Championship 2013/2014 Stuff it in here.

[Guest Col city fan]

It's just two games.

We have a young striker who has proven his ability. He may be off form but I have confidence he will come good and the long-term evidence is there that he can be every bit as effective as Deeney.

I hope you're right.

Personally, I'd rather have 'actual' than 'potential'.

But of course, time will tell.

I'd be surprised today if the starting strikers aren't Nuge and Vardy and personally, I hope it is.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I hope you're right.

Personally, I'd rather have 'actual' than 'potential'.

But of course, time will tell.

I'd be surprised today if the starting strikers aren't Nuge and Vardy and personally, I hope it is.

I hope it is too as that's our best option at the moment.

Deeney was never an option this summer though. I just hope the majority of our fans are willing to give Wood a chance rather than writing him off. And it's irrelevant how good Deeney is really. We can't afford him. It's like Derby fans saying Nugent is good or something.

[Babylon]

I hope you're right.

Personally, I'd rather have 'actual' than 'potential'.

But of course, time will tell.

I'd be surprised today if the starting strikers aren't Nuge and Vardy and personally, I hope it is.

I think 9 in 20 starts for us and 11 in 18 starts for Millwall last season aged 21

He had 3 in 12 starts for Bristol, 9 in 13 starts for Birmingham the season before aged 20

8 in 22 the season before that for Brighton aged 19

 

I think that's more than just potential.

[AKCJ]

Deeney could score 50 goals and I still wouldn't want him playing for us.

 

I don't want my nephew to idolise a thug.

[Guest Col city fan]

I hope it is too as that's our best option at the moment.

Deeney was never an option this summer though. I just hope the majority of our fans are willing to give Wood a chance rather than writing him off. And it's irrelevant how good Deeney is really. We can't afford him. It's like Derby fans saying Nugent is good or something.

I know he wasn't an option this summer buddy.

If you read back, I was talking about the Jan transfer window last season. One or two of us mentioned his name as a potential signing back then. At a time when Watford were about mid table and we were flying high.

Now, of course, it's academic.

[Kinowe Soorie]

Deeney could score 50 goals and I still wouldn't want him playing for us.

 

I don't want my nephew to idolise a thug.

Steve Walsh was a thug and I loved him because of it... still do!

[Fez of Mahrez]

I know he wasn't an option this summer buddy.

If you read back, I was talking about the Jan transfer window last season. One or two of us mentioned his name as a potential signing back then. At a time when Watford were about mid table and we were flying high.

Now, of course, it's academic.

Fair play.

[SmithyFox12]

Boro want Michael Keane.

[Fox92]

Jamie Lawrence took part in a robbery, still played for us.

[reids]

If you'd paid what you should have for those Udinese players you'd be over your FFP limits.

 

Lets not use silly condescending language like that and try and talk down to us, we know you're misbehaving.

I guess Leicester having King Power as your sponsor...and King Power as the stadium sponsor...and Vichai being the CEO of King Power is all totally legitimate, and you weren't paid above more than the average rate for those deals? Right? Oh...

[Danno]

I had Troy Deeney on my 'wish list' on here last season. So did KingFox I think?

I was told don't go near him, he's scum... Blah-di-blah.

I felt he was only going to be get better and it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up being the League's top goalscorer.

Then again, I also gave a shout for Marlon King who again appears to have misdemeanoured. So I guess I can't get it right every time.

Deeney kicked someone in the head outside a club, hardly crime of the century..

[Benditlikevydra]

I don't agree with that. What they're doing is worse.

What we did is to borrow money and spend what wasn't ours. What they've done is to get other clubs (mainly Udinese) to pay for the costs of their players, Watford wouldn't be able to afford the squad they have if they had paid their market value. So they've bought from clubs selling at an artificially low price, this works in the interests of the Pozzos rather that Udinese who actually suffer from this transaction by not getting the fee they could be getting - It's a bit like a 0% interest loan that you never have to pay back.

I understand where you're coming from, on the face of it our behaviour looks worse but when you look a bit closer you realise that their actions give them an even greater advantage with no costs in the long run.

This is probably one of the worst bits of "logic" I've seen on a forum.

Leicester are currently playing in a stadium that was built on the back of other people's money, including local businesses, that lost out following the administration debacle. The fact that those businesses have remained uncompensated whilst Leicester City continue to spend millions throughout the next decade, paying £20k plus, pw to players, is nothing short of theft. That money should be repaid before you try and sit on the moral high ground.

Leicester now exist on a £17m annual loss and huge debt, on the back of a non football related business on the other side of the world, whereas Watford are benefiting from our owners having built a long established scouting network which have produced high levels of football related operating profits. There is little chance of us ever owing any money to any third party. How anyone can prefer your model as being more morally upright, is beyond sensible logic.

I find it extraordinary that most fans that are tending to give Watford stick over their Udinese links are mainly fans of Clubs that have existed and are continuing to exist under a mountain of heavy losses and debt.

Having said the above, I'm not trying to have a go at Leicester. I like your Club and believe that your owners are trying to do the right thing and they are certainly no worse than many other clubs in our division or the premiership. But for you lot get try to take the moral high ground, is ridiculous.

Quite honestly, Harry, you give the impression of being some young students type that has plenty of "forced in" knowledge, but little life experience to be able to use it sensibly.

[Guest ttfn]

This is probably one of the worst bits of "logic" I've seen on a forum.

Leicester are currently playing in a stadium that was built on the back of other people's money, including local businesses, that lost out following the administration debacle. The fact that those businesses have remained uncompensated whilst Leicester City continue to spend millions throughout the next decade, paying £20k plus, pw to players, is nothing short of theft. That money should be repaid before you try and sit on the moral high ground.

Leicester now exist on a £17m annual loss and huge debt, on the back of a non football related business on the other side of the world, whereas Watford are benefiting from our owners having built a long established scouting network which have produced high levels of football related operating profits. There is little chance of us ever owing any money to any third party. How anyone can prefer your model as being more morally upright, is beyond sensible logic.

I find it extraordinary that most fans that are tending to give Watford stick over their Udinese links are mainly fans of Clubs that have existed and are continuing to exist under a mountain of heavy losses and debt.

Having said the above, I'm not trying to have a go at Leicester. I like your Club and believe that your owners are trying to do the right thing and they are certainly no worse than many other clubs in our division or the premiership. But for you lot get try to take the moral high ground, is ridiculous.

Quite honestly, Harry, you give the impression of being some young students type that has plenty of "forced in" knowledge, but little life experience to be able to use it sensibly.

Nothing quite like replying to somebody else's impassioned, senseless rambling a with some of your own.

In modern football, nobody's squeaky clean. Just so happens that at this very moment your club is doing something different, which:

a) Frightens and confuses those who don't understand it and;

b) Shows a flagrant disregard for the spirit of the FFP rules. But then again, you're not the only ones doing that (*cough* Forest *cough*).

You're not doing anything wrong in the same way that those who legally avoid paying tax are not doing anything wrong. I'd find ways to limit my tax exposure if it was worth my while and I had the wherewithal to do so, and I suspect many others would too. Likewise if we'd been Pozzo'd I dare say there'd be barely a peep of protest on this forum but most likely a lot of hand-wringing and wailing and "it's not fairing" on your forum.

Basically, stop trying to claim the moral high-ground here, there isn't one.

[Bayfox]

Boro want Michael Keane.

and nick powell

dull shitty tiggers want deeney. i guess they will offer £2million spread over 16 years based on some of the laugable offers they have made over the summer.

[Benditlikevydra]

Nothing quite like replying to somebody else's impassioned, senseless rambling a with some of your own.

In modern football, nobody's squeaky clean. Just so happens that at this very moment your club is doing something different, which:

a) Frightens and confuses those who don't understand it and;

b) Shows a flagrant disregard for the spirit of the FFP rules. But then again, you're not the only ones doing that (*cough* Forest *cough*).

