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

[Harry - LCFC]

What makes me laugh, is the sense of moral righteousness some of you have. Watford are owned by foreigners like over half the Championship, including Leicester. The big difference is that our owners are real football people, whose main business is football. They have a proven track record of sustained success with their other two clubs, and have done it without amassing huge debt like Cardiff, Forest, Bolton and, yes, Leicester have done. All the other foreign owners in this division are using the Club as a play thing or hobby. When they get bored, or if the Club costs too much, they will leave.

Some of you believe it is morally correct to build a squad using debt, others will disagree and think that the Pozzo way is morally correct. Certainly, Clubs that are being run sensibly and judiciously, within their budgets, will feel aggrieved if other Clubs are doing the opposite, living beyond their means and are only bailed out via funds coming in from Asia.

How is using someone else's money (through debt) to buy players and to support the Clubs operational costs, more morally correct than using players owned by the owner.

It is debt that is the scourge of the game. Particularly as, in the event of administration and bankruptcy the losers are often not the owners, but local businesses, with their 10p in the £, and the fans who are left with the wreck of a Club. It is the sort of debt that Leicester had, that has forced the implementation of the FFP rules - not what Watford did this last season.

So before you preach from your high horse, just consider whether you actually have the right to present yourself as so morally perfect, whilst sneering another Club that has found a way to compete, without debt.

 

What makes me laugh is how you think what you're doing is somehow morally correct - You've found a way to 'compete' ( ) without debt. The reason you don't have to build up debt is because you don't have to compete!

 

You're just given players for nothing. At least other clubs actually spend money, even if it isn't theirs, and force some hefty repayments upon themselves. You just don't take part in the competition, you're in your own little bubble in the transfer market and are just handed quality players giving you a far, far greater advantage than those who build up debt.

 

I don't pretend to think that debt is a good thing but that course of action does at least involve taking part in the competition even if it is skewed a little.

[Super_horns]

and are just handed quality players giving you a far, far greater advantage than those who build up debt.

.

IF we do get them which as pointed out by other members is far from certain is and clearly we didn't gain that much of an advantage compared to at least 3 teams as we're still in this league!

 

 

You were only 1 penalty away from knocking us out as well.

 

Sure we certainly aided ourselves from the mid-table position to 3rd with the likes of Abdi and Vydra coming in (and Chalobah who was probably the 3rd most important loan player) but we were just as inconsistent as anyone else at times particularly at end of the season.

 

Had we won the league with a record points total then it would be fair to say we had a great advantage....after all Cardiff have the biggest debt in the league last season and they did much better than us!

[Matt]

What makes me laugh is how you think what you're doing is somehow morally correct - You've found a way to 'compete' ( ) without debt. The reason you don't have to build up debt is because you don't have to compete!

 

You're just given players for nothing. At least other clubs actually spend money, even if it isn't theirs, and force some hefty repayments upon themselves. You just don't take part in the competition, you're in your own little bubble in the transfer market and are just handed quality players giving you a far, far greater advantage than those who build up debt.

 

I don't pretend to think that debt is a good thing but that course of action does at least involve taking part in the competition even if it is skewed a little.

 

Surely their owners have more debt owning more clubs?

 

Granted it'll be spread between the 2? 3? clubs they own but still I would imagine it's more debt that 1 club on it's own, they aren't debt free.

 

However by spreading the players between the clubs it saves them abit of money, I still don't understand how it gives them an advantage though, guarenteed success, like I said before I personally don't like loan players per se as I have the opinion/question that 'are there hearts really in it?', 'do they really care when truth is after the loan period they will be back to their original club' on the other hand you could argue they are playing for a future, to improve themselves but on a whole I don't like taking loan players on and think it has a detremental effect, what i'm saying is imo it'd be harder to be successful and gain promotion with loan players rather than perminent thus appluading how well Watford did this season.

[Harry - LCFC]

IF we do get them which as pointed out by other members is far from certain is and clearly we didn't gain that much of an advantage compared to at least 3 teams as we're still in this league!

 

 

You were only 1 penalty away from knocking us out as well.

 

Sure we certainly aided ourselves from the mid-table position to 3rd with the likes of Abdi and Vydra coming in (and Chalobah who was probably the 3rd most important loan player) but we were just as inconsistent as anyone else at times particularly at end of the season.

 

Had we won the league with a record points total then it would be fair to say we had a great advantage....after all Cardiff have the biggest debt in the league last season and they did much better than us!

 

It's been said a number of times by your fans that you only missed out on promotion due to a slow start - caused by not bringing players in quickly enough and having to bed them in. Had you been quicker in the 'transfer market' (if such a term is even applicable to how you acquired players) then I'd imagine you'd have held onto just one more game you were winning, have two more points and then.............

 

Fine margins, the slow start cost you promotion not the squad. IMO you were the 2nd best team in the division this season.

 

 

Surely their owners have more debt owning more clubs?

 

Granted it'll be spread between the 2? 3? clubs they own but still I would imagine it's more debt that 1 club on it's own, they aren't debt free.

 

However by spreading the players between the clubs it saves them abit of money, I still don't understand how it gives them an advantage though, guarenteed success, like I said before I personally don't like loan players per se as I have the opinion/question that 'are there hearts really in it?', 'do they really care when truth is after the loan period they will be back to their original club' on the other hand you could argue they are playing for a future, to improve themselves but on a whole I don't like taking loan players on and think it has a detremental effect, what i'm saying is imo it'd be harder to be successful and gain promotion with loan players rather than perminent thus appluading how well Watford did this season.

 

Well they've moved from 11th to 3rd so this has been beneficial to them, I don't think that's in any doubt. And while it is harder in some respects using this method I think the quality of these players balances that out. It was only their slow start (due to not bringing players in quickly enough) that cost them promotion.

 

While Zola's done an excellent job I don't find that a good enough case to give them praise. A bit like diving, I've heard the words "it's a skill" to try and defend it as if performing it well is worthy of praise.

[Matt]

It's been said a number of times by your fans that you only missed out on promotion due to a slow start - caused by not bringing players in quickly enough and having to bed them in. Had you been quicker in the 'transfer market' (if such a term is even applicable to how you acquired players) then I'd imagine you'd have held onto just one more game you were winning, have two more points and then.............

 

Fine margins, the slow start cost you promotion not the squad. IMO you were the 2nd best team in the division this season.

 

 

 

Well they've moved from 11th to 3rd so this has been beneficial to them, I don't think that's in any doubt. And while it is harder in some respects using this method I think the quality of these players balances that out. It was only their slow start (due to not bringing players in quickly enough) that cost them promotion.

 

While Zola's done an excellent job I don't find that a good enough case to give them praise. A bit like diving, I've heard the words "it's a skill" to try and defend it as if performing it well is worthy of praise.

 

Right, so don't get me wrong I don't know the facts or the in's and out's but when they were 11th did they have the same team? I don't know that is a genuine question, I guess you know the answers as you seem so bothered? If not and they moved to 3rd then fair enough, there some proof or it points towards the loans being used as an advantage. If not, I don't see how it shows that the loans gave them an advantage as for example look at us flying in 2nd, dropping to 6th and struggling to stay 6th, with the same players.

 

I'm not sure I have explained my point clear or not there, do you understand what I mean?

 

Were they 11th then bought in loan players and they catapulted them up to 3rd? If so you could point towards the loans being an advantage.

 

If they were 11th whilst having the loan players then moved up the table to 3rd - Well, they've had the players all season, they were 'struggling' but have kicked on towards the end of the season, I see no advantage, that's what alot of teams do.

 

In the opposite way we were doing well, flying in 2nd, but with the same players have dropped into freefall, almost not even finishing in the playoffs, with the same players, nothing had changed, we hadn't lost any players.

 

I still don't know if i've explained my point! I know what I mean, I just can't explain it, I hope you can understand.

[Super_horns]

Fair point Harry - we did start slowly particularly away from home but did also throw away points at the end of the season too like against Millwall and the POSH...mind you every team could say that.

[Harry - LCFC]

Right, so don't get me wrong I don't know the facts or the in's and out's but when they were 11th did they have the same team? I don't know that is a genuine question, I guess you know the answers as you seem so bothered? If not and they moved to 3rd then fair enough, there some proof or it points towards the loans being used as an advantage. If not, I don't see how it shows that the loans gave them an advantage as for example look at us flying in 2nd, dropping to 6th and struggling to stay 6th, with the same players.

 

I'm not sure I have explained my point clear or not there, do you understand what I mean?

 

Were they 11th then bought in loan players and they catapulted them up to 3rd? If so you could point towards the loans being an advantage.

 

If they were 11th whilst having the loan players then moved up the table to 3rd - Well, they've had the players all season, they were 'struggling' but have kicked on towards the end of the season, I see no advantage, that's what alot of teams do.

 

In the opposite way we were doing well, flying in 2nd, but with the same players have dropped into freefall, almost not even finishing in the playoffs, with the same players, nothing had changed, we hadn't lost any players.

 

I still don't know if i've explained my point! I know what I mean, I just can't explain it, I hope you can understand.

 

Right I think I get you, although at first I was left a little confused. 

 

Bit of background info for clarity:

• 11/12 season: No Pozzo owners, no loans from Udinese/Granada, finished 11th
• 12/13 season: Pozzo owners buy the club, loans come in very late in pre-season so take time to bed in, finished 3rd

So we can say that Watford improved by eight places from one season to the next, mostly as a result of the additions they made to the squad. Indeed had they had more time to bed players in I feel that Watford would've finished 2nd and been promoted. It wasn't so much a case of not being good enough more that they had a hectic start.

[Guy1960]

Surely their owners have more debt owning more clubs?

 

Granted it'll be spread between the 2? 3? clubs they own but still I would imagine it's more debt that 1 club on it's own, they aren't debt free.

 

However by spreading the players between the clubs it saves them abit of money, I still don't understand how it gives them an advantage though, guarenteed success, like I said before I personally don't like loan players per se as I have the opinion/question that 'are there hearts really in it?', 'do they really care when truth is after the loan period they will be back to their original club' on the other hand you could argue they are playing for a future, to improve themselves but on a whole I don't like taking loan players on and think it has a detremental effect, what i'm saying is imo it'd be harder to be successful and gain promotion with loan players rather than perminent thus appluading how well Watford did this season.

 

 

 

There are obviously costs in having such a large pool of players but the Pozzo's are one of the few owners who operate at a profit, and do so without huge amounts of TV revenue and without benefiting from big fan bases.  How they do this is by having one of the best scouting network around.  They identify potential, some develop , some don't but enough sell for big money and that's what keeps the business going.

 

If people see this ethos as bad for the game so be it.  I don't.  

[Jordan]

There are obviously costs in having such a large pool of players but the Pozzo's are one of the few owners who operate at a profit, and do so without huge amounts of TV revenue and without benefiting from big fan bases. How they do this is by having one of the best scouting network around. They identify potential, some develop , some don't but enough sell for big money and that's what keeps the business going.

If people see this ethos as bad for the game so be it. I don't.

The point of contention here isn't Watford's scouting network.

[Benditlikevydra]

What makes me laugh is how you think what you're doing is somehow morally correct - You've found a way to 'compete' ( ) without debt. The reason you don't have to build up debt is because you don't have to compete!

 

You're just given players for nothing. At least other clubs actually spend money, even if it isn't theirs, and force some hefty repayments upon themselves. You just don't take part in the competition, you're in your own little bubble in the transfer market and are just handed quality players giving you a far, far greater advantage than those who build up debt.

 

 

I don't pretend to think that debt is a good thing but that course of action does at least involve taking part in the competition even if it is skewed a little.

 

 

But Harry, we aren't dedicating long threads criticising the debt that other Clubs have used this season or, as far as I know, in any season. Neither am I saying that what we are doing is totally morally correct. We have also been in debt in the past, albeit at far lower levels than yourselves and many others.  

 

The point is yourselves, Palace, Forest and a few others have really criticised us, yet all are clubs that have relied on massive debt to survive. Hundreds of millions of debt. I am only mentioning debt as a defence against your criticism.

 

I struggle how you can proudly say "At least other clubs actually spend money, even if it isn't theirs" as an argument in your favour. You are criticising us for not being part of a competition that builds debt. To me, that is a rather peverse justification.  Our owners have paid for all the players we played - with their own money!

 

I repeat, it is laughable.

[Harry - LCFC]

But Harry, we aren't dedicating long threads criticising the debt that other Clubs have used this season or, as far as I know, in any season. Neither am I saying that what we are doing is totally morally correct. We have also been in debt in the past, albeit at far lower levels than yourselves and many others.  

 

The point is yourselves, Palace, Forest and a few others have really criticised us, yet all are clubs that have relied on massive debt to survive. Hundreds of millions of debt. I am only mentioning debt as a defence against your criticism.

 

I struggle how you can proudly say "At least other clubs actually spend money, even if it isn't theirs" as an argument in your favour. You are criticising us for not being part of a competition that builds debt. To me, that is a rather peverse justification.  Our owners have paid for all the players we played - with their own money!

 

I repeat, it is laughable.

 

I think it's simply a case of what you're doing perceived as being worse - that's where all the criticism comes from.

 

I'd welcome a situation where all this improper behaviour was made illegal but until then I feel compelled to criticise what I believe is the worst of it, having said this it would be hypocritical of me to defend our previous actions - I can now look back on the 11/12 season where we spent excessively and say it was a good thing for the fairness in football that we failed - in the same way I believe it was a good thing for fairness in football that you also failed.

 

You've done rather well in this discussion as you've brought me into a compromise where I'm left saying that we've both done wrong.   I do however retain my belief that what you did was worse, sorry about that. 

[Benditlikevydra]

Harry, as you say in the end it's down to what is perceived as worse. Borrowing money to buy better players than otherwise possible and to help pay the operating costs, including higher wages, every year. Or "borrowing" players that are owned by the clubs owners.

I don't think either method is perfect, but borrowing money is high risk and has been a major cause of Clubs going out of business. Borrowing players has no risk. No team will ever be forced into admin because it "borrowed" their owners players.

So, it is no surprise that I disagree with you.