Foreign loan loophole to be closed by Football League (Finally)

[Larry_LCFC]

Apologies if this topic is already running but I couldnt find the thread. About time if you ask me. Good luck Watford.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22800755

 

 

The Football League is set to restrict the use of overseas loans after Championship Watford brought in 10 players from Udinese last season.

Watford, whose owners also own the Italian side, came within a game of promotion, losing the play-off final.

The Football League is expected to limit match-day squads to five loanees, with four from any one club - in line with quotas for domestic loans.

 

Currently overseas loans are regarded as full transfers, so not limited.

The influx of players from Udinese and Granada, who are also owned by the Pozzo family, into Watford's rank was described as "ludicrous" by Palace boss Ian Holloway after the two teams had drawn 2-2 in February.

The Hornets had named seven loan players in their squad for the match, but only Nathaniel Chalobah, on a temporary deal from Chelsea, counted towards their official loan quota.

Their line-up also included Czech striker Matej Vydra, on loan from Udinese, who scored 22 goals en route to landing the Championship Player of the Year award.

"That gives a licence to people to buy English clubs, chuck all their players over here and have a reserve team," said Holloway at the time.

"What if Barcelona wanted to buy us and play their 'B' team for us? We've got to sort this out."

Watford, who are currently under a transfer embargo until 31 August because of their previous owners' financial irregularities, have said they will try to secure the best of their loan players on permanent basis for next season.

The Football League, which appointed a working party to look at the issue following complaints, requires 51% of their 72 members to vote in favour to make a change to the rules.

 

 

[aefevans]

Apologies if this topic is already running but I couldnt find the thread. About time if you ask me. Good luck Watford.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22800755

 

Ah it's fine. We don't want to keep loaning players each season. In fact, that wasn't the initial intention; the only reason we 'loaned' them was because the takeover went through so soon before the start of the season that we didn't have time to scout properly. We'd agreed a deal for Tom Heaton when Sean Dyche was here but after the takeover it was cancelled and Almunia came in instead. 

[Super_horns]

Should we manage to sign a few of the current loan players I am not sure we'd want to have many more loan players filling up the squad just making up numbers.

 

You could still have 10 on loan then though...using the new overseas system and domestic loans.

 

Is that still fair for clubs who maybe cannot afford loan players?

[Harry - LCFC]

So even with the rule change they've still not made it fair. Two from the same club domestically, four from the same foreign club. Not impressed. Good forward step but not enough.

[Dan]

Needn't have bothered. Udinese will move any of these players to Watford on permanent deals and move them back after a year.

 

Standard ineptitude from the FL which I expect rather than feel disappointed at.

[Manwell Pablo]

Should we manage to sign a few of the current loan players I am not sure we'd want to have many more loan players filling up the squad just making up numbers.

 

You could still have 10 on loan then though...using the new overseas system and domestic loans.

 

Is that still fair for clubs who maybe cannot afford loan players?

 

 

Think you've miss read it, I think you're only allowed five loanes, four of which from one club in your matchday squad, in total (how I'm reading it anyway)

[Manwell Pablo]

So even with the rule change they've still not made it fair. Two from the same club domestically, four from the same foreign club. Not impressed. Good forward step but not enough.

 

Erm, where did you get the two from as far as I'm aware it was four for domestic as well........

[Super_horns]

Think you've miss read it, I think you're only allowed five loanes, four of which from one club in your matchday squad, in total (how I'm reading it anyway)

Ah right - sure the FL will make it clear at some point.

 

In about 3 months..

 

[Harry - LCFC]

Erm, where did you get the two from as far as I'm aware it was four for domestic as well........

 

Right next to the section about FL loan rules:  "Kevin Phillips.....added: "We're only allowed to borrow two from the same team in this country.""

 

I also wasn't aware of this, just learnt of it in this article.

[Guest MattP]

Needn't have bothered. Udinese will move any of these players to Watford on permanent deals and move them back after a year.

 

Standard ineptitude from the FL which I expect rather than feel disappointed at.

 

Exactly what I thought, just sign them on a one year deal.

 

The rules will do nothing to deter it if they really want them to play.

[Manwell Pablo]

"Kevin Phillips.....added: "We're only allowed to borrow two from the same team in this country.""

 

Right next to the section about FL loan rules. I also wasn't aware of this either, just learnt of it in this article.

 

Well someones going wrong somewhere as at the top it says that five in total with four from the same club is "in line with domestic domestic quote for loans"

[Manwell Pablo]

Exactly what I thought, just sign them on a one year deal.

 

The rules will do nothing to deter it if they really want them to play.

 

Not quite that easy as that....if a player is on a two / three / four year contract at Udine they aren't going to agree to termination/transfer for the sake of a year at Watford....Should the player do well (like Vydra) the Pozzos lose out completley as the player in question can go and sign for who he wants, for no money.

 

Not saying they wont do it has several really bad ramifications that simply loaning players doesn't have.

[Harry - LCFC]

Well someones going wrong somewhere as at the top it says that five in total with four from the same club is "in line with domestic domestic quote for loans"

 

I'm on the FL website and it isn't helping, it doesn't explicitly say either way.

 

Here's the relevant bit of info

 

"52.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (Standard, Emergency or Youth) can be named in the Players listed on a team sheet for any individual match played under the auspices of The League. This figure shall include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the provisions of Regulation 54.

 

52.3.2 Up to 4 loan Players (Standard, Emergency or Youth) may join one Club from another Club in any Season. An additional Youth Loan Player may be added to this figure."

 

Says up to four in the squad but nothing specific about the matchday squad. Implies a limit of four I think but I'm left wondering where Phillips got the number two from.

[Adster]

Needn't have bothered. Udinese will move any of these players to Watford on permanent deals and move them back after a year.

 

Standard ineptitude from the FL which I expect rather than feel disappointed at.

I thought this too. Closing this rule doesn't really do anything to deter what they've done this season. Of they really want these players from their also-owned clubs they'll just sign them on one year deals with the same salary and sell them back after a year if they want.

[Guest MattP]

Not quite that easy as that....if a player is on a two / three / four year contract at Udine they aren't going to agree to termination/transfer for the sake of a year at Watford....Should the player do well (like Vydra) the Pozzos lose out completley as the player in question can go and sign for who he wants, for no money.

 

Not saying they wont do it has several really bad ramifications that simply loaning players doesn't have.

 

Be more difficult of course, but it's something they will manage to work around.

 

Let's be honest anyway, a match day squad having five loan players doesn't really close any loophole, it's still going to make an absolutely massive difference and it's still completely unfair.

[Stuliasz]

It will be interesting to see how Watford approach this season in terms of recruitment. No doubt the changes still leave a few loopholes, but if I was in their position now, I don't think I'd want another season of being perceived as the bad guys (for want of a better term) of the league, won't do their long term reputation much good.

[Super_horns]

It will be interesting to see how Watford approach this season in terms of recruitment. No doubt the changes still leave a few loopholes, but if I was in their position now, I don't think I'd want another season of being perceived as the bad guys (for want of a better term) of the league, won't do their long term reputation much good.

Do clubs worry about that so much now in terms of what they do on the pitch - sure they want good PR off it but we've got loads of stick for various reasons over the years.

 

I'd say though we did get away with the transfer embargo situation because there was a fear we'd lose points but that was down to Bassini messing around rather than these guys.

 

Of course as the rules are changing we will have to respect that and work around it.

[MooseBreath]

Even if it's not the perfect solution, it's good to see the world of football acting swiftly to cut out what was blatantly unethical practice from Watford last season. It's just a shame it wasn't cut out sooner, or that we can't back date the rules and replay the play offs with the cheaters disqualified.

[Guy1960]

Even if it's not the perfect solution, it's good to see the world of football acting swiftly to cut out what was blatantly unethical practice from Watford last season. It's just a shame it wasn't cut out sooner, or that we can't back date the rules and replay the play offs with the cheaters disqualified.

 

Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

 

Replay the playoffs?  really?  So how are Crystal Palace going to feel about giving up their premier league status?

 

Watford have not broken any rules.  The players from Udinese and Granada belong to the owners so they are not really loans at all. If they had wanted to Gianpaolo Pozzo who owns Udinese could have asked his son Gino Pozzo who owns Watford for transfer fees, would have changed anything and neither will the changes to the loan regulations. 

[yorkie1999]

So am i right in thinking, it's 4 senior player loans and one youth player loan per season? 

[Super_horns]

Even if it's not the perfect solution, it's good to see the world of football acting swiftly to cut out what was blatantly unethical practice from Watford last season. It's just a shame it wasn't cut out sooner, or that we can't back date the rules and replay the play offs with the cheaters disqualified.

Ironically we probably did cheat when Dyche was in charge under Bassini because the latter failed to revel what he was doing regarding money we got from Swansea because had the FL known we would have not been able to sign a number of loan players who certainly helped us move from a relegation battle to mid-table safety...

 

This wasn't against the rules as such...

[Dan]

Not quite that easy as that....if a player is on a two / three / four year contract at Udine they aren't going to agree to termination/transfer for the sake of a year at Watford....Should the player do well (like Vydra) the Pozzos lose out completley as the player in question can go and sign for who he wants, for no money.

 

Not saying they wont do it has several really bad ramifications that simply loaning players doesn't have.

 

If the player is happy to be on loan at Watford (assuming the likes of Vydra were) then I reckon they'd do it, but that's a clever way of thinking about it.

[Harry - LCFC]

Watford have not broken any rules.  The players from Udinese and Granada belong to the owners so they are not really loans at all. If they had wanted to Gianpaolo Pozzo who owns Udinese could have asked his son Gino Pozzo who owns Watford for transfer fees, would have changed anything and neither will the changes to the loan regulations. 

 

So you're not really a club anymore? You're just part of the ugly conglomerate that is Pozzo FC, no identity, nothing unique, just a puppet.

 

You said it yourself, they're the Pozzo's players, not yours or Udinese's. They've merged three clubs into one competing across three divisions, easily able to ship their troops to where they're most needed.

 

That's what your existence consists of now, loans between clubs "are not really loans at all" because you aren't just Watford FC anymore you're part of a larger super-club that's sucking up footballing outlets across Europe.

 

All of this comes from your words by the way, I've just expanded on them and added my own opinion.

[MooseBreath]

Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

Replay the playoffs? really? So how are Crystal Palace going to feel about giving up their premier league status?

Watford have not broken any rules. The players from Udinese and Granada belong to the owners so they are not really loans at all. If they had wanted to Gianpaolo Pozzo who owns Udinese could have asked his son Gino Pozzo who owns Watford for transfer fees, would have changed anything and neither will the changes to the loan regulations.

Watford didn't break any rules but their actions were clearly unethical, hence why the whole of football called for the loophole to be closed and why the football league have responded.

They will go on with their unethical attempts to circumnavigate the usual challenges clubs face to get promotion, of that we can be sure. The rest of football will continue to look at them with fully deserved contempt and hope that they fail again.

As for replaying the play offs, it is clearly out of the question, but would be justice for clubs like Leicester and more so the likes of Bolton who were denied a play off spot due to a club doing what will from now on be officially considered cheating. Some kind of compensation would be agreeable. Maybe even a moderate points deduction for Watford next season.

[Solihullfox]

If the same family owns a number of clubs, let's say Udinese, Granada and Watford, selling players to Watford for £1 per player that would have been loaned under last seasons rules is really not an issue for the owner. They can be bought back for 1 euro at the end of the 2013 - 2014 season if that is what the owners want to do AND completely circumvent the FFP rules re cost of transfers counting against revenue.

That is what what I would do as the owner or am I missing something ?