Watford Chant

[ealingfox]

FOOTBALL

Football League clubs are poised to impose tough new restrictions on overseas loan players. It follows Watford's use of the system last season, the Hornets borrowing 14 players of which 10 of them came from Italian side Udinese.

The use of foreign loan players circumvented Football League rules which restrict match-day squads to five loan players, with a maximum of four from any one club. The Football League's 72 clubs meet on Friday in Vilamoura, Portugal, where they are expected to bring the overseas loan player rules into line with the domestic regulations.

A majority of 51% of clubs, and 51% of Championship clubs, is needed but the proposal is expected to receive overwhelming support, report the Press Association.

 

71 against 1 I heard.

[Carl the Llama]

Why are they meeting in Portugal?

[ealingfox]

Why are they meeting in Portugal?

 

Well you wouldn't want your boozy, all-expenses paid summer 'business' meetings to go down in Weston-Super-Mare would you?

[Manwell Pablo]

You're quite right, but then why would I care if those who misbehave don't prosper? They're actions wouldn't have had an impact if they'd finished 12th so there's little to complain about. It's all fairly easy to understand I would've thought.

 

Bit like when someone steal a mars bar, great, how exciting. But when someone steals a car? Now hang on a second. They're both forms of stealing but with different outcomes therefore a different reaction. Very simple.

 

Also, no-one would've listened to me earlier because it wasn't a big deal. I've been against Watford's actions right from the start it's just that I've only spoken up now because people can see the full impact.

 

They aren't misbehaving they've done nothing wrong, .

 

If you see something wrong with the way their operating you should be saying so regardless of how well their doing, as best they fail but someone could quite easily come along and do the same thing with more success.

 

You didn't disagree from the start at all, you're a big fibber and you've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, you care for one sole reason, they beat us and your bitter.

 

If you want to get angry at anyone, get angry at the football league as it looks like they aren't doing anything about it, so clearly they think it's fair.

[ealingfox]

They aren't misbehaving they've done nothing wrong, .

 

If you see something wrong with the way their operating you should be saying so regardless of how well their doing, as best they fail but someone could quite easily come along and do the same thing with more success.

 

You didn't disagree from the start at all, you're a big fibber and you've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, you care for one sole reason, they beat us and your bitter.

 

If you want to get angry at anyone, get angry at the football league as it looks like they aren't doing anything about it, so clearly they think it's fair.

 

To be fair if the experiment wasn't working and they were staving off relegation, the Clubs at the top of the table might not care but the ones at the bottom certainly would.

[Carl the Llama]

They aren't misbehaving they've done nothing wrong, .

 

If you see something wrong with the way their operating you should be saying so regardless of how well their doing, as best they fail but someone could quite easily come along and do the same thing with more success.

 

You didn't disagree from the start at all, you're a big fibber and you've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, you care for one sole reason, they beat us and your bitter.

 

If you want to get angry at anyone, get angry at the football league as it looks like they aren't doing anything about it, so clearly they think it's fair.

Erm.  Look 3 posts above you.

[Guest ttfn]

Oh no, I am really not looking forward to next season. After having remarkable success and massively overachieving, the Pozzo's clearly wont bother giving any more players to us; they'll probably give the rest of their 55 player squad to other teams who will not make them any money. They clearly have given up after a year and are now going to leave us with no players. In fact, none of the current 'loanees' probably want to stay in the Championship, even though they moved to the club as part of a three year promotion plan. What really hurts is that despite getting a small profitable team in Serie A to compete in Europe, and a small Spanish team to stay in La Liga against all odds, building a team - which was one goal at the right time away from securing automatic promotion - was clearly a step too far. If only the Pozzo's were clever enough to sell Watford some players for free instead of loaning them, if only we had clauses in all the international players contracts that we could sign any of them and if only international year long transfers were different from loans; then we could just extend their contracts and get around this 'transfer embargo'. Damn the Daily Mail and their ever precise and accurate journalism.

A few quick questions. When you had the 12 players or so on loan under Sven, would you have felt it was cheating if you had a couple more players in your first team? Were you outraged by the number of loans Doncaster had last year? Are you actually just bitter because a tiny club beat you three times this season and by 3 places in the league, despite spending no money on players whatsoever? Does the name DEEEEENEEEEEYYYYYYYYY still ring in your eyes amongst triumphant jubilation?

When we left Wembley, most of us were disappointed. But I didn't see anyone crying. We are a small club trying to build, and this season was beyond our wildest expectations. The same clearly cannot be said for you. I see you're favourites to go up again this year. Lets see where you end up.

Oh sorry, I completely forgot my song:

When that French cheat dived,

We heard you sing,

That Leicester City were going to win

You all thought then,

You had one hand on the Cup,

But a shame that sh*t French tw*t ****d it up

Down the pitch it went,

then Watford scored

that was when Leicester's tears really poured.

Like babies they wept,

For months, like a stream,

How could such a big club lose to a tinpot team

See you next year.

There is a delicious irony in calling Knockaert a "cheat" for diving. All he was doing was taking advantage of the loophole which exists in the law if "in the opinion of the referee" a foul has been committed.

I mean, what he did was clearly not in the spirit of the rules, but Watford fans seem perfectly willing to abide by their club's exploitation of the rules as they are written rather than the spirit in which they are intended.

FWIW I don't really have a problem with Watford's system nor do I have a problem with Knockaert going down easily. At the end of the day both parties attempted to use the situation which presented itself to their advantage and ended up looking like tits.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Oh no, I am really not looking forward to next season. After having remarkable success and massively overachieving, the Pozzo's clearly wont bother giving any more players to us; they'll probably give the rest of their 55 player squad to other teams who will not make them any money. They clearly have given up after a year and are now going to leave us with no players. In fact, none of the current 'loanees' probably want to stay in the Championship, even though they moved to the club as part of a three year promotion plan. What really hurts is that despite getting a small profitable team in Serie A to compete in Europe, and a small Spanish team to stay in La Liga against all odds, building a team - which was one goal at the right time away from securing automatic promotion - was clearly a step too far. If only the Pozzo's were clever enough to sell Watford some players for free instead of loaning them, if only we had clauses in all the international players contracts that we could sign any of them and if only international year long transfers were different from loans; then we could just extend their contracts and get around this 'transfer embargo'. Damn the Daily Mail and their ever precise and accurate journalism.

A few quick questions. When you had the 12 players or so on loan under Sven, would you have felt it was cheating if you had a couple more players in your first team? Were you outraged by the number of loans Doncaster had last year? Are you actually just bitter because a tiny club beat you three times this season and by 3 places in the league, despite spending no money on players whatsoever? Does the name DEEEEENEEEEEYYYYYYYYY still ring in your eyes amongst triumphant jubilation?

 

When we left Wembley, most of us were disappointed. But I didn't see anyone crying. We are a small club trying to build, and this season was beyond our wildest expectations. The same clearly cannot be said for you. I see you're favourites to go up again this year. Lets see where you end up.

Oh sorry, I completely forgot my song:

When that French cheat dived,

We heard you sing,

That Leicester City were going to win

You all thought then,

You had one hand on the Cup,

But a shame that sh*t French tw*t ****d it up

Down the pitch it went,

then Watford scored

that was when Leicester's tears really poured.

Like babies they wept,

For months, like a stream,

How could such a big club lose to a tinpot team

 

 

See you next year.

Arse-fingeringly bad

[Manwell Pablo]

Erm.  Look 3 posts above you.

 

Ha, well, we're all getting what we want so what's the problem then

[ealingfox]

Exclusive Footage from Football League Meeting as Clubs vote on loans loophole

 

[Guy1960]

I agree with you about Bolton, that is unfair, perhaps it should've been Forest in 6th place. I've got much less of an issue with the Zaha transfer, he was signed in late January so I don't think any of the money Palace got was used on improving the squad. They'd have done the deal in the summer if it was against the rules anyway so I don't think it unfair.

 

Now, you mentioned earlier about loaning in players that it was 'open to anyone' in an attempt to justify Watford's actions, while I don't believe that statement was entirely correct for that situation it is quite applicable for what Cardiff have done - big spending is an option that other clubs can explore. Nonetheless it is rather distasteful which is why FFP is coming in - a change to rules, in a similar I would very much like to see the rules change regarding loans, club ownership etc.

 

You do put forward some good examples I have to say, I still think you're the worst out of all of them.

 

 

If you look at FFP I think it's fair to say it's already been hijacked.  If it were to work actually Watford would benefit more than most because we have had one of the lowest wage bills in the championship over many years and our youth system has always brought through enough to be sold off to keep the wolves at bay.  FFP however will again benefit those that have rather than those that haven't. New investor's who have ambition and funds will not be able to come in and challenge and the big guns have already found ways  circumnavigating the system by sponsoring training grounds, doing shirt deals etc.

 

The Pozzo family have in Italy made Udinese a top team in Italy good enough to compete at the top level without breaking the bank and if they do the same with Watford what's wrong with that?  better bringing in unheard of players rather than splashing out absurd amounts on established players.

[Harry - LCFC]

They aren't misbehaving they've done nothing wrong, .

 

If you see something wrong with the way their operating you should be saying so regardless of how well their doing, as best they fail but someone could quite easily come along and do the same thing with more success.

 

You didn't disagree from the start at all, you're a big fibber and you've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, you care for one sole reason, they beat us and your bitter.

 

If you want to get angry at anyone, get angry at the football league as it looks like they aren't doing anything about it, so clearly they think it's fair.

 

I'm telling you right now that your perceptions about me and my views are wrong.

 

I have been against Watford from the start, it's just that I didn't voice my views which seems to be the cornerstone of your argument. It's unfortunate that you're choosing to go down this path as it suggests you aren't willing to confront the content of my argument. Instead you're pointing out that I didn't say anything before and trying to undermine me that way.

 

In reply to your comment "you've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, you care for one sole reason, they beat us and your bitter." I did actually start speaking out against Watford (not much I admit) as they were gaining a foothold in the POs so there's your evidence for me being against them in the past. This was long before they were scheduled to play us which also demonstrates that I'm not only concerned about ourselves.

 

All I'm asking is that you challenge the points I make rather than petty things like when I started to make them.

 

 

 

If you look at FFP I think it's fair to say it's already been hijacked.  If it were to work actually Watford would benefit more than most because we have had one of the lowest wage bills in the championship over many years and our youth system has always brought through enough to be sold off to keep the wolves at bay.  FFP however will again benefit those that have rather than those that haven't. New investor's who have ambition and funds will not be able to come in and challenge and the big guns have already found ways  circumnavigating the system by sponsoring training grounds, doing shirt deals etc.

 

The Pozzo family have in Italy made Udinese a top team in Italy good enough to compete at the top level without breaking the bank and if they do the same with Watford what's wrong with that?  better bringing in unheard of players rather than splashing out absurd amounts on established players.

 

Like most I realise that FFP is far from perfect, it isn't the destination I want football to arrive at. It is however a step towards that destination.

 

Financial stability has to come about somehow and FFP should allow it to happen. Of course other problems arise from it but I hope that these problems can be snuffed out over time as mistakes are learnt from.

 

I could have no complaints if Watford were to benefit from a correctly implemented FFP system, it's just the current course of action I dislike.

[Manwell Pablo]

I'm telling you right now that your perceptions about me and my views are wrong.

 

I have been against Watford from the start, it's just that I didn't voice my views which seems to be the cornerstone of your argument. It's unfortunate that you're choosing to go down this path as it suggests you aren't willing to confront the content of my argument. Instead you're pointing out that I didn't say anything before and trying to undermine me that way.

 

In reply to your comment "you've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, you care for one sole reason, they beat us and your bitter." I did actually start speaking out against Watford (not much I admit) as they were gaining a foothold in the POs so there's your evidence for me being against them in the past. This was long before they were scheduled to play us which also demonstrates that I'm not only concerned about ourselves.

 

All I'm asking is that you challenge the points I make rather than petty things like when I started to make them.

 

 

You have no points, your points are delt with in one sentance. That being. They've done nothing wrong, no arguement, fact.

 

I'm just trying to point out it's funny that you only pipe up about ethics and the what not when they are doing well, which isn't arguement it is also fact.

[Harry - LCFC]

You have no points, your points are delt with in one sentance. That being. They've done nothing wrong, no arguement, fact.

 

I'm just trying to point out it's funny that you only pipe up about ethics and the what not when they are doing well, which isn't arguement it is also fact.

 

Finally we're onto my actual points which I'm thoroughly looking forward to.    I see you're one of those who thinks the rules represent some kind of moral perfection, a common error which I shall now explain is wrong.

 

Domestic loan cap on players on a matchday: Five. Foreign loan cap on players on a matchday: None.

 

Now there's actually no-one who thinks that's right. I've talked to many people on this topic and there is no-one who even tries to justify such a horrific failing of the rules because everyone is well aware that it is blatantly incorrect.

 

 

Is Watford's behaviour allowed? Yes. But should should it be allowed? Of course not, such ideas are laughable. 

 

And that's ultimately what I'm trying to say here. Watford should not have been allowed to act as they did, therefore they should not have been able to finish 3rd.

[Manwell Pablo]

Finally we're onto my actual points of which I'm thoroughly looking forward to.    I see you're one of those who thinks the rules represent some kind of moral perfection, a common error which I shall now explain is wrong.

 

Domestic loan cap on players on a matchday: Five. Foreign loan cap on players on a matchday: None.

 

 

Now there's actually no-one who thinks that's right. I've talked to many people on this topic and there is no-one who even tries to justify such a horrific failing of the rules because everyone is well aware that it is blatantly incorrect.

 

 

Is Watford's behaviour allowed? Yes. But should should it be allowed? Of course not, such ideas are laughable. 

 

And that's ultimately what I'm trying to say here. Watford should not have been allowed to act as they did, therefore they should not have been able to finish 3rd.

 

 

Neither here nor there whether it should be, it was. End of arguement.

[Harry - LCFC]

Neither here nor there whether it should be, it was. End of arguement.

 

Pathetic. Just bothered about what is rather than what should be. Short-sighted, unwilling to listen and unable to deny that what I'm advocating is correct.

[aefevans]

Finally we're onto my actual points of which I'm thoroughly looking forward to.    I see you're one of those who thinks the rules represent some kind of moral perfection, a common error which I shall now explain is wrong.

 

Domestic loan cap on players on a matchday: Five. Foreign loan cap on players on a matchday: None.

 

Now there's actually no-one who thinks that's right. I've talked to many people on this topic and there is no-one who even tries to justify such a horrific failing of the rules because everyone is well aware that it is blatantly incorrect.

 

 

Is Watford's behaviour allowed? Yes. But should should it be allowed? Of course not, such ideas are laughable. 

 

And that's ultimately what I'm trying to say here. Watford should not have been allowed to act as they did, therefore they should not have been able to finish 3rd.

 

As I said before, I am a Watford fan, and I think anyone on the outside would think it is a bizarre rule. I don't know if there's more to it than that but I can understand when people would question why it's the case. The rule is that international loans are classed as permanent transfers. Until they put a cap on the number of international loans a club can have (which they look like they're going to, and probably rightly so), then Watford simply can not be classed as cheating or misbehaving, regardless of anyone's opinion. Watford have abided by the rules as laid out, as questionable as those rules may be. If anyone here is at fault, it's the governing body for having the rules, rather than Watford. Even Ian Holloway said that ("If there's a loophole, they've found it and they're doing a brilliant job, I can't believe there's such a massive loophole"). But as it is within the rules (or perhaps I should begin to say it was within the rules for that specific season), then it doesn't matter.  Ultimately, Watford (nor any other club) are not 'on their honour' to ignore a rule because someone out there on Planet Internet thinks they can play by the rules and cheat by doing the same thing.

[Harry - LCFC]

As I said before, I am a Watford fan, and I think anyone on the outside would think it is a bizarre rule. I don't know if there's more to it than that but I can understand when people would question why it's the case. The rule is that international loans are classed as permanent transfers. Until they put a cap on the number of international loans a club can have (which they look like they're going to, and probably rightly so), then Watford simply can not be classed as cheating or misbehaving, regardless of anyone's opinion. Watford have abided by the rules as laid out, as questionable as those rules may be. If anyone here is at fault, it's the governing body for having the rules, rather than Watford. Even Ian Holloway said that ("If there's a loophole, they've found it and they're doing a brilliant job, I can't believe there's such a massive loophole"). But as it is within the rules (or perhaps I should begin to say it was within the rules for that specific season), then it doesn't matter.  Ultimately, Watford (nor any other club) are not 'on their honour' to ignore a rule because someone out there on Planet Internet thinks they can play by the rules and cheat by doing the same thing.

 

Yes I agree, which is unusual for me and a Watford fan. 

 

I'm never able to fully win these arguments as people are always able to say that it's within the rules. I can't call it 'cheating' because officially it isn't, but I feel that I should be able to call it cheating. Most people accept that the rules are lacking and there needs to be a change.

 

As much as Watford's actions were allowed this season I'm very pleased that you didn't go up because IMO those actions should not have been allowed.

[Manwell Pablo]

Pathetic. Just bothered about what is rather than what should be. Short-sighted, unwilling to listen and unable to deny that what I'm advocating is correct.

 

I don't even know what your are advocating, if it is a change in the rules fair enough, I think it should be changed and so will most. If it is that Watford should be scorned for being cheaters then no sorry. You can't critise a team for keeping to the rules. End of Arguement. It is not their fault those were the rules and they were stuck to.

[miked2006]

Finally we're onto my actual points of which I'm thoroughly looking forward to.    I see you're one of those who thinks the rules represent some kind of moral perfection, a common error which I shall now explain is wrong.

 

Domestic loan cap on players on a matchday: Five. Foreign loan cap on players on a matchday: None.

 

Now there's actually no-one who thinks that's right. I've talked to many people on this topic and there is no-one who even tries to justify such a horrific failing of the rules because everyone is well aware that it is blatantly incorrect.

 

 

Is Watford's behaviour allowed? Yes. But should should it be allowed? Of course not, such ideas are laughable. 

 

And that's ultimately what I'm trying to say here. Watford should not have been allowed to act as they did, therefore they should not have been able to finish 3rd.

So the rules are forgotten and all we can apply is moral theory...

 

Then is it right that you have been able to go into administration and easily wipe out your debts? You could not, and should not been able to afford your stadium and you should have had to sacrifice a lot more to remain solvent, not least one which so quickly competed competitively in the Championship. If you look at the big 'admin' teams recently who have had time to recover, then you have Palace twice (now in the Premiership), Southampton (Premiership), Leeds (up there for promotion next year), you guys (up there again).

It's not right, but it is the best way to survive. And that is what teams these days have to do.

[Harry - LCFC]

I don't even know what your are advocating, if it is a change in the rules fair enough, I think it should be changed and so will most. If it is that Watford should be scorned for being cheaters then no sorry. You can't critise a team for keeping to the rules. End of Arguement. It is not their fault those were the rules and they were stuck to.

 

Waayy, we agree on something.      That'll do for me. And a rule change is what I'm advocating btw.

 

 

So the rules are forgotten and all we can apply is moral theory...

 

Then is it right that you have been able to go into administration and easily wipe out your debts? You could not, and should not been able to afford your stadium and you should have had to sacrifice a lot more to remain solvent, not least one which so quickly competed competitively in the Championship. If you look at the big 'admin' teams recently who have had time to recover, then you have Palace twice (now in the Premiership), Southampton (Premiership), Leeds (up there for promotion next year), you guys (up there again).

It's not right, but it is the best way to survive. And that is what teams these days have to do.

 

That's ultimately what we should be striving for, yes. But as we aren't in that situation where the rules are perfect I'll have to make do with being happy when behaviour that shouldn't be allowed IMO proves to be unsuccessful.

 

About the stadium - we would've been able to afford had we remained in the PL and started building when were a stable PL side. Unfortunately we were relegated as it was finished and put ourselves into difficulty. It was a risk that didn't come off, we had to build a stadium eventually and that time seemed to be the best moment. I also think our longest stay out of the top flight shows that we haven't recovered quickly at all.

[Super_horns]

Reading on the BBC site that this ruling on overseas loan players might just brought in line with the domestic rules so 5 allowed with 4 from one club.

 

If I am honest I'd be very surprised if we wanted to bring 10 more loan players over anyway...

[Guest]

If I am honest I'd be very surprised if we wanted to bring 10 more loan players over anyway...

You've surprised us all before with that tactic! We're having none of it this time lad!

[Super_horns]

That was a bit of a rush job to get players in - after all IF we did sign some of the loan players on permanent deals would we want 10 more or whatever sitting around not doing much in a squad of 30 or so.

 

Zola said himself he didn't want that many...

 

If that doesn't work we'll have to go by the rules set and work our way round that.

 

You'd think the owners might have planned for the regulations changing.

[Menacer]

 

 

 

 

 

No they did not!

 

Eight loan players in the first eleven. Wrong.

Ownership of several clubs. Wrong.

Acquiring players for nothing and generally abusing the competition. Wrong.

 

Watford's behaviour this season has been about as far from morality in footballing terms as you will ever see. I'm absolutely ecstatic the cheats have failed.

 

 

Actually it is not wrong, Watford played well within the rules and will do so again

 

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/watfordfc/watfordfcnews/10471306._/