You're not doing anything wrong in the same way that those who legally avoid paying tax are not doing anything wrong. I'd find ways to limit my tax exposure if it was worth my while and I had the wherewithal to do so, and I suspect many others would too. Likewise if we'd been Pozzo'd I dare say there'd be barely a peep of protest on this forum but most likely a lot of hand-wringing and wailing and "it's not fairing" on your forum.

Basically, stop trying to claim the moral high-ground here, there isn't one.

The FFP rules were brought in to stop Clubs trying to buy success based on debt. First they were brought in by UEFA following the Champions League final, where two English teams where there, (I think Man Utd and Chelsea) on the back of over £1bn debt. It is primarily debt they are worried about! Watford are not living off debt like most other Clubs are. Watford will still have to pay wages and live within their means. If they exceed the loss allowed of £8m this season, then they will have to suffer the consequences, just like Leicester and Forest will. The main difference is that Leicester and Forest have had something approaching £80m of debt on their Club, with annual losses of between £12m and £30m pa. Now, suddenly with the FFP rules you suddenly complain, with indignation, that Watford is competitive without the debt.

The FL are not so concerned about Clubs being on a level playing field and this is demonstrated by the way they allow the loan system. The loan system will always favour the Clubs whose managers and owners are of the "network" type, like Rednapp, like Bruce, etc. that isn't fair, but it exists. It is the financial stability of a Club that really bothers the FL, and Watford are currently showing that they can be competitive, whilst being financially stable.

I think you should read my post properly before responding as you have because I am not claiming any moral high ground, as you will see that I have not responded to many posts on this thread. The only one I responded to was Harry's who routinely posts that living off debt (as Leicester has and continues to do) is more morally correct than what Watford are doing.

Like you, I believe that most clubs will do what ever they can to sustain some sort of competitiveness within the rules. I would suggest that there are very few in the top two divisions that actually totally spend less than they earn. It is only those few clubs that can claim any moral high ground.

[Guest ttfn]

The FFP rules were brought in to stop Clubs trying to buy success based on debt. First they were brought in by UEFA following the Champions League final, where two English teams where there, (I think Man Utd and Chelsea) on the back of over £1bn debt. It is primarily debt they are worried about! Watford are not living off debt like most other Clubs are. Watford will still have to pay wages and live within their means. If they exceed the loss allowed of £8m this season, then they will have to suffer the consequences, just like Leicester and Forest will. The main difference is that Leicester and Forest have had something approaching £80m of debt on their Club, with annual losses of between £12m and £30m pa. Now, suddenly with the FFP rules you suddenly complain, with indignation, that Watford is competitive without the debt.

The FL are not so concerned about Clubs being on a level playing field and this is demonstrated by the way they allow the loan system. The loan system will always favour the Clubs whose managers and owners are of the "network" type, like Rednapp, like Bruce, etc. that isn't fair, but it exists. It is the financial stability of a Club that really bothers the FL, and Watford are currently showing that they can be competitive, whilst being financially stable.

I think you should read my post properly before responding as you have because I am not claiming any moral high ground, as you will see that I have not responded to many posts on this thread. The only one I responded to was Harry's who routinely posts that living off debt (as Leicester has and continues to do) is more morally correct than what Watford are doing.

Like you, I believe that most clubs will do what ever they can to sustain some sort of competitiveness within the rules. I would suggest that there are very few in the top two divisions that actually totally spend less than they earn. It is only those few clubs that can claim any moral high ground.

FFP wasn't brought in to stop clubs running up debt. It was brought in to stop clubs spending beyond their means.

I did read your post properly. Your middle paragraph is odd, you claim not to be claiming the moral high ground, before going on to re-affirm your belief that what Watford are doing is more "morally correct" than when we went into admin (through a freakish combination of having just built a stadium, having just been relegated for the first time in 7 years and ON Digital collapsing). Neither involves playing by the spirit of the rules, but we got away with it as the admin loophole was yet to be closed much as you get away with your methods now.

I've not got a problem with what you're doing. If our owners had the same connections I'd want them to do the same. What I do have a problem with is the Football League's failure to close a loophole that distorts the competition, when FFP has partly been introduced to avoid such a distortion.

The implementation FFP as a whole has been poor. In the Championship specifically it has been a disgrace.

[reids]

FFP wasn't brought in to stop clubs running up debt. It was brought in to stop clubs spending beyond their means.

I've not got a problem with what you're doing. If our owners had the same connections I'd want them to do the same. What I do have a problem with is the Football League's failure to close a loophole that distorts the competition, when FFP has partly been introduced to avoid such a distortion.

The implementation FFP as a whole has been poor. In the Championship specifically it has been a disgrace.

It's also so millionaire/billionaire owners can't just keep giving money to the club. I'm pretty sure Leicesters shirt sponsorship + ground sponsorship is paid at more than the going rate to get round such issues (just like Man City selling the naming rights to their training ground, with the Citys owner brother being in charge of said company)

[The Doctor]

Steve Walsh was a thug and I loved him because of it... still do!

 

Not really - he was a thuggish player, but off the pitch he didn't get up to that sort of thing, Deeney meanwhile had a spell where he couldn't drop the soap, what with being banged up for assault. There's a difference between being a rough player and being a criminal.

[Benditlikevydra]

FFP wasn't brought in to stop clubs running up debt. It was brought in to stop clubs spending beyond their means.

I did read your post properly. Your middle paragraph is odd, you claim not to be claiming the moral high ground, before going on to re-affirm your belief that what Watford are doing is more "morally correct" than when we went into admin (through a freakish combination of having just built a stadium, having just been relegated for the first time in 7 years and ON Digital collapsing). Neither involves playing by the spirit of the rules, but we got away with it as the admin loophole was yet to be closed much as you get away with your methods now.

I've not got a problem with what you're doing. If our owners had the same connections I'd want them to do the same. What I do have a problem with is the Football League's failure to close a loophole that distorts the competition, when FFP has partly been introduced to avoid such a distortion.

The implementation FFP as a whole has been poor. In the Championship specifically it has been a disgrace.

I'm trying not be pedantic here, but debt and "spending beyond means" mean much the same thing. Watford, are obviously not spending beyond their means, like Leicester are - to the tune of some £17m pa. That is the important fact, and that is why we have FFP to contend with now.

Again, please read my post. I am not saying that Watford are more morally correct than Leicester, I just asked if the Leicester situation can be said to be more moral than Watfords. READ THE POST!

Again, if you READ my post, I was not criticising how you went into admin as much as the fact that you have since built up another massive debt and operating loss paying excessive wages and over the top transfer fees, whilst the original financial losers, through he previous mismanagement and admin, have just had to put up with their losses - and then for your fans to criticise us, when we have left no-one with any potential debts unpaid.

As it stands, by your own FFP criteria of spending related to what we earn, we are closer to what the FFP is trying to do than Leicester currently is.

[Guest ttfn]

It's also so millionaire/billionaire owners can't just keep giving money to the club. I'm pretty sure Leicesters shirt sponsorship + ground sponsorship is paid at more than the going rate to get round such issues (just like Man City selling the naming rights to their training ground, with the Citys owner brother being in charge of said company)

These things are benchmarked and reduced accordingly if necessary for FFP compliance purposes.

[Guest ttfn]

I'm trying not be pedantic here, but debt and "spending beyond means" mean much the same thing. Watford, are obviously not spending beyond their means, like Leicester are - to the tune of some £17m pa. That is the important fact, and that is why we have FFP to contend with now.

Again, please read my post. I am not saying that Watford are more morally correct than Leicester, I just asked if the Leicester situation can be said to be more moral than Watfords. READ THE POST!

Again, if you READ my post, I was not criticising how you went into admin as much as the fact that you have since built up another massive debt and operating loss paying excessive wages and over the top transfer fees, whilst the original financial losers, through he previous mismanagement and admin, have just had to put up with their losses - and then for your fans to criticise us, when we have left no-one with any potential debts unpaid.

As it stands, by your own FFP criteria of spending related to what we earn, we are closer to what the FFP is trying to do than Leicester currently is.

Debt and spending beyond means don't mean the same thing.

I read the post you described something as being more "morally correct" than something else. As for the part about debt you specifically referenced us screwing our creditors which was absolutely abhorrent but very much about the 2002/3 admin and nothing to do with the club now, which you are now claiming your post was about when it palpably was not.

Frankly it's an irrelevance as I think we're in agreement that its all 50 shades of shit and everybody's just trying to cheat the system.

People are just pissed off that you're doing it better than anybody else at the moment.

[Benditlikevydra]

We are in agreement in some respects, but it isn't "cheating" if done with full transparency (and every transfer we have done was ratified before the sale went through) and is within he rules. It doesn't matter which dictionary you look at.

[Harry - LCFC]

I guess Leicester having King Power as your sponsor...and King Power as the stadium sponsor...and Vichai being the CEO of King Power is all totally legitimate, and you weren't paid above more than the average rate for those deals? Right? Oh...

 

I see no evidence for that whatsoever so I reject that idea. Spending has been cut dramatically so I doubt that our sponsor is pumping in unfair amounts of cash. I agree it's improper that our owner sponsors us but we don't seem to be exploiting it. So please, don't take that sarcastic "I know what I'm talking about" tone with me when you're probably wrong.

 

 

 

This is probably one of the worst bits of "logic" I've seen on a forum.

Leicester are currently playing in a stadium that was built on the back of other people's money, including local businesses, that lost out following the administration debacle. The fact that those businesses have remained uncompensated whilst Leicester City continue to spend millions throughout the next decade, paying £20k plus, pw to players, is nothing short of theft. That money should be repaid before you try and sit on the moral high ground.

Leicester now exist on a £17m annual loss and huge debt, on the back of a non football related business on the other side of the world, whereas Watford are benefiting from our owners having built a long established scouting network which have produced high levels of football related operating profits. There is little chance of us ever owing any money to any third party. How anyone can prefer your model as being more morally upright, is beyond sensible logic.

I find it extraordinary that most fans that are tending to give Watford stick over their Udinese links are mainly fans of Clubs that have existed and are continuing to exist under a mountain of heavy losses and debt.

Having said the above, I'm not trying to have a go at Leicester. I like your Club and believe that your owners are trying to do the right thing and they are certainly no worse than many other clubs in our division or the premiership. But for you lot get try to take the moral high ground, is ridiculous.

Quite honestly, Harry, you give the impression of being some young students type that has plenty of "forced in" knowledge, but little life experience to be able to use it sensibly.

 

People always assume I'm defending my club over Watford when I talk about this, not so. I don't defend what Leicester have done at all and I don't try to take the moral high ground either. I believe that those who misbehave deserve to struggle and I include my own club in this. We deserved to struggle for our actions and we have done, maybe not as much as some would like but you'd probably call us getting weighed down into League One 'justice' and I'd sort of agree with you.

 

You say I've got a lot of 'forced in' knowledge, on the contrary I think you're suffering from that far more than I am. Looking in from the outside it is extremely obvious that what Watford are doing should not be allowed to happen but as a fan of the club I understand you'd want to defend it most of the time. I however am able to admit what my club did was wrong and it was right that we didn't succeed from it. Neither of us should succeed through misbehaviour.

 

Will you come out and condemn your own club as I have done or will you continue to pretend what you're doing is fair and just?

 

 

 

 The only one I responded to was Harry's who routinely posts that living off debt (as Leicester has and continues to do) is more morally correct than what Watford are doing.

 

Since you question my logic I feel obliged to explain myself again.

 

You dislike Leicester's debt, perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, but please realise that you've only managed to avoid going into debt because Udinese don't demand the transfer fees they could. They're effectively paying for your players by receiving lower revenue on sales. So any debt you should have is paid for by another club rather than you.

 

I don't suppose you like me much and I hope I haven't sounded too rude in my posts but I'm almost certain I'm right and I want people to know what you're doing. Watford are essentially borrowing money from Udinese and the like but never paying it back.

[Ric Flair]

We're crap, Watford are good. We blew money and it made no difference. Watford took advantage of a situation and its paying off. Get over it.

[Benditlikevydra]

People always assume I'm defending my club over Watford when I talk about this, not so. I don't defend what Leicester have done at all and I don't try to take the moral high ground either. I believe that those who misbehave deserve to struggle and I include my own club in this. We deserved to struggle for our actions and we have done, maybe not as much as some would like but you'd probably call us getting weighed down into League One 'justice' and I'd sort of agree with you.

You say I've got a lot of 'forced in' knowledge, on the contrary I think you're suffering from that far more than I am. Looking in from the outside it is extremely obvious that what Watford are doing should not be allowed to happen but as a fan of the club I understand you'd want to defend it most of the time. I however am able to admit what my club did was wrong and it was right that we didn't succeed from it. Neither of us should succeed through misbehaviour.

Will you come out and condemn your own club as I have done or will you continue to pretend what you're doing is fair and just?

Since you question my logic I feel obliged to explain myself again.

You dislike Leicester's debt, perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, but please realise that you've only managed to avoid going into debt because Udinese don't demand the transfer fees they could. They're effectively paying for your players by receiving lower revenue on sales. So any debt you should have is paid for by another club rather than you.

I don't suppose you like me much and I hope I haven't sounded too rude in my posts but I'm almost certain I'm right and I want people to know what you're doing. Watford are essentially borrowing money from Udinese and the like but never paying it back.

You clearly said that, what Watford are doing is worse than what Leiceseter have done, so you are certainly trying to take a higher moral high ground.

You say that we are only avoiding debt because we Udinese are not demanding the transfer fees, but you have it round the wrong way. We are only doing it in the first place because there is no debt involved. If the opportunity wasn't there, we wouldn't do it on borrowed money. Your statement could just so easily said about any club, who only avoids debt by not overspending! It is a stupid premise.

You say we are effectively "borrowing" money and not paying it back, but can you not see that they will be getting their "money" back, in onward transfers, and if we go up. Most players we have bought will go up in value as they get exposure in the English leagues and the profit will stay in the Pozzo family.

I am not going to condemn Watford. I am not going to try and assess where we are compared with another 80 clubs that are all trying to achieve success in 80 different ways. But, what I can say is that we now have a very competitive team and are probably in a far better financial position than the vast majority of Clubs in the entire league - with very little prospect of it going financially "belly-up", even if our owners deserted us, which is highly unlikely because it is costing them relatively little money.

You say that you "are right and you want to let everybody else know what we are doing". Well, I've got a little message for you. Everybody already knows what we are doing. UEFA know, and are not concerned in the slightest as there is no conflict of interest. The FL know, and have ratified every signing we have made. Other Clubs know, and the vast majority that have commented have, either backed us or grudgingly admired what we are doing, wishing that they had thought of it first as they could have avoided the heavy debt they are in.

If we were in the 4th tier, you wouldn't be saying a thing. We are only of interest to you because of the Play Offs and our rivalry this year. We are also different in that we have found a debt free way to become competitive. Why don't you condemn the other teams, such as QPR, or Forest, or Bolton, or the other 15 clubs that will also be competing with Leicester for promotion, but also using debt as their method of survival. Why didn't we hear you last season as you lost out on promotion to Cardiff in about £100m debt, Hull in about £30m debt and Palace who were in Admin only 3 seasons ago, who left around £15m unpaid to local businesses.

I'm sorry, but you are just coming across as envious and/or jealous, rather than informed and rational.