shen Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 I can kind of see your point, but I'm at a disadvantage really, as I missed the early stages of the game and haven't had the benefit of watching the repeat (sorry to get all Wenger on you!) - but other WFC fans assure me it wasn't at all deliberate, and knowing the player involved I'm inclined to believe them. So a handball has to be deliberate now? You think that Knockaert falling over dramatically is cheating, but using your arm to actively stop a ball from crossing the line (deliberate or not) is not? It's not like he was keeping his arm in y'know. You haven't seen it, yet you're willing to give an opinion on it. That's now how Wenger does it... Besides this point, I think your points re: our club gaining an advantage through the Thais vs. your club's exploitation of the loan system are quite valid. It's maybe a bit soon to expect a reasonable discussion on this as a lot on here are still smarting from those extraordinary events from yesterday...
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 I reckon it's fair to say that an unintentional action is not cheating, yes. FIFA law twelve specifically states that a player may not handle the ball deliberately. But as you rightly point out, I can't honestly comment on this particular case, only vouch for the usual conduct of the player involved.
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Its obvious really isn't it. There's no financial risk Surely that's a good thing??? There are far too many clubs in danger of going bust through over-spending, and that's not healthy for football.
z-layrex Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Clubs like Watford and what they've done to us and the rest of the league really make me consider giving up on modern football. Love LC too much tho.
gazzak Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Don't you find it a bit ironic that Watford are being accused of milking the system, yet putting yourselves massively in debt to achieve the same goal isn't? Also, not a single Leicester fan has slated the penalty award when it was a blatant dive? Anyway, despite saying earlier that I hope we smash you because of what some idiots wrote about Watford after the first game, I actually have a little sympathy for the fans that were there yesterday and wish you the best for next season. I have a lot of respect for your manager because of how he acted after defeat, but I don't think he's the man to take you up as your tactics were poor considering the money spent. One last thing, after the match yesterday there was a pitch invasion, then our players did a lap of honour, and then I had a couple of beers at the club bar, so all in all I must have left the ground an hour after final whistle, yet the Leicester coaches were still there?? What was that all about?
21st Century Fox Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Don't you find it a bit ironic that Watford are being accused of milking the system, yet putting yourselves massively in debt to achieve the same goal isn't? Also, not a single Leicester fan has slated the penalty award when it was a blatant dive? Anyway, despite saying earlier that I hope we smash you because of what some idiots wrote about Watford after the first game, I actually have a little sympathy for the fans that were there yesterday and wish you the best for next season. I have a lot of respect for your manager because of how he acted after defeat, but I don't think he's the man to take you up as your tactics were poor considering the money spent. One last thing, after the match yesterday there was a pitch invasion, then our players did a lap of honour, and then I had a couple of beers at the club bar, so all in all I must have left the ground an hour after final whistle, yet the Leicester coaches were still there?? What was that all about? You missed this threads then... http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/88333-knockaert-dive/
Samilktray Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Hopefully if Watford go up everyone will forget about them and we won't have to see all this cringeworthy bitching about them no more.
marko Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Surely that's a good thing??? There are far too many clubs in danger of going bust through over-spending, and that's not healthy for football. Of course it's not. As you're not exposed to a financial risk when getting all your loans in, you can get a large quantity and if some don't come off then it doesn't really matter. Whereas, clubs like ourselves, who have the financial risk of signing players on a permanent basis cannot take the same scattergun approach and get in a load of players and hope they come off. Clubs signing players on a permanent basis are certainly open to a greater financial risk.
