Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 But right now, these are permanent signings so I see nothing wrong with it, they can do whatever they want, it's not breaking any rules. The rules will keep changing to stop it from happening though.
LeicesterFoxFC Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Oh, just stop it. Why is it more unfair than having a succession of rich owners chucking money at the 'problem' - the problem being that the owners are clueless and think they can guarantee promotion by giving a blank cheque book to dicks like SGE. We have lucked out in being bought by a family who are very football savvy. WFC are paying all the wages, as they were in 2012/13, and they are very unlikely to be massive. If they choose to invest in us through their player portfolio, rather than bundles of cash, isn't that better for everyone? Agents can't inflate fees or wages. What you're doing there is basically promoting the idea that every small club should be owned by a far bigger club, it's like our owners also being owners of Tranmere. Fine you pay wages, but what about the other fees every other club has to worry about? YOU'RE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER by just avoiding the way money has to be kept under contol by every other club in this league and it means you can just take top players and not think about it. Can't tell me that's fair.
kingfox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 The rules will keep changing to stop it from happening though. Why should they change now. Premiership teams continue to buy players from abroad. These are all permanent signings, and just because they are coming from two teams, with are co owned by the owners, why can't they do that. They aren't getting in like 12 loan signings again, so I wish people would stop moaning.
reids Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 You all moaned about the loan situation...that got closed but you still aren't happy. Hilarious.
aefevans Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 What you're doing there is basically promoting the idea that every small club should be owned by a far bigger club, it's like our owners also being owners of Tranmere. Fine you pay wages, but what about the other fees every other club has to worry about? YOU'RE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER by just avoiding the way money has to be kept under contol by every other club in this league and it means you can just take top players and not think about it. Can't tell me that's fair. Sorry to be 'that guy', but the pedant in me is screaming out that we aren't owned by Udinese, we have a mutual owner.
LeicesterFoxFC Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 You all moaