadn't thought of that. – PeeJay 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In that case, it would be inappropriate to assume either way. The only things we know for sure are that Ljajic has signed a contract with Manchester United, he is still with Partizan and that he will join Manchester United in January 2010. Anything else is either speculative or contrary to FIFA regulations. – PeeJay 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody thought to send an email to fifa asking them what their view is on this transfer/loan?? I just sent one, lets see what comes of it. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 13:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please find me a website, other than the BBC, that mentions that Ljajic is on loan to Partizan. The Partizan website certainly doesn't say it's a loan, and neither does the Man Utd website. The links I posted above don't mention a loan either, so whatever facts you're publishing, you can't have heard them from a reputable news source. – PeeJay 12:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please find me a reliable source, other than Wikipedia discussion pages and disputed interpretation of FIFA rules by Wikipedia editors, which says something inconsistent with the BBC on this. If one reliable source claims Fact A, other sources claim a position which can accomodate both Fact A and Fact B, Fact A is permissible onto Wikipedia. --Msuker (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what ive been trying to say. There is no source that says something inconsistant with BBC, Setanta, Eurosport etc. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Except the FIFA regulation's aren't up for interpretation. They are clear, it is only the IP user who is trying to bend them for his his view. — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You think it is clear, as a Wikipedia editor. I think it is not, as a Wikipedia editor. Therefore this is called "disputed". Neither of our view is to prevail without verifiable and reliable sources. --Msuker (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The anon says that no source says something inconsistent with the BBC/Setanta/Eurosport? I disagree. In fact, they all say something different, as being loaned back to a club is completely different to a player remaining with his club until such time as he is allowed to join another. – PeeJay 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A different view is not necessarily inconsistent. This again is your interpretation. Basically you are interpreting other sources in a way which is not neccessarily the only reasonable explanation, in an attempt to establish your claim that "the BBC is incorrect". None of the sources you have cited actually said that, nor "Ljajic is not on loan". And at least for me the current sources can be interpreted in many ways other than them saying "Ljajic is not on loan, shame on the BBC". So your interpretation is original research. The fact that your original research may be correct or compliant with FIFA rules, while the BBC may actually be wrong, is irrelevant for Wikipedia unfortunately.--Msuker (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think it's clear, say what part of the exception you think he qualifies for and I can correct you. — CHANDLER^#10 — 11:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is even more original research. You may be correct, but that is irrelevant for Wikipedia, which accepts only verifiable and reliable sources not subject to interpretation by Wiki editors. Get your views published first, then we are talking.--Msuker (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you going on about, I am not interpreting the rules, it is you. I am READING them, they are a reliable source... If you think he qualifies for any of the exceptions then you are misreading the regulations. Because they are CLEAR on what the rules are, and we use FIFA regulations as sources on many things, such as, which national teams a uncapped player is eligible. Again, IF you think he qualifies for a exception, you are misinterpreting and misreading the regulations, because it's straight forward. He's not from a EU country, England and Serbia are not next to eachother, his parents have NOT moved to England, for any reason. What of that don't you understand? And no it is not OR correcting someone else who's misreading a source. If a source say "15 persons killed in a storm last night", and you say "150 people died in that storm last night" it's sure as hell not OR for me to correct you and say "No it was only 15" — CHANDLER^#10 — 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

His parents have not moved to England because neither has he. He hasn't had to and neither have his parents because he is on loan at Partizan in Serbia. - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the earlier discussion thread, his parents would have had to move to England for reasons unrelated to football for him to be registered as a Manchester United player in the first place, and since he's never been registered as a Manchester United player, he cannot be on loan at Partizan. – PeeJay 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Like i have said before, for him to be registered at MU his parents would only have to have moved to england for at most a couple of days until his loan transfer was completed. Could anyone prove that they haven't moved to england and then decided to move back to Serbia? - 86.131.164.45 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No they they can not just go on a holiday to get it through, you do understand that all u18 transfers are inspected by FIFA. Was he even in England? Was his parents in England? I've not seen anything indicating it, it's not up to us to prove that they haven't moved to England it's up to you to prove that they have moved to England. — CHANDLER^#10 — 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Emails

I sent two emails, one to FIFA and one to Man Utd. So far I have not heard back from FIFA. Man Utd did email back, however they were still unclear about the situation as they copied and pasted information from their website. I emailed back to them to ask them to clarify it more so hopefully they can clear up the situation. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling that Manchester United wouldn't be any more forthcoming about the situation than they already have been. If they wanted the public to know any more about the transfer situation, they would have said something in a press release. – PeeJay 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just got an email back that has now clarified this. Coming from United themselves he has signed for United and is on loan at Belgrade.