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Of course it's not. As you're not exposed to a financial risk when getting all your loans in, you can get a large quantity and if some don't come off then it doesn't really matter. Whereas, clubs like ourselves, who have the financial risk of signing players on a permanent basis cannot take the same scattergun approach and get in a load of players and hope they come off. Clubs signing players on a permanent basis are certainly open to a greater financial risk. I'm struggling to see your logic. First of all, as I've already mentioned, these players aren't loans in the traditional sense - you have to get your head around the idea of our owner having a massive and successful global scouting network that has resulted in the creation of a pool of players, that do not belong to Udinese in anything but name. After all, they have to be registered somewhere. They are as much ours as they are Granada's or Udinese's, since all three clubs belong to members of the same family who have scouted and signed these players. Even if the situation were as you imagine (which it isn't), are you really suggesting that loaning players (with a view to signing them long term if they perform) is a bad way to run a football club? The good thing about being under this footballing umbrella is that bigger teams can no longer steal our talent for a cut price. They'll actually have to pay top dollar for Vydra if they want him, and we'll just replace him with another talent from the pool, with no risk to the long term future of the club. Happy, happy days.
shen Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Of course it's not. As you're not exposed to a financial risk when getting all your loans in, you can get a large quantity and if some don't come off then it doesn't really matter. Whereas, clubs like ourselves, who have the financial risk of signing players on a permanent basis cannot take the same scattergun approach and get in a load of players and hope they come off. Clubs signing players on a permanent basis are certainly open to a greater financial risk. That's where you're wrong though, as these players still represent a financial risk, albeit spread out over three clubs. If the players don't succeed, the owning part will make a loss on them. The owners then acquire a smaller club that will benefit from players that aren't good enough to be at their best clubs and thus they will likely gain value again. It's a very clever way to run a football business...
Guest Bilo Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 While I respect the better expressed Watford points about us having an unfair advantage because of our owners, they do miss the point somewhat. Yes, we have money. I agree that this gives us an unfair advantage over the likes of Peterborough and Barnsley. However, the same could be said of Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Brighton, Leeds and several other Championship clubs. This includes the recently relegated ex EPL clubs spending parachute payments such as Blackburn. This means that we could be competing with six clubs, possibly more, for a particularly sought-after player. This is likely to happen with the likes of Ebanks-Blake and Sako. The unfair advantage is therefore dissipated because it is shared with numerous other clubs. Your unfair advantage is unique. Say our scouting team finds a Udinese player who we feel could do a job. We would have no chance of securing his services, even on loan, because it wouldn't be in the Pozzos' sphere of interest. Rich owners diminish the idea of a level playing field. Your lot have demolished it.
marko Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 That's where you're wrong though, as these players still represent a financial risk, albeit spread out over three clubs. If the players don't succeed, the owning part will make a loss on them. The owners then acquire a smaller club that will benefit from players that aren't good enough to be at their best clubs and thus they will likely gain value again. It's a very clever way to run a football business... Yes, I appreciate they are a financial risk to some extent (I understand I didn't express this very well in my post) but the fact this is spread over different clubs and funded by the success of other clubs' league finishes, means they aren't really a financial risk for Watford and are effectively being bankrolled by Udinese and Granada's income from Serie A and La Liga. To me, the multi-club franchise isn't the way the clubs should be run, hence the rules against it in England.
Vardinhio Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Basically you are the equivalent of Udinese B playing in England which in my view is completely wrong. Fortunately however this pans out for Watford long term it will only go one way as you have neither the fan base nor the infrastructure to sustain the financial obligations required to employ the players you have in your own right. In short, you are basically going to always need to exist on this said model, therefore having numerous loans each season or you will run the risk of going bust.
Fox92 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 I think Brighton will win today, if so, I hope Brighton win in the final itself. Got nothing against Watford (the club), but I don't agree with their team of basically just loanees. Don't like some of their fans either, they have been midtable for years and now they are 3rd, they think they are the best team in the league.
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Basically you are the equivalent of Udinese B playing in England which in my view is completely wrong. Fortunately however this pans out for Watford long term it will only go one way as you have neither the fan base nor the infrastructure to sustain the financial obligations required to employ the players you have in your own right. In short, you are basically going to always need to exist on this said model, therefore having numerous loans each season or you will run the risk of going bust. We're no more 'Udinese b' than they're Watford b playing in Serie A - we just happen to be owned by the same family, taking advantage of a shared pool of players. Ok, they're more successful than us at the moment, but if we get to the premier, you'd imagine more resources will be directed our way, since the EPL is where the money is . Following your logic are you 'Bankok b' ?
jonlcfc1990 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 We're no more 'Udinese b' than they're Watford b playing in Serie A - we just happen to be owned by the same family, taking advantage of a shared pool of players. Ok, they're more successful than us at the moment, but if we get to the premier, you'd imagine more resources will be directed our way, since the EPL is where the money is . Following your logic are you 'Bankok b' ? Watford A in serie A just made me smile for the first time since Sunday. You are such a lemon!
ADK Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 So Watford are no longer Watford FC, an English football club with a decent history, but Watfonadase a merger of Watford with two foreign clubs who provide them with players. Well i'm pleased we are a more traditional club i wouldn't be so thrilled turning up to support that.
jonlcfc1990 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 So Watford are no longer Watford FC, an English football club with a decent history, but Watfonadase a merger of Watford with two foreign clubs who provide them with players. Well i'm pleased we are a more traditional club i wouldn't be so thrilled turning up to support that. Judging by the amount of yellow seats on Sunday and the lacking of a whole stand not many people do come to support it.
Vardinhio Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 We're no more 'Udinese b' than they're Watford b playing in Serie A - we just happen to be owned by the same family, taking advantage of a shared pool of players. Ok, they're more successful than us at the moment, but if we get to the premier, you'd imagine more resources will be directed our way, since the EPL is where the money is . Following your logic are you 'Bankok b' ? So basically what you are saying is that when you get in to the prem you will start getting better players from the pool? So you'll start getting Di Natale etc? If that's what you mean your effectively saying there will be some sort of drafting system designed to ensure the best overall financial gains can be made which sickens me to the core. No way that long term the English FA will let that happen. Players will have to be registered somewhere and they will limit your loans. If you just bought these players you would be taking the same risks as the rest of us but what you are doing exploits the very essence of a loan system and why it was created.
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 So Watford are no longer Watford FC, an English football club with a decent history, but Watfonadase a merger of Watford with two foreign clubs who provide them with players. Well i'm pleased we are a more traditional club i wouldn't be so thrilled turning up to support that. What do you call a decent history - we were a nice little club that very kindly turned out some excellent players from our youth team, so they can be bought for peanuts by bigger teams (which will only get worse under the new academy rulings to be introduced), leaving us back at square one. We now have a very real chance at sustainable premier league football, competing on a level playing field with teams much more established and richer than ourselves, all whilst retaining our youth set up. Difference is now we don't have to sell cheap. What's not to like?
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 So basically what you are saying is that when you get in to the prem you will start getting better players from the pool? So you'll start getting Di Natale etc? If that's what you mean your effectively saying there will be some sort of drafting system designed to ensure the best overall financial gains can be made which sickens me to the core. No way that long term the English FA will let that happen. Players will have to be registered somewhere and they will limit your loans. If you just bought these players you would be taking the same risks as the rest of us but what you are doing exploits the very essence of a loan system and why it was created. This is pretty much how I see it panning out, but you have to understand they won't be loans. These players are as much ours as Udinese's, as the three clubs are equal partners, with the individual players deciding where they wish to play. What is it that's so hard for everyone to understand?
Watford1982 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Watford A in serie A just made me smile for the first time since Sunday. You are such a lemon! If you read my comment, you'll find that the "Watford b in Serie A" was simply a comment designed to highlight the ridiculous idea of us being 'Udinese b'. Not unreasonable?
yorkie1999 Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 This is pretty much how I see it panning out, but you have to understand they won't be loans. These players are as much ours as Udinese's, as the three clubs are equal partners, with the individual players deciding where they wish to play. What is it that's so hard for everyone to understand? We UNDERSTAND you, now fxxk off
Vardinhio Posted 13 May 2013 Posted 13 May 2013 Co-ownership in football- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-ownership_%28football%29 Now I didn't realise the FA approved of this so not sure if what you say is even possible. Surely if it was you would have done it rather than loaning the players left right and centre?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.