Watford need promotion this year.

[Captain...]

Well you could say the same about it being an unfair advantage us having deeper pockets than everyone else.

 

Their both perfectly legal though so

 

I maintain I'll be suprised if Pozzo starts sending Udinese assests into England with no return. It's nothing like swapping money between two pockets, unless your pockets are run by a board of directors and have thousands of fans that is.

 

I really want to know what the Watford fans think, whether they see it as an unfair advantage or not.

[Vardinhio]

Watford will continue in this vein as long as it nets the Udinese owner money. If he can get Watford in to the Prem and keep them battling away like Stoke or whoever with some loan deals then he can cream off this profit and chuck it back in to Udinese.

 

As Manwell says it is easy to achieve this in the Champo as the standard is inferior to Serie A however once Watford go up the model gets a lot harder to effectovely maintain. The minute Watford start to cost money they will be dropped and I also suspect the owner wont bother investing heavily in to their infrastructure either.

 

Having stepped back from the wierdness of the model I actually don't have as much of a problem with it as I did before. Ultimately a club like us has much more control over our long term transfer targets, Watford will just work with whatever they get sent and will no doubt see a pretty big turnover of players each year...I wouldn't want to see my club like that but hey.

[Super_horns]

I really want to know what the Watford fans think, whether they see it as an unfair advantage or not.

I did read these guys all have their own agents - for example Vydra's has been making lots of comments about him moving to a "top club" so I don't think its set in stone they have to come and sign....ofcourse we might not want them!

 

Is it unfair - I suppose if it was another side using the loan systemt we might say yes but is having a top young player from the Premier league unfair to an extent if other teams cannot afford it?

 

Ofcourse like any set of owners they'll want success - hopefully it won;t mean loads of changes on and off the pitch though too much!

 

I don't think Udinese spend millions and they have got into europe again but you would think the Pozzos would as Granada have in La liga expect us to struggle.

[Captain...]

I did read these guys all have their own agents - for example Vydra's has been making lots of comments about him moving to a "top club" so I don't think its set in stone they have to come and sign....ofcourse we might not want them!

 

Is it unfair - I suppose if it was another side using the loan systemt we might say yes but is having a top young player from the Premier league unfair to an extent if other teams cannot afford it?

 

Ofcourse like any set of owners they'll want success - hopefully it won;t mean loads of changes on and off the pitch though too much!

 

I don't think Udinese spend millions and they have got into europe again but you would think the Pozzos would as Granada have in La liga expect us to struggle.

 

Ok to put it another way, as there are clear advantages to having a sort of collective of clubs with one group owning more than one club across different leagues and using a pool of players for the mutual benefit of the 3 clubs. As a football fan would you be happy to see more clubs doing this? Or would you prefer to see them clamp down on the transfer of players between clubs with mutual interests?

[Vardinhio]

For example if Real Madrid decided to just give us a load of their bench warmers would you think this was fair?

[Happy Fox]

I don't mind as long as it is capped to 5 loans the same as domestic then that would be fairer.

[aefevans]

On a personal level, I don't have a problem with the idea of an owner owning other clubs outside England. I say this as a Watford fan, I add, and probably wouldn't have thought about it this time last year. I understand Abramovich ha/had shares in or connections with Anzhi Makachkala - I might be wrong. If Real Madrid loaned their bench-warmers to Leicester - as per the hypothesis - then I wouldn't complain at all as it's what we've done (I can't really complain, can I?). I can completely understand why people might be a bit funny about it, but pretty much any club could do it if they went about it the right way, but I honestly don't see it as an unfair advantage over other clubs as there are many clubs that have been pumped with money and had their budgets widened, and we certainly haven't been unbeatable this season. In all honesty, in spite of our rich owner, we haven't been pumped full of money, as the system doesn't work on throwing money around (we did that under Boothroyd with the Russos and we almost went into administration). Instead of money, we are given playing resources rather than money that are scouted worldwide. 

 

As for the moves being made permanent, the loans are all essentially loans-to-buy. Obviously, they weren't forced into going but neither were they guaranteed first-team football if they stayed (they already weren't playing regular matches at Udinese), so Gianluca Nani (our technical director) says "yes" or "no" (and I suspect there will indeed be a couple of "no"s), and those players will indeed join for free. When we were bought we were told that the system worked on intensive scouting (from a much wider range than Beds, Bucks and Herts), nurturing and then selling on, so, as with any club, money talks, and I can't imagine big offers will be overlooked if it is deemed to be a worthy offer.

 

I have spoken to a couple of people lately and some of them seem to forget that Udinese, Granada and Watford are all owned by the same person, so it's not necessarily going to take him long to negotiate with himself over transfers. The Premier League is more profitable than Serie A so Papa Giampaolo will be acting within his own best interests to ensure Watford have the correct resources with as much ease as possible so we can not only reach the top flight, but stay there.

[Harry - LCFC]

For example if Real Madrid decided to just give us a load of their bench warmers would you think this was fair?

 

Yes because we'd have got them by showing Madrid why our club is a good place to grow their players, At present, Watford don't have to compete for Udinese players they're simply given them. It is clear that Watford could not acquire Vydra before because they weren't an attractive club for Udinese to send their players for game time.

 

Of course that situation is extremely unlikely which demonstrates how unfair Watford's behaviour is. My point is simply that Watford don't have to compete for players which gives them an unfair advantage.

 

 

I don't mind as long as it is capped to 5 loans the same as domestic then that would be fairer.

 

Indeed, this is a massive failing of the rules at the moment. No-one could possibly argue that the current situation is fair in light of the different caps on domestic and foreign loans.

 

Eight of Watford's starting eleven against us were loans btw so they'd have had to cut three of them - The would have made a difference to the tie.

[Captain...]

For example if Real Madrid decided to just give us a load of their bench warmers would you think this was fair?

 

I wouldn't and I didn't agree with Sven's loan policy either and said so at the time.

 

I agree with Harry in that part of the issue is competition, but it is more than that, I don't agree with feeder clubs either but at least they are above board and regulated as official feeder clubs to prevent any unfair advantage.

[Guy1960]

I wouldn't and I didn't agree with Sven's loan policy either and said so at the time.

 

I agree with Harry in that part of the issue is competition, but it is more than that, I don't agree with feeder clubs either but at least they are above board and regulated as official feeder clubs to prevent any unfair advantage.

 

Many outside of Watford think that what they are doing is cheating but is it any worse than a rich owner coming in and spending millions in the transfer market?  That surely doesn't create competition, all it does is make it harder for smaller clubs to compete and indeed survive and causes larger clubs to have to spend bigger and bigger each year if they want to move higher in the league.  Is that good for the game? I think not.

 

The Pozzo model of scouting and developing young talent, selling when the price is right is a sustainable way of smaller clubs competing.  At the moment Watford are being given resources to get them to the premier league.  Once there Watford will be able to stand largely on their own two feet without breaking the bank.  Watford fans are happy with that and in time others no doubt will try and follow suit.  Interesting times.

[wakeyfox01]

Many outside of Watford think that what they are doing is cheating but is it any worse than a rich owner coming in and spending millions in the transfer market?  That surely doesn't create competition, all it does is make it harder for smaller clubs to compete and indeed survive and causes larger clubs to have to spend bigger and bigger each year if they want to move higher in the league.  Is that good for the game? I think not.

 

The Pozzo model of scouting and developing young talent, selling when the price is right is a sustainable way of smaller clubs competing.  At the moment Watford are being given resources to get them to the premier league.  Once there Watford will be able to stand largely on their own two feet without breaking the bank.  Watford fans are happy with that and in time others no doubt will try and follow suit.  Interesting times.

 

That's the big issue though. You are being given players for free with no financial obligation who are of a better standard than you could realistically afford or attract. This is not a fair system.

 

We have spent our money on the players we have signed. We may have/had more money to spend on players than other clubs in the league but we actually own these players and pay their wages and have to deal with the financial ramifications these deals bring. This is evident from the wage bill cutting at the club we started last summer and which is still ongoing. To meet financial fair play we now have to cut back on our costs and therefore cannot attract some of the players we may have been able to before because of the financial constraints. But at least there are consequences for clubs who spend like ourselves and rack up debt trying to buy higher quality players.

 

With the system Watford used which you have all been outlining, those financial risks are not there. Therefore, we cannot compete with you as you can afford to bring in much higher quality players as you are not spending any money to get them. You therefore qualify for FFP but also have these higher level players. So unlike everyone else in the league who cannot afford to bring in top players as they have to keep their financials in check, you can have better players than everyone else without racking up debt.

 

Where is the fair competition in this? For us to sign players of the calibre you are being handed for free we would have to cripple our club while you can have them and keep the club running worry free.

 

The Watford system is incredibly unfair to sustainably run clubs like Barnsley and Derby who live within their means and attract the players of a calibre to match as Watford are run sustainably while having players Barnsley could never dream to attract.

 

Watford are basically having their cake and eating it.

[fazzyfox]

That's the big issue though. You are being given players for free with no financial obligation who are of a better standard than you could realistically afford or attract.

 

 

 

Excellent post, the argument in a nutshell.

 

The 23 championship clubs using the other way, the traditional methods of player acquisition have to be an attractive enough proposition for the player to want to committ to based on their short and long term career ambitions not just salary demands and transfer fee and likewise these clubs are making a financial commitment that they will be obliged to honour. This does not happen at Watford. They've skipped the tricky bit and they've benefitted from skipping the tricky bit.

 

I understand the "from  one pocket to another" explanation, I just feel this Papa guy has his hand half way between them most of the time!

[Guy1960]

I am not a fan of FPP but if it leads to clubs being more prudent with their spending then that's got to be good for the game as a whole. 

 

I am not sure of how Watford will have to account for players within the Pozzo empire but FPP relates to Europe too so somewhere down the line the players in the Watford, Udinese and Granada group will have to be accounted for. 

 

Yes we have been able to attract some decent players but none were regular first team players and yes we are being subsidised but that's only because Watford were in such an awful state financially when the Pozzo's took over.  In time Watford will be signing players directly and that will be sooner rather than later if premier league status is achieved next week.

 

Is it fair,who knows, but has it been fair that clubs with wealthy owners can just come in and buy success, that certainly isn't fair on the clubs who spend more sensibly but it seems to be more acceptable and even encouraged.  

 

For years Watford have struggled, we have had some less than brilliant owners, off the pitch there has been no development of the ground so I side has been condemned,we have been priced out of the market for players so had to put up with signings like Ilewumo and Garner and had to rely on the academy to bolster our squad and sell to pay the bills,  We didn't want to sell Mariappa or Sordell, neither wanted to go but we had to.  Had the Pozzo's not come in we were only the matter of days from administration. 

 

So to have the Pozzo's on board is exciting for us,  Yes we have loans but they are loans from the Pozzo group so any development will benefit the Udinese, Granada and Watford family and the Pozzo ethos is to scout and develop young talent and to sell at the right price so we won't be paying silly money or ridiculous wages and will comply with FPP. 

[Guy1960]

Excellent post, the argument in a nutshell.

 

The 23 championship clubs using the other way, the traditional methods of player acquisition have to be an attractive enough proposition for the player to want to committ to based on their short and long term career ambitions not just salary demands and transfer fee and likewise these clubs are making a financial commitment that they will be obliged to honour. This does not happen at Watford. They've skipped the tricky bit and they've benefitted from skipping the tricky bit.

 

I understand the "from  one pocket to another" explanation, I just feel this Papa guy has his hand half way between them most of the time!

 

 

There is a financial cost but it will be split between Udinese, Granada and Watford.  In time Watford will become the focus of the Pozzo family because the TV rights in the premier league are bigger and more fairly distributed than they are in Italy or in Spain

[Captain...]

I am not a fan of FPP but if it leads to clubs being more prudent with their spending then that's got to be good for the game as a whole. 

 

I am not sure of how Watford will have to account for players within the Pozzo empire but FPP relates to Europe too so somewhere down the line the players in the Watford, Udinese and Granada group will have to be accounted for. 

 

Yes we have been able to attract some decent players but none were regular first team players and yes we are being subsidised but that's only because Watford were in such an awful state financially when the Pozzo's took over.  In time Watford will be signing players directly and that will be sooner rather than later if premier league status is achieved next week.

 

Is it fair,who knows, but has it been fair that clubs with wealthy owners can just come in and buy success, that certainly isn't fair on the clubs who spend more sensibly but it seems to be more acceptable and even encouraged.  

 

For years Watford have struggled, we have had some less than brilliant owners, off the pitch there has been no development of the ground so I side has been condemned,we have been priced out of the market for players so had to put up with signings like Ilewumo and Garner and had to rely on the academy to bolster our squad and sell to pay the bills,  We didn't want to sell Mariappa or Sordell, neither wanted to go but we had to.  Had the Pozzo's not come in we were only the matter of days from administration. 

 

So to have the Pozzo's on board is exciting for us,  Yes we have loans but they are loans from the Pozzo group so any development will benefit the Udinese, Granada and Watford family and the Pozzo ethos is to scout and develop young talent and to sell at the right price so we won't be paying silly money or ridiculous wages and will comply with FPP. 

 

But FFP is coming in to stop clubs just being bankrolled by rich owners, and to encourage self sufficiency, one way to get round it is by owning multiple clubs and funding transfers for one through another.

 

If the governing bodies don't respond to what Watford have done, then it won't be long before Abramovich buys a Russian club, or Chinese or Kazakhstan club that is not bound by FFP to buy players to sell to Chelsea on the cheap and write off the cost in the other club.

 

I know this is not what Watford have done, but it is open to exploitation.

[Manwell Pablo]

But FFP is coming in to stop clubs just being bankrolled by rich owners, and to encourage self sufficiency, one way to get round it is by owning multiple clubs and funding transfers for one through another.

 

If the governing bodies don't respond to what Watford have done, then it won't be long before Abramovich buys a Russian club, or Chinese or Kazakhstan club that is not bound by FFP to buy players to sell to Chelsea on the cheap and write off the cost in the other club.

 

I know this is not what Watford have done, but it is open to exploitation.

 

Every club with ambition will find numerious loop holes around FFP rules in the Championship, and we will be one of them with a load of dodgey "sponsorship" deals in Thailand feeding into the clubs profit margins.  

[Guy1960]

But FFP is coming in to stop clubs just being bankrolled by rich owners, and to encourage self sufficiency, one way to get round it is by owning multiple clubs and funding transfers for one through another.

 

If the governing bodies don't respond to what Watford have done, then it won't be long before Abramovich buys a Russian club, or Chinese or Kazakhstan club that is not bound by FFP to buy players to sell to Chelsea on the cheap and write off the cost in the other club.

 

I know this is not what Watford have done, but it is open to exploitation.

 

Football I'm afraid is always open to exploitation.  FFP will be circumnavigated by the big boys through sponsorship deals and if it starts to work with transfer fees and wages coming down to sensible levels court action will be taken to throw it out like Bosman previously.

 

In Watford's case the club are owned by Pozzo Junior, Udinese by Pozzo Senior so it's hard to see a crackdown there with the loan there has been much talk of the rules being changed in the summer as international loans are subject to Fifa jurisdiction and even if the Football League voted on it there is no certainty it would go through as a number of club chairmen are waking up to its merits.

 

Funnily enough FFP would actually benefit Watford more than most as over the last few years we have been run on a tight budget with low wages. limited funds for transfers and a reliance on youth.

 

We are not the antichrist that many believe and I think in time more and more will come to see that. 

[Captain...]

 

But FFP is coming in to stop clubs just being bankrolled by rich owners, and to encourage self sufficiency, one way to get round it is by owning multiple clubs and funding transfers for one through another.

 

If the governing bodies don't respond to what Watford have done, then it won't be long before Abramovich buys a Russian club, or Chinese or Kazakhstan club that is not bound by FFP to buy players to sell to Chelsea on the cheap and write off the cost in the other club.

 

I know this is not what Watford have done, but it is open to exploitation.

 

Football I'm afraid is always open to exploitation.  FFP will be circumnavigated by the big boys through sponsorship deals and if it starts to work with transfer fees and wages coming down to sensible levels court action will be taken to throw it out like Bosman previously.

