gaz63 Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 I'm sorry but I have to disagree- in any businesses where you have family members working together or any business who is owned by someone who is trading with other business who is owned by a member of first business owner's family, there is going to be a conflict of interest or at least the potential for conflict of interest. True, but its a hard case to make If its owned by another person (even if its his son) They've been involved in football since 1986, so they will have done their due diligence before buying us to make sure its all above board.
Captain... Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 I'm aware I was talking about Udinese specifcally though. This is getting boring now and seeing at the Captain is now insinuating signing out of contract players on a free is a unfair advantage, I'll be off, as this conversation has gone past the point of lunacy! Right you point to the post where I said that, you have no argument you are just putting words in my mouth and then disagreeing with things I haven't said, you have even admitted that there probably should be some sort of regulations, but you are to stubborn to have any sort of debate on it so you are right it is boring.
The Blur Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 True, but its a hard case to make If its owned by another person (even if its his son) They've been involved in football since 1986, so they will have done their due diligence before buying us to make sure its all above board. Well, if over 80% of Watford's signings in this season were from either Udinese or Granada then I think it is potentially a case in itself but as you mentioned earlier after years of shitty signings who are you to complain? If it happened to us, I won't really be complaining too much as even if I did, it will have a zero effect on anyone.
Manwell Pablo Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Right you point to the post where I said that, you have no argument you are just putting words in my mouth and then disagreeing with things I haven't said, you have even admitted that there probably should be some sort of regulations, but you are to stubborn to have any sort of debate on it so you are right it is boring. Insinuated I said, not out right said. You said that Gaz has admitted they are gaining an unfair advantage and siging players on the cheap. The only player they've signed is on a free, and from what I can see, he was on a season long loan after which they would have signed him had me made the grade anyway!
gaz63 Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Insinuated I said, not out right said. You said that Gaz has admitted they are gaining an unfair advantage and siging players on the cheap. The only player they've signed is on a free, and from what I can see, he was on a season long loan after which they would have signed him had me made the grade anyway! Skysports have just said we're about to sign Vydra on a 5 year deal. Not sure about a fee
Manwell Pablo Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Skysports have just said we're about to sign Vydra on a 5 year deal. Not sure about a fee If you get him for free and he is under contract I will be changing my mind!
Captain... Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 @manwell, I was referring to this bit, so stop putting words in my mouth: Sure the player trading is slightly unfair. But after years of seeing sides spend endless amounts of cash on players, while we scrape by - you can understand if we're not sympathetic. I have at no point said Watford have done anything wrong, because I don't know enough about the deals, but you should not have invested interests between clubs at board and ownership level, especially when you are transferring players of high value, if not for footballing reasons for fraud and corruption reasons, again not an accusation of any wrong doing by Watford, but the possibility is there and it needs to be regulated.
Captain... Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 If you get him for free and he is under contract I will be changing my mind! The problem is it will most likely be undisclosed fee so we will never know.
kingfox Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 I don't see anything wrong with Watford's policy. The owners also own Udinese and Granada as pointed out, so both of those sides are helping Watford out by sending their bench/reserve players on loan to them. People quickly point out, all the Udinese and Granada loan signings, but Watford have also loaned in other players, like Chalobah from Chelsea and Mujangi Bia from Standard Liege who was with Wolves last season, while Almunia and Hall were permanent signings on free transfers. Watford are entitled to do whatever they want, and it just so happens the owners also own Udinese and Granada, they are just offering a helping hand, and some of these players have done a very good job so far. Now with Vydra looking likely to sign on a permanent 5 year contract, then Watford will most likely challenge for the top two/play-offs, I can see their form continuing.
Manwell Pablo Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 @manwell, I was referring to this bit, so stop putting words in my mouth: I have at no point said Watford have done anything wrong, because I don't know enough about the deals, but you should not have invested interests between clubs at board and ownership level, especially when you are transferring players of high value, if not for footballing reasons for fraud and corruption reasons, again not an accusation of any wrong doing by Watford, but the possibility is there and it needs to be regulated. As he's already said they've doen their due dillegence, and have been owning football clubs, cleanly, for 25 years. And as it turns out they aren't even owned by the same person so you can forget your conflict of interests!
Babylon Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 As he's already said they've doen their due dillegence, and have been owning football clubs, cleanly, for 25 years. And as it turns out they aren't even owned by the same person so you can forget your conflict of interests! I'm not getting involved in the handbags between you two, but can you not see the potential for exploitation in the deal? (whether that be Udinese or Watford getting exploited). I'm sure Watford fans aren't moaning now, in fact I'm sure they are thrilled. But if they did get promoted, how would they feel about money potentially shifting from Watford to Udinese for instance? No rules have been broken so good luck to them, but I'm sure it's something the authorities may keep their eyes on.
Manwell Pablo Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 I'm not getting involved in the handbags between you two, but can you not see the potential for exploitation in the deal? (whether that be Udinese or Watford getting exploited). I'm sure Watford fans aren't moaning now, in fact I'm sure they are thrilled. But if they did get promoted, how would they feel about money potentially shifting from Watford to Udinese for instance? No rules have been broken so good luck to them, but I'm sure it's something the authorities may keep their eyes on. Potentially in a world where someone is looking out for the best interest for football club A at the expense of football club B when employed by football club B. I would like to think everyone involved has the best interest of their own club as their first priority though as with most of the deals so far that seems to be the case. As I say if a multi million pound striker is sold to them for pittance I might change my tune.
Babylon Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Potentially in a world where someone is looking out for the best interest for football club A at the expense of football club B when employed by football club B. I would like to think everyone involved has the best interest of their own club as their first priority though as with most of the deals so far that seems to be the case. As I say if a multi million pound striker is sold to them for pittance I might change my tune. It's one of those things we'll never know as they don't need to be transparent. Loaning £10m worth of talent from club U to club W, and then once club W get promoted they use those funds to pay twice the market value of the players diverting some money to club U, is a very real prospect. Both parties come out of it well, but is it fair? That's for others to decide. It's no less fair than having a thai owner spending a fortune, but even that's being outlawed under FFP. So it could give clubs working under those circumstances a very real advantage. It's certainly a business model others might look at with the success it's currently having there. I like Watford and I'd rather have them promoted than any of the others... so long as it's not at our expense!!
Captain... Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Potentially in a world where someone is looking out for the best interest for football club A at the expense of football club B when employed by football club B. I would like to think everyone involved has the best interest of their own club as their first priority though as with most of the deals so far that seems to be the case. As I say if a multi million pound striker is sold to them for pittance I might change my tune. Why wait until they break the rules, the potential is there for a dodgy deal to be pushed through, and it wouldn't be the first time someone who has passed due diligence turns out to be a crook. I think regulations should be tightened up now and there should be greater transparency over all transfer dealings. This is not just about Watford, if owning 3 clubs and transferring players between them turns about to be a successful model for Watford, Udinese and Granada then more people will look to purchase multiple clubs across leagues, and they won't all necessarily be gave. the integrity that you believe Pozzo and co have.
gaz63 Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Why wait until they break the rules, the potential is there for a dodgy deal to be pushed through, and it wouldn't be the first time someone who has passed due diligence turns out to be a crook. I think regulations should be tightened up now and there should be greater transparency over all transfer dealings. This is not just about Watford, if owning 3 clubs and transferring players between them turns about to be a successful model for Watford, Udinese and Granada then more people will look to purchase multiple clubs across leagues, and they won't all necessarily be gave. the integrity that you believe Pozzo and co have. I'm sure others might try, but Udinese have the biggest scouting network in the world, which they've built up over years. It only works if you've got the players to implement it. The Pozzo's are hugely respected in football for their work at Udinese, and they wouldn't do anything to harm a reputation built over 26 years.
Carl the Llama Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 I'm sure others might try, but Udinese have the biggest scouting network in the world, which they've built up over years. It only works if you've got the players to implement it. The Pozzo's are hugely respected in football for their work at Udinese, and they wouldn't do anything to harm a reputation built over 26 years. So you already knew all about them before they took over your club did you? Come on mate, surely even you can see you're going a bit brown around the nose there.
Guest Col city fan Posted 29 January 2013 Posted 29 January 2013 I don't see anything wrong with Watford's policy. The owners also own Udinese and Granada as pointed out, so both of those sides are helping Watford out by sending their bench/reserve players on loan to them. People quickly point out, all the Udinese and Granada loan signings, but Watford have also loaned in other players, like Chalobah from Chelsea and Mujangi Bia from Standard Liege who was with Wolves last season, while Almunia and Hall were permanent signings on free transfers. Watford are entitled to do whatever they want, and it just so happens the owners also own Udinese and Granada, they are just offering a helping hand, and some of these players have done a very good job so far. Now with Vydra looking likely to sign on a permanent 5 year contract, then Watford will most likely challenge for the top two/play-offs, I can see their form continuing. Can't argue with any of this KF.. I bet the Watford fans are enjoying their current recruitment policy.
Super_horns Posted 29 January 2013 Posted 29 January 2013 Well its better than either having a couple of businessmen with big egos or a bankrupt owner!
lcfcsnow Posted 29 January 2013 Posted 29 January 2013 Losing to Bristol City 1-0 Look at the team they've put out, all their best players on the bench. Not complaining though!
Corky Posted 29 January 2013 Posted 29 January 2013 Anything less than a Watford win is a bonus, hope Bristol City keep this up.
Guest Bilo Posted 29 January 2013 Posted 29 January 2013 Look at the team they've put out, all their best players on the bench. Not complaining though! Why do that when you've a chance of being in an automatic promotion spot with a win? Weird. Not complaining though, we could be four points ahead of them by Thursday night. Breathing space might steady some nerves.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.