Championship 2013/2014 Stuff it in here.

[BHAFC Braders]

Such a shame though, I consider your ground to be one of the biggest fortresses in the league and today it just fell apart. What's the new man like?

Thanks , think poogate has taken the edge of that somewhat (we looked mediocre in the pre-seasons at the AMEX and abysmal in the Newport game too) 

 

Oscars settling in but think he's currently working with one hand tied behind his back , guessing a fair whack of moneys being put aside in case Gus wins this court case so we're making do with budget signings (Adam Chicksen , Keith Andrews etc..) rather then Oscars kind've signings.

 

It'll be a tough year and although people keep pointing out "ooh Oscar didn't win any of his first seven games at Tel Aviv before winning the league" etc.. you can't really start off in such a way in the Championship , especially not this season.

 

But congrats to you guys - decent enough start to the season , put Leeds to the sword Yesterday - good luck to you.

[Harry - LCFC]

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.

 

  Good, you've what I wanted you to say.

 

I said earlier that Udinese were suffering from this when I knew full well that they weren't, you wanted to correct me and explain how they were benefitting also. Of course, as you say, this happens by the Pozzos profiting from Watford's success in the PL and then seeing money reinvested back in Italy. A nice simple explanation and one that makes perfect sense.

 

But....

 

This means that the two clubs are very much co-operating i.e. they aren't acting independently which they should be doing. Any collusion (such as the sort you have just explained to me) distorts the competition and is unfair on clubs who compete as individuals. Collusion like this is actually illegal on EU law by the way but I won't get into that, suffice to say that it isn't fair for the individual and that such behaviour should be discouraged wherever possible (note the banning of co-ownership in England).

 

 

I don't feel I need to say anymore. You were happy to admit the plan involved co-operation and that this had mutual benefit to all involved, and that it is exactly why the plan is wrong and that is exactly why co-ownership of clubs is banned in England. You can forget everything else I've said if you want to, I just wanted to draw your attention to that particular point.

 

Collusion is wrong, you said you're colluding with Udinese. What more is there to say? I'm done.

 

PS - Of course I condemn Forest and Cardiff etc. I just didn't because this conversation was about Watford. And yeah I may have slightly taken the moral where it probably wasn't my place to do so.

[lgfualol]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23669181

 

Watford have got another player on loan, from Granada. 

 

L o l

[ADK]

Quick start another 3 threads about them!

[Harry - LCFC]

"signed...on a season long loan from sister club Granada"

 

 

The fact that it's a loan move doesn't bother me, it's that they're working with other clubs to progress. Clubs should act independently, not together. Colluding like this gives an unfair advantage on those who act as they are supposed to, as individual clubs. I don't how much more evidence you need really, it's so obvious.

[AnotherShitSeason]

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.

 

Nailed it.

[Essington blue]

Success? We both lost in the play-offs last year, we both didn't gain promotion, and should we win tomorrow we'll have the same record as them this season.

 

They aren't much better off.

?????? They have Zola as manager & we have you know who!!! Look at the bigger picture!

[Benditlikevydra]

  Good, you've what I wanted you to say.

 

I said earlier that Udinese were suffering from this when I knew full well that they weren't, you wanted to correct me and explain how they were benefitting also. Of course, as you say, this happens by the Pozzos profiting from Watford's success in the PL and then seeing money reinvested back in Italy. A nice simple explanation and one that makes perfect sense.

 

But....

 

This means that the two clubs are very much co-operating i.e. they aren't acting independently which they should be doing. Any collusion (such as the sort you have just explained to me) distorts the competition and is unfair on clubs who compete as individuals. Collusion like this is actually illegal on EU law by the way but I won't get into that, suffice to say that it isn't fair for the individual and that such behaviour should be discouraged wherever possible (note the banning of co-ownership in England).

 

 

I don't feel I need to say anymore. You were happy to admit the plan involved co-operation and that this had mutual benefit to all involved, and that it is exactly why the plan is wrong and that is exactly why co-ownership of clubs is banned in England. You can forget everything else I've said if you want to, I just wanted to draw your attention to that particular point.

 

Collusion is wrong, you said you're colluding with Udinese. What more is there to say? I'm done.

 

PS - Of course I condemn Forest and Cardiff etc. I just didn't because this conversation was about Watford. And yeah I may have slightly taken the moral where it probably wasn't my place to do so.

You're completely bonkers! Everybody knows the two clubs are colluding! Why are you getting me to try and admit something that everybody already knows?

There is no reason why two clubs cannot be owned by the same person in Europe. If we reached, for example, the Europa Cup, at the same time as Udinese, then there are already clear rules that one of them has to drop out, and which one will be determined by strict criteria.

Of course, two clubs cannot be owned by the same people in England because we are in the same competition, therefore there is a conflict of interest. Again, everybody knows this. What on earth are you on about?

There are many Clubs in Europe that work together with other clubs to mutual benefit. So tell me where the EU say that working together in this way is illegal. This is one of the most ridiculous things you have said. So please, "go into it" back up your stupid claims.

Really, you're arguments are so groundless. I'd have far more respect if you had admitted that you are just jealous of our good fortune.

[Rocky Dennis]

you are just jealous of our good fortune.

 

Start talking about 'good fortune' after you've won something Bruv!!

[ian_marshall]

To be fair to the Watford fans, whilst I don't necessarily agree with the way their club have gone about things, they have set a precedent and there is nothing to stop us or any other club following suit in an attempt to side step FFP.

I mentioned during the close season that this was an option open to us with the acquisition of Army FC, although clearly so far the club have either decided only to use that option as a last resort or haven't considered how such an association could be used to their benefit.

Either way, should the owners become desperate they certainly have the resources and associations to replicate the Watford model in order achieve a similar outcome.

[Harry - LCFC]

You're completely bonkers! Everybody knows the two clubs are colluding! Why are you getting me to try and admit something that everybody already knows?

There is no reason why two clubs cannot be owned by the same person in Europe. If we reached, for example, the Europa Cup, at the same time as Udinese, then there are already clear rules that one of them has to drop out, and which one will be determined by strict criteria.

Of course, two clubs cannot be owned by the same people in England because we are in the same competition, therefore there is a conflict of interest. Again, everybody knows this. What on earth are you on about?

There are many Clubs in Europe that work together with other clubs to mutual benefit. So tell me where the EU say that working together in this way is illegal. This is one of the most ridiculous things you have said. So please, "go into it" back up your stupid claims.

Really, you're arguments are so groundless. I'd have far more respect if you had admitted that you are just jealous of our good fortune.

 

My argument isn't groundless at all, I've got a point here whether you agree with it or not. I find it a little disrespectful of you to label my claims stupid when my argument does actually make a lot of sense. I don't dislike you and I enjoy talking to someone about this topic but I have to say I prefer talking to Super_horns, he listens to me better than you do.

 

Here are two ways that such behaviour can be unfair:

• Co-owned clubs can get players for less than they're worth as their wealthier sisters don't charge as much if the owners want to. In this way you can stay within your FFP limits when you would be going over if you were paying market value. It isn't right that a club should you be able to undercut the market and not compete like everyone else must.
• Another scenario could be that Watford charge way over a player's value to Udinese if they need more funds to extend their FFP limits - so they just alter the clubs' revenues/costs artificially in a way that best suits the Pozzos. Unlike other clubs who have to look for bargains to remain within their FFP limits.

The main point is that you don't compete in the market like other clubs have to. Prices can literally be chosen by the owners in a way that suits them best.

 

 

I don't know where to look for the official document that says collusion is illegal, sorry about that. Wikipedia has this to say: "Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law" Unfortunately legal bodies don't seem to take much interest in football. But any investigation would surely conclude that the Pozzo 'cartel' of Watford, Granada and Udinese are indeed colluding and distorting the competition which would likely lead to measures being taken to prevent this behaviour.

 

In one sentence to sum up my point: Watford are colluding with other clubs, colluding is illegal, therefore the Pozzos should be stopped from doing what they're doing. Tell me that's a stupid, groundless claim to make.

[Benditlikevydra]

My argument isn't groundless at all, I've got a point here whether you agree with it or not. I find it a little disrespectful of you to label my claims stupid when my argument does actually make a lot of sense. I don't dislike you and I enjoy talking to someone about this topic but I have to say I prefer talking to Super_horns, he listens to me better than you do.

 

Here are two ways that such behaviour can be unfair:

• Co-owned clubs can get players for less than they're worth as their wealthier sisters don't charge as much if the owners want to. In this way you can stay within your FFP limits when you would be going over if you were paying market value. It isn't right that a club should you be able to undercut the market and not compete like everyone else must.
• Another scenario could be that Watford charge way over a player's value to Udinese if they need more funds to extend their FFP limits - so they just alter the clubs' revenues/costs artificially in a way that best suits the Pozzos. Unlike other clubs who have to look for bargains to remain within their FFP limits.

The main point is that you don't compete in the market like other clubs have to. Prices can literally be chosen by the owners in a way that suits them best.

 

 

I don't know where to look for the official document that says collusion is illegal, sorry about that. Wikipedia has this to say: "Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law" Unfortunately legal bodies don't seem to take much interest in football. But any investigation would surely conclude that the Pozzo 'cartel' of Watford, Granada and Udinese are indeed colluding and distorting the competition which would likely lead to measures being taken to prevent this behaviour.

 

In one sentence to sum up my point: Watford are colluding with other clubs, colluding is illegal, therefore the Pozzos should be stopped from doing what they're doing. Tell me that's a stupid, groundless claim to make.

 

 

 

You DO have groundless arguments!

 

Any collusion issues come where it is intended to distort the markets. Something we are obviously not doing. One or both of the parties involved would need to be market leaders or have some sort of monopoly of the markets. Again, not in our case. Udinese and Watford are not in the same competition so we are not being anti-competitive, etc, etc. Before you make wild accusations of collusion, just check out the dictionary and its context in relation to European trade. It only exists where there is a desire to affect the markets. 

 

Furthermore everybody, including the football authorities, recognise that there is not a "market" for players like there is for other consumer goods (which can be manipulated). If Liverpool want to sell a player (Suarez) to Arsenal they can charge what they like (£60m) and, because they are not rivals in the same competition, this fee will probably be higher than if he went to Real Madrid (£50m) for example. Or they could let him go for nothing. There are no rules based on an "expected" transfer fee. That is one reason why no Club is forced to release the actual fee, hence the "undisclosed fee"  announcements following a transfer. 

 

There is actually far more "collusion" being experienced in the English leagues through misuse of the Loan opportunities, where there is plain advantages to be gained by, for example, Man Utd (SAF) loaning a good player to Hull (Steve Bruce) in an effort to help Hull take points off Man Utds title rivals.

 

You speak a lot about FFP. There is concern about associated party transactions in regard to deals such as sponsorship, for FFP purposes. The reason for this is that Clubs like PSG have entered into a vastly inflated and backdated sponsorship deal with Qatar Airways which is obviously expressly to "hide" the otherwise huge operating loss PSG will be making. So Forest's latest deal and yours with King Power, will be assessed as to whether a market price has been paid. The concern is that should the likes of King Power "pull out" then the Club would get left high and dry. But in Watfords situation, we have not done it to cover up financial losses, but to avoid them in the first place, which is exactly what FFP was designed to do - avoid financial losses. FFP is there to ensure that finances do not get out of control, not to ensure that every club starts off with an equal quality playing squad at the start of the season.

 

Your second scenario about Watford selling a players at inflated prices to Udinese is unlikely to upset anyone except rival supporters like you. But, we aren't doing that anyway But if, in the future, that is done to "hide" operating losses, then maybe it will be looked at by the authorities. But until it does happen it doesn't even need to be discussed. 

[KFS]

This is all getting very boring now

[Stadt]

You would have to be bored if you go into another clubs forum to argue about something just because it regards your club.

[Harry - LCFC]

 

You DO have groundless arguments!

 

Any collusion issues come where it is intended to distort the markets. Something we are obviously not doing. One or both of the parties involved would need to be market leaders or have some sort of monopoly of the markets. Again, not in our case. Udinese and Watford are not in the same competition so we are not being anti-competitive, etc, etc. Before you make wild accusations of collusion, just check out the dictionary and its context in relation to European trade. It only exists where there is a desire to affect the markets. 

 

Furthermore everybody, including the football authorities, recognise that there is not a "market" for players like there is for other consumer goods (which can be manipulated). If Liverpool want to sell a player (Suarez) to Arsenal they can charge what they like (£60m) and, because they are not rivals in the same competition, this fee will probably be higher than if he went to Real Madrid (£50m) for example. Or they could let him go for nothing. There are no rules based on an "expected" transfer fee. That is one reason why no Club is forced to release the actual fee, hence the "undisclosed fee"  announcements following a transfer. 

 

There is actually far more "collusion" being experienced in the English leagues through misuse of the Loan opportunities, where there is plain advantages to be gained by, for example, Man Utd (SAF) loaning a good player to Hull (Steve Bruce) in an effort to help Hull take points off Man Utds title rivals.

 

You speak a lot about FFP. There is concern about associated party transactions in regard to deals such as sponsorship, for FFP purposes. The reason for this is that Clubs like PSG have entered into a vastly inflated and backdated sponsorship deal with Qatar Airways which is obviously expressly to "hide" the otherwise huge operating loss PSG will be making. So Forest's latest deal and yours with King Power, will be assessed as to whether a market price has been paid. The concern is that should the likes of King Power "pull out" then the Club would get left high and dry. But in Watfords situation, we have not done it to cover up financial losses, but to avoid them in the first place, which is exactly what FFP was designed to do - avoid financial losses. FFP is there to ensure that finances do not get out of control, not to ensure that every club starts off with an equal quality playing squad at the start of the season.

 

Your second scenario about Watford selling a players at inflated prices to Udinese is unlikely to upset anyone except rival supporters like you. But, we aren't doing that anyway But if, in the future, that is done to "hide" operating losses, then maybe it will be looked at by the authorities. But until it does happen it doesn't even need to be discussed. 

 

 

Hang on, this is just comical. Here's a quote from you earlier "You're completely bonkers! Everybody knows the two clubs are colluding! Why are you getting me to try and admit something that everybody already knows?" but now you're saying you're not colluding. You've had to go back on your earlier comment now that you've realised collusion is indeed damaging as I said.

 

And yes you are in the same competition - the market for players - which relates to the separate competitions Serie A, La Liga and the Championship.

 

What you're doing is affecting the footballing competition through your ability to stay out of the market for players - it's quite a complex accusation really as there are two competitions involved that affect each other. When you 'buy' from a sister club i.e. yourself, that isn't competition, that isn't participation in the market. Think about it, you can't actually buy things from yourself - the product goes to you and the money goes to you. You've just got one big pool of players available to you which you can ferry around with relative ease at whatever price suits the plan. That is not competition which is what should be taking place.

 

I'm partly in agreement that loans can be misused in the English game but it gains less of an advantage so I don't accept that this sort of behaviour represent 'far more' collusion than what the Pozzos are doing. Sponsorships are also a concern but I think altering prices in the way the Pozzo clubs have surely done is little different to inflating that source of income, again it's all about a prices being altered by co-owned companies.

 

I'm probably going to stop for a bit now as I realise this topic isn't everyone's cup of tea and I don't want to clog up this thread which happens to be one of my favourites. Thanks for your time, hope I haven't been too annoying although I do insist that there is very sound logic to what I'm saying even if you disagree, might speak to you later.

[Guest Col city fan]

Hang on, this is just comical. Here's a quote from you earlier "You're completely bonkers! Everybody knows the two clubs are colluding! Why are you getting me to try and admit something that everybody already knows?" but now you're saying you're not colluding. You've had to go back on your earlier comment now that you've realised collusion is indeed damaging as I said.

And yes you are in the same competition - the market for players - which relates to the separate competitions Serie A, La Liga and the Championship.

What you're doing is affecting the footballing competition through your ability to stay out of the market for players - it's quite a complex accusation really as there are two competitions involved that affect each other. When you 'buy' from a sister club i.e. yourself, that isn't competition, that isn't participation in the market. Think about it, you can't actually buy things from yourself - the product goes to you and the money goes to you. You've just got one big pool of players available to you which you can ferry around with relative ease at whatever price suits the plan. That is not competition which is what should be taking place.

I'm partly in agreement that loans can be misused in the English game but it gains less of an advantage so I don't accept that this sort of behaviour represent 'far more' collusion than what the Pozzos are doing. Sponsorships are also a concern but I think altering prices in the way the Pozzo clubs have surely done is little different to inflating that source of income, again it's all about a prices being altered by co-owned companies.

I'm probably going to stop for a bit now as I realise this topic isn't everyone's cup of tea and I don't want to clog up this thread which happens to be one of my favourites. Thanks for your time, hope I haven't been too annoying although I do insist that there is very sound logic to what I'm saying even if you disagree, might speak to you later.

This really is now getting very very boring..

[Harry - LCFC]

This really is now getting very very boring..

 

You allow yourself to be walked over if you don't seek to question things, casting a blind eye can be dangerous if you do it too often.

 

To be honest I get bored by it as well at times but it's an important topic IMO, it doesn't hurt to raise it every now and again. Admittedly this time round has been particularly dull and I apologise for that but I don't apologise for being the one to question something that should be questioned.

[Benditlikevydra]

Hang on, this is just comical. Here's a quote from you earlier "You're completely bonkers! Everybody knows the two clubs are colluding! Why are you getting me to try and admit something that everybody already knows?" but now you're saying you're not colluding. You've had to go back on your earlier comment now that you've realised collusion is indeed damaging as I said.

 

And yes you are in the same competition - the market for players - which relates to the separate competitions Serie A, La Liga and the Championship.

 

What you're doing is affecting the footballing competition through your ability to stay out of the market for players - it's quite a complex accusation really as there are two competitions involved that affect each other. When you 'buy' from a sister club i.e. yourself, that isn't competition, that isn't participation in the market. Think about it, you can't actually buy things from yourself - the product goes to you and the money goes to you. You've just got one big pool of players available to you which you can ferry around with relative ease at whatever price suits the plan. That is not competition which is what should be taking place.

 

I'm partly in agreement that loans can be misused in the English game but it gains less of an advantage so I don't accept that this sort of behaviour represent 'far more' collusion than what the Pozzos are doing. Sponsorships are also a concern but I think altering prices in the way the Pozzo clubs have surely done is little different to inflating that source of income, again it's all about a prices being altered by co-owned companies.

 

I'm probably going to stop for a bit now as I realise this topic isn't everyone's cup of tea and I don't want to clog up this thread which happens to be one of my favourites. Thanks for your time, hope I haven't been too annoying although I do insist that there is very sound logic to what I'm saying even if you disagree, might speak to you later.

There is a clear difference between colluding in the general sense and colluding when trying to fix market prices. They are as different as chalk and cheese. If you cant see the difference, then there is no hope.

 

Udinese's players weren't on the market, they were only available to us because our owners havn't put them on the general market. We are not breaking any EU rules, and to suggest so, is ridiculous. Yes, we have a general pool of players that can be moved around the family's clubs, without creating any debt and without competing with other clubs. It doesn't really matter much how you fail to understand it, nor how you dislike it it because you think it gives us an edge. 

 

Your owners covering your £17m of operating losses and £m's of debt, gives Leicester an unfair advantage over every other club that doesn't have a mega rich owner.

 

Also, the fact is your owners can buy up another club in Europe and do exactly the same as us, so it is not an unfair advantage that we have over Leicester.

 

You also fail to understand why FFP is here. I've tried to explain that it is there to stop debt, (hence the purely financial basis of the qualifying criteria) but you just seem to ignore it!

 

But, you are right. I've no wish to take over this thread as the majority of posters have little concern for this subject.

[Bert]

There is a clear difference between colluding in the general sense and colluding when trying to fix market prices. They are as different as chalk and cheese. If you cant see the difference, then there is no hope.

 

Udinese's players weren't on the market, they were only available to us because our owners havn't put them on the general market. We are not breaking any EU rules, and to suggest so, is ridiculous. Yes, we have a general pool of players that can be moved around the family's clubs, without creating any debt and without competing with other clubs. It doesn't really matter much how you fail to understand it, nor how you dislike it it because you think it gives us an edge. 

 

Your owners covering your £17m of operating losses and £m's of debt, gives Leicester an unfair advantage over every other club that doesn't have a mega rich owner.

 

Also, the fact is your owners can buy up another club in Europe and do exactly the same as us, so it is not an unfair advantage that we have over Leicester.

 

But, you are right. I've no wish to take over this thread as the majority of posters have little concern for this subject.

You a baggies fan? Weird username if not.

[Kitchandro]

?????? They have Zola as manager & we have you know who!!! Look at the bigger picture!

 

WTF has Zola ever done as a manager? Shit at West Ham, suspect at Watford.If he doesn't go up this season he'll have had a nightmare.

[Bilsthorpe Blue]

You a baggies fan? Weird username if not.

 

[Guest Bilo]

You a baggies fan? Weird username if not.

 

Beats benditlikeelton I suppose.

[Benditlikevydra]

You a baggies fan? Weird username if not.

Yeah, you are right, if I hang around I'll change it. Actually I tried several weeks ago, but couldn't find put how to do it!

 

I may come back, particularly as Harry is now "threatening" to put something together and getting very friendly with your Forest rivals on their Forums. (he's calling us a "bunch of ****ing cheating ****ers!"). No problem with that, so long as he is honest, checks his facts rather than just use the crap he has used so far. 

[RedHux]

It's true, Harry is one of us now.

[Leicester_Numan]

Yeah, you are right, if I hang around I'll change it. Actually I tried several weeks ago, but couldn't find put how to do it!

I may come back, particularly as Harry is now "threatening" to put something together and getting very friendly with your Forest rivals on their Forums. (he's calling us a "bunch of ****ing cheating ****ers!"). No problem with that, so long as he is honest, checks his facts rather than just use the crap he has used so far.

You'll have to make a new account, you have to make thousands of posts before you can change your user name