 

In Watford's case the club are owned by Pozzo Junior, Udinese by Pozzo Senior so it's hard to see a crackdown there with the loan there has been much talk of the rules being changed in the summer as international loans are subject to Fifa jurisdiction and even if the Football League voted on it there is no certainty it would go through as a number of club chairmen are waking up to its merits.

 

Funnily enough FFP would actually benefit Watford more than most as over the last few years we have been run on a tight budget with low wages. limited funds for transfers and a reliance on youth.

 

We are not the antichrist that many believe and I think in time more and more will come to see that. 

 

I don't think you are the antichrist, but you have set the precedent now and many clubs will be looking at what you have achieved and see it as an opportunity, unless the powers that be do something about it, and I don't want to see Watford punished for what they have done, I just want the rules tightened up around it to ensure that it is not exploited.

 

You say they are owned by 2 different people, as 1 person having an interest in more than one club is banned, but you can't deny they have an invested interest across the 3 clubs and despite there being different names at the top they are, as you have admitted, pooling their resources to secure the best outcome for all 3 clubs. In essence it is no different to multiple ownership of clubs.

[Guy1960]

I don't think you are the antichrist, but you have set the precedent now and many clubs will be looking at what you have achieved and see it as an opportunity, unless the powers that be do something about it, and I don't want to see Watford punished for what they have done, I just want the rules tightened up around it to ensure that it is not exploited.

 

You say they are owned by 2 different people, as 1 person having an interest in more than one club is banned, but you can't deny they have an invested interest across the 3 clubs and despite there being different names at the top they are, as you have admitted, pooling their resources to secure the best outcome for all 3 clubs. In essence it is no different to multiple ownership of clubs.

 

Football I believe is a game in crisis and there are many issues to be addressed.  Yes we are effectively in multi ownership but is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

 

[Super_horns]

I wonder if any concerns were made in Spain when they brought Granada? - have the Pozzos had to limit the numbers they can send to Granada.

 

We have 2 from Granada ourselves in Anya and Pudli (the 2 wing backs who played in the 1st leg - Briggs played instead of the latter at our place)

 

Hopefully the situation is sorted soon enough so everyone knows where they stand..understand there is due to be a vote at a FL meeting in June?

 

Not sure what the situation is regarding wages - maybe we are paying some?

 

Guy might know more...

 

Ofcourse all this gave us an adavantage but like everyone else we still had some slip ups...Bristol City managed to take 4 points off us for example despite being rooted at the bottom.

 

Generally our record against sides near the bottom was quite patchy..we all had a pretty ropey 2013 didn't we! (Brighton/Bolton apart)

[Guy1960]

Ok to put it another way, as there are clear advantages to having a sort of collective of clubs with one group owning more than one club across different leagues and using a pool of players for the mutual benefit of the 3 clubs. As a football fan would you be happy to see more clubs doing this? Or would you prefer to see them clamp down on the transfer of players between clubs with mutual interests?

 

So as we write these words Man City announcing link with Yankees to create new team in MLS.  

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/manchester-city-yankees-launch-mls-team-150944899.html

[samgrizz1884]

A dive is when there is no contact. Have a look again yourself, you'll see that there was clearly contact, so to say it's a dive is harsh.

Not being bitter, but I really hope Watford don't go up. Not because of the loan system, but because of 95% of their fans.

They've been an average to lower championship side for a few years and after one good season most of the fans seem to think they're gonna take Barcelona on. Never have I seen so much arrogance from such a small club.

All the best in the playoffs, but I for one will be hoping you don't make it.

Yes Knockaert did get enough contact from cassetti to go down and another thing that may of helped the decision of the ref to give the penalty is the raising of his hands towards Knockaert when he made contact they didnt need to be up there. Also what Watford are doing is just abusing the loan system cause it suddenly ok to bring a team of loanee's cause there brought in from outside the English football league/s

[Super_horns]

True - thesedays players only need the slightest of touches to go down..inlcuding our own as I said at the time (although quite frankly there have been times when we've had the likes of Deeney getting pulled back and he's not gone down so nothing is given..)

 

We football fans are bias and fickle - had that been the other way round views would be very difference.