Dear Mathew

Thank you for your recent enquiry
He has officially signed for Manchester United and is on loan at Belgrade.


Kind regards
Michael

Customer Service Advisor
Ticketing & Membership Services
Manchester United Football Club Ltd
Sir Matt Busby Way, Old Trafford, Manchester, M16 0RA
Tel: 0161 868 8000
www.manutd.com

- Can we have and end to this now please? PS I can screenshot the email and post it somewhere or forward the email if anyone still wants proof. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 18:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the guy answering you knows the full circumstances (remember that official statements from manutd and partizan say "he will not join man utd until 2010"), as a transfer would break FIFA regulations, regulations the emailer might not be aware of, but higher ups are, therefore the "won't join until 2010" instead of "joined us and will be loaned back" — CHANDLER^#10 — 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but an email form Man Utd themselves saying that he is a man utd player puts to an end this "argument". We now have proof from someone in the club and as far as i'm concerned, someone in the club will have more knowledge on the situation, no matter who that person may be. This shows what the first email said, and this one shows the email that makes it clearer. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It still does NOT explain why the club would be allowed to break FIFA's rules. If this guy has heard "we've signed him" sa in "we have a contract that means he starts playing in 2010" and heard other reports they say "he's loaned back" he might add that together...It might have been good to ask a follow up on why he was allowed to register with them when it seems FIFA regulations prohibits it. — CHANDLER^#10 — 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What authority does this man have to comment on the status of Ljajic's transfer? He's only a customer service advisor, for goodness' sake. I hardly think he's in the know about this sort of thing. – PeeJay 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha you still can not admit that you are wrong. Let's see, on one hand we have someone from MU saying that he is a MU player, on the other hand we have a wikpedia user who believes there is no possible way for him to be a MU player. I wonder which one is the most likely to be correct? - 217.43.148.142 (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On one hand we have a PR person from MU and on the other hand we have FIFA regulations... Ohh i wonder what weights more. — CHANDLER^#10 — 11:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone except two ignorant users will agree that Man United will no more about their own players than anyone. FActs are facts, he is a united player, the fact that you are still coming up with cr*p to try and argue against it is becoming a bit of a joke. - 217.43.148.142 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First, please be aware of WP:NPA or you could be on the receiving end of a block. Second, as I said above, what authority do you think a customer service advisor has to comment on the nature of a transfer? I doubt that such an employee has been thoroughly informed of the intricacies of any particular deal and is just as much in the dark as we are. – PeeJay 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not in the dark. It has been made clear. Do you think these people aren't able to get in contact with each other to be able to give the correct answer? - 217.43.148.142 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is entirely possible that that is the case, but we have no way of knowing that. Anyway, email correspondence is not permissible as a valid source. – PeeJay 14:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, sorry I can't stop laughing. BTW, continually reverting an article to display incorrect information will also get you a block. Bear that in mind. - 217.43.148.142 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should bear that in mind... :-S – PeeJay 15:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is in fact you that should bear that in mind. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We should all bear it in mind, smart-ass. The article should be left as it was before this dispute started until it can be solved. – PeeJay 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been solved by united themselves. If wasn't for some smart ass refusing to admit their wrong, this would have been over with a long time a go. - 217.43.148.142 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, we are not going to get this resolved at all here. I think that perhaps, instead of dismissing every shred of evidence - reliable or not - that we could get PeeJay or Chandler to share the evidence that he is not a Manchester United player, rather than a two user battle to destroy the reputation of reliable sources. Apart from saying that these sources are wrong, they are not providing anything. However, if they were to find evidence that he is not a United player, then their argument would be taken a lot more seriously. However, it would be better discussing this here than an edit war. DeMoN2009 (acting as a neutral in this discussion) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The evidence that he is not a United player can be found in the FIFA regulations. The best solution here would be to simply state the facts, rather than extrapolating anything. The facts are that Ljajic currently plays for Partizan, he has signed a four-and-a-half-year contract with Man Utd, and he will join them in January 2010. Whether or not he is on loan with Partizan or simply remaining there for the next 11 months is irrelevant. – PeeJay 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The evidence that he is a United player comes from Manchester United themselves. You can see copies of the email above. As I have said before this is also stated on BBC, Setanta and many other websites. How can anyone in their right mind ignore ALL this information? - 217.43.148.142 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What Man Utd have stated in official statements is that he won't join Manchester United until jan 2010, the first transfer window he is eligible for a transfer. And again, when it comes to regulations within FIFA jurisdiction they are a much higher instance than BBC or Setanta, much more reliable. It's easy to draw misinformation from "we have signed him, but he'll stay at Partizan until 2010" and reform that to "they have loaned him back" which BBC probably have don't it's forgiveable but it does not erase FIFA regulations prohibiting Ljajic to transfer to Man Utd — CHANDLER^#10 — 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And what about the fact that there is an email from United stating that he is signed and on loan at Partizan? - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hi all. I'm the one who protected the article pending discussion, and I'd really like to unprotect it if you can reach agreement. Is there any support for an edit along the lines of "The BBC has reported that he's on loan." (link to article). folowed by "The FIFA rule on transfers is XYZ" (link to rule)? That would skirt a bit close to synthesis, but if everyone can avoid the temptation to expound further that might give you a middle ground until the issue is clarified. I know nothing about football, so feel free to shoot this down. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have recieved emails, which i have screenshotted and posted on flickr, which state that he is a United player. These come directly from Man Utd. I sent more emails today which you can see at the link. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Block the people edit warring, and unblock the article. I'm sorry but an email form Man Utd themselves saying that he is a man utd player puts to an end this "argument". - absolutely wrong. Your email is not a WP:RS and has no validity if disputed. Emails are trivially fakable, ditto screenshots William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources are BBC, Setanta, Eurosport all saying the same thing, that he is on loan from United. The Man Utd website says "Tosic, 21, will sign with immediate effect and wear the no.14 shirt, while an agreement is in place for 17-year-old striker Ljajic to remain with Partizan for the rest of 2009." This can be interpreted as either he will remain there for the rest of the year as he is on loan or that he will remain there because he has not yet signed for United. The emails are merely confirming that it is in fact the the first option and he is on loan. And no, emails and screenshots are not "trivially" fakable, unless you have plenty of experince and know what you are doing. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Partizan like Zoran Tosic signed a 3-and-a-half-year contract and he is already available to Sir Alex Ferguson, while Ljajic signed for 4-and-a-half-years but will remain in Partizan Fc squad until next January, when he will make a full move to Old Trafford. to me shows he would NOT be available for Man Utd and that he will make the move in Jan 2010. Neither Man Utd or Partizan say anything about a loan. They both say he wont move club until jan 2010, which goes hand in hand with the FIFA regulations as jan 2010 is the first transfer window he's allowed to make a transfer in. — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These quotes can be interpreted either way. That is why there needed to be more confirmation from someone like Man Utd themselves. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Matty4123, sure you have three sources that say one thing, but I have about ten sources that don't mention a loan at all. Majority rule, anyone? – PeeJay 23:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The majority of usable sources are all agreeing that he is on loan. List one source that actually says he is not on loan. Not something that can be interpreted in more than one way. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "usable sources"? All of the sources that have been provided are usable. If Ljajic was on loan, I have no doubts that the sources would say so. You would be hard-pressed to find a source that definitively says "Adem Ljajic is not on loan from Manchester United to Partizan", mainly because news agencies do not have to clarify themselves. They wouldn't say "this is not a full transfer" in the case of a loan move, so why should they do the opposite? – PeeJay 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Usable sources would be ones that can not be interpreted in a number of ways. All your sources can be interpreted in a number of ways. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 20:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that when the IP user asked for a source saying it's not a loan. Well, none say it's not a loan, because they don't mention a loan at all. BBC and a few others say it's a deal to United, then back on a loan. But most give the (correct) impression that he's still with the club, and won't join United until after he's turned 18—which are FIFA rules. So the idea that FIFA bent or broke their own rules, and that 8 of 10 media sources are incorrect is ridiculous. –  LATICS  talk  03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The majority of websites say he is on loan, they all report the correct information. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now you're just fibbing. Three websites say that Ljajic is on loan from Man Utd to Partizan, and the rest don't say anything about a loan at all. Comprende? – PeeJay 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Source that he is not on loan

The Squad listings on Man Utd's website shows the players currently at the club, both on loan or otherwise, here. None of the first team, reserves or Acadamy have Ljajic listed. If he was signed by the club, and then out on loan, he would be there. Eastlygod (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that, judging by all the evidence, he is probably not a Manchester United player. Although an agreement may have taken place, he does not appear to be at Manchester United now. There may be a chance for someone to e-mail the FA or Premier League or someone else, but we cannot be sure if their message is reliable, although I'm sure it would be. Also, most if not all of the other different language versions of Wikipedia seem to say he is on loan from Man Utd, something that will need changed if we can agree that he is not on loan. Deutsch•한국어•Italiano•Magyar•Malti•Norsk (bokmål)•Polski•Русский•Српски / Srpski•中文‬ DeMoN2009 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed the Premier League, though I'm unsure if it's the correct people to ask. –  LATICS  talk  20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently emails can't even be used to clarify Man Utd's statement on their website, which is unclear. It can be interpreted as saying he will remain at Partizan because he is on loan, and this is confirmed by email. However, the truth apparently gets ignored on wikipedia. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If he stays at Partizan, that mean he has never left Partizan. "He will return directly to play for another year", that might mean a loan, but "he will remain at Partizan" without trying to interpret it to suit your point seems to mean, he is still at Partizan because he never left, keeping the status quo. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The emails confirm that he is a united player. Did you even bother to look at them? How can they say he is their playe, yet still not actually be their player. Shall I tell United they have their facts wrong? - 86.165.61.104 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again you don't seem to understand those emails cant be used as a reliable source, you can't even know if the writer knows what he's talking about. As pointed out in official statements he is never mentioned as to be on loan but rather that he won't join Man Utd until 2010, in accordance with FIFA regulations. The link provided to Man Utd's website where they list all their players including those on loan does NOT have him in them. — CHANDLER^#10 — 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know exactly how Matty worded his emails to Man Utd and whoever else he contacted, but I basically asked who he is registered with, and if he's a United player, how did they get past the FIFA rules. But, hopefully we'll figure something out soon... –  LATICS  talk  20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tbf, it's pointless emailing anyone about this unless you can convince them to publish whatever it is they tell you. – PeeJay 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As I can understand those links, only the Russian one says he's on loan at Utd. While the German have him wrongly on that he's ended is Partizan career before 2009. The maltese even seems to mention "while Ljajić will stay with Partizan for the remainder of 2009, where it will join with United in January of 2010, because that FIFA does not allow making of international players under the age of eighteen." (through google translator). So I'd say most say he's not on loan, but rather all go by this "he will join Man Utd in jan 2010" — CHANDLER^#10 — 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking the article

As it appears that there has at least been constructive discussion, if not actual consensus, I'm going to unprotect this article. Please, everyone discuss the issue here. If another edit war breaks out, I'm going to be much more likely to consider the banhammer. I'll keep this on my watchlist in the meantime. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Third Opinion

I came across the third opinion request just today. Although I have not had a chance to really look over the entire talk page, it is my intention to do so before I can give an educated opinion. I may leave questions here if I have any.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I read through most of the arguments, but I am a bit perplexed.Third opinion is suppose to help disputes among only two seperate editors, yet I can see several editors giving opinions. This looks more like a job for Requset for comment. I also see alot of uncivil comments by both sides. There is also a problem with single purpose accounts, and possible sock puppets. I have seen these types of discussions before, and have learned some of the tactics of SPA ans SOCKS. They are sometimes easy to spot. I would also say that User:PeeJay, User:Maddy4123, User:Ck786 and User:Chandler need to take a step back and look at what they are really arguing about, which is nothing other than wording. I would also suggest that the anon account User:217.43.148.12 be blocked or banned for incivility, but since the discussion seems to have ebbed a bit, I hope that it wont come to that.

As for the reason why I came to this page. In my opinion, based on the policy on realiable sources, a personnal e-mail is not a realiable source. I hope i have been at least a bit helpful. Good day and good luck.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

Firstly I am surprised at how far this discussion has come since I decided that argueing with a (unnamed) stubborn user was a significant waste of my time over a month ago.

1. Can someone explain to me how an Email from Manchester United saying that the player is on loan at Partizan is more or less relevent than a suggested email from the FA/Premier League asking the same question??

1. Can someone explain to me how there are numerous sources (BBC, EuroSport and Setanta) saying that he IS on loan (as well as an email from MUFC confirming the position) but there are NONE saying that he IS NOT on loan?? Yet the Wiki page is saying that he isn't on loan??? This is the issue I'm struggling to comprehend...

1. Has anyone been keeping stats on him (if he's played since his recent injury) to update the Wiki page if/when it is unblocked??

Regards - Ck786 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?!

1. The email is completely irrelevant as emails do not constitute reliable sources for various reasons.
2. There are, in fact, many sources that say he is not on loan, in that they do not mention the word "loan" at all in their stories.
3. No.

Satisfied? No, thought not... – PeeJay 08:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me??!

1. If emails dont make an adequate source, then why was the suggestion made to clarify the Manchester United email with ANOTHER email from the FA?
2. The fact that your arguement of this issue is based around the fact that some sources don't mention 'loan' in their articles is laughable, especially when there are articles that do.
3. Why not?

Your contradictions astound me.

Answer me this. In the event that ANOTHER club reaches a deal to sign Ljajic instead of him returning to United in Jan 2010; Who will the compenstation (transfer fee) be paid to? I'll give you a hint - it's not Partizan. Think about it... Ck786 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How could another club agree a deal for Ljajic to join them when he's already agreed to join Man Utd in 2010? That argument makes no sense. As for your other questions:

1. I don't know, I didn't suggest for anyone to email the FA; and even if such action was taken, anything received from the FA would be equally void.
2. Just because you have seen something a certain way does not mean that it is impossible for that thing to be another way; similarly, just because you have not seen something a certain way, does not mean it is impossible for that thing to be that way. Think about it.
3. If you know of a site that regularly adds stats from the Serbian Superliga in a language that someone here can understand, then please, feel free to update the stats yourself.

Bonne nuit. – PeeJay 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

2. So couldn't I say that just because YOU see it a certain way, that doesn't make it so??? Are you that stubborn that you cant see that works both ways???

I noticed you ignored my other question - In the event that ANOTHER club reaches a deal to sign Ljajic instead of him returning to United in Jan 2010; Who will the compenstation (transfer fee) be paid to? I'll give you a hint - it's not Partizan. Think about it... Ck786 (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't ignore the question. Try reading. Also, you've completely misinterpreted my response to Q2. – PeeJay 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I didnt see your response to my question. Now that I've read it I'm wondering if you follow football at all???

Just because there is an agreement in place doesnt mean that if a club offers 50m to united for him, the will let him move elsewhere. That is my point. If he performs well at Partizan and attracts attention from other clubs,it will be United who recieve the compensation as he is a United player.

As for your response to point 2 - I have not misinterpreted it. You clearly state that "Just because you have seen something a certain way does not mean that it is impossible for that thing to be another way". And I said the exact same back to you. You are expecting everyone to see it YOUR way (that he is not on loan because there are no sources to say that he IS on loan) but you are not willing to see it in a different way (that he IS on loan because there are sources to back it up).

Have I missed something? Where are your sources that unequivocally say that he IS NOT ON LOAN? Because so far there are 3 that use the term "on loan" and to me that warrants the article being changed Ck786 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, there aren't going to be any sources that say, verbatim, "Ljajic is not on loan from Man Utd to Partizan" as that would be stupid. The sources say that he will remain at Partizan until January 2010. For you to extrapolate that as meaning he is on loan from Man Utd to Partizan just because a minority of sources say that, despite the majority not mentioning a loan at all, goes against WP:VERIFY. – PeeJay 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the same as for you to refute the BBC, Eurosport and Setanta goes against WP:SOURCES.

FYI - for a player who supposedly has nothing to do with United, except for a pre-contract transfer, its unusual to see him at Carrington training with the first team don't you reckon? http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/85172573.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193B946C5A518E7D4C13E8E2395BDA88273E30A760B0D811297

Game. Set. Match. Ck786 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like this happens all the time. Him training with the Man Utd team for the day is no big deal. He may just have come over to get to know the other players and participate in training ahead of his transfer. Like I said, no big deal. – PeeJay 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And just when you thought Ck786 had it in the bag (like hell you did!), Man Utd release an interview with Ljajic that states in the opening sentence, "He may not be able to join the club officially until next January, but Serbian youngster Adem Ljajic has been in Manchester for a few days to train with his future team-mates." Pwned! – PeeJay 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Situation finally cleared up

As per the link that PeeJay posted above, we all can now agree that he is not officially a Manchester United player until next January. Some users seemed to have forgotten, on both sides of the argument, that is was a discussion for the benefit of the article, and instead it boiled down to a game of one-upmanship to prove who was right. That should not have been the case, all users should be civil and understanding of everybody else's discussions to improve the article. Hopefully we all can put this to rest and work together for the benefit of the project. --Eastlygod (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak

A lot of things including his name and his religion as well as his birthplace imply Bosniak Whelanmk (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The key word there is "imply". Wikipedia does not deal in implications, only in established and well-sourced facts. – PeeJay 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a source to prove he's a Bosnian Muslim? His name is Adem, a pure Muslim name and his last name is a common Bosniak last name. Just check on wikipedia for "Adem" and "Ljajić" you'll see. But he is born in Serbia so he decided to play for the national team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartolofc09 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, especially as ethnicity or religious affiliation is irrelevant to him being a footballer. chandler · 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree. See Ljubomir Fejsa for example, there is no source saying he is a Rusyn but he is categorised as such because of his surname. I think this is a classic example of anti-Bosniak and anti-Islamic behaviour and I am absolutely disgusted and apalled. Whelanmk (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And that should be sourced... WP:V is pretty important you see. And you saying someone is anti-Bosniak and anti-Islamic just because they demand a source on information... yea... good call. The information is not vitally important as the sporting nationality is nr.1, if you can source it "...a Serbian footballer of Bosniak decent..." won't be a problem adding. But ethnicity isn't something that have to be given... Just as there are Swedish footballers that can live and play for Norway and the other way around they're articles wont have "a ethnic Swede Norwegian footballer" chandler · 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not anti-Islamic behaviour in the slightest. If any mention of his ethnicity is to be made, then there should be sources to back it up. – PeeJay 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajic is not a BOSNIAN Muslim. He is a Serbian Muslim, born in Sandzak(Raska). His nationality is Bosniak, as upon the breakup of SFRJ all or most Muslim populations chose to call themselves Bosniak based on their common religious affiliation. However, Bosnian and Serbian populations of Sandzak are not strongly connected in any other way. Sandzak Muslims see themselves as part of Serbian culture and are big contributors to the cultural diversity of Serbia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.114.57 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ljajić is an ethnic Bosniak. Added to the article with references.--Zoupan 11:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Adem should play for Bosnia and Herzegovina !

Ljajić Adem is eligible for national team of Bosnia and Herzegovina because his Bosniak origins.

Of course he is a citizen of Serbia however, same as a numerous Serbs born or originated from Bosnia and Herzegovina but caps for national team of Serbia, Bosnian or Bosniak muslim Adem Ljajić should be called up by national coach of Bosnia and Herzegovina to cap for for the national team of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It's a simple as that !--Santasanta99 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know he is a Bosniak? There are no web sources that confirm this, so would you mind sharing the print source that you have? – PeeJay 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, most Yugoslavians play for Serbia. I'm not going to count on him playing for Bosnia and Herzegovina. – Michael (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  What?  Do you even know the difference between Yugoslavia and Serbia?  Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, Montenegrans mostly play for Serbia?  Bottom line - Bosnian players of Serb ethnicity (Savo Milosevic, for eg.), all played for Serbia.  A Serbian player of Bosnian/Muslim origin (Adem Ljajic, for eg.) should play for Bosnia.  Nothing controversial here...especially given the Serb hostility and bloodlust for Bosnians.  

How is saying he should play for someone relevant to helping the article? –  LATICS  talk  17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're asking. – Michael (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the header. "Adem should play for Bosnia". I'm just wondering what this really has to do with the article itself. –  LATICS  talk  22:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not going to Manchester United

BBC Sport had this article today confirming the rumour that United are going to cancel the deal. I've included it as a reference and added some relevant information into the text. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

United couldn't afford to sign him due to the massive amounts of debt the club is carrying. All other stories are fabricated lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.17.86 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You know that's speculation, right? According to the club, they didn't sign Ljajic because they have plenty of options in midfield and they weren't impressed enough with his progress over the last 12 months. – PeeJay 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your the one speculating PeeJay2k3. The original comment is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.230.190 (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, says who? The only reasons that have been given for United not signing Ljajic are the difficulty of obtaining a work permit for him and the abundance of midfield talent United have at their disposal. Anything else is speculation, and I would thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head when talking to me. – PeeJay 11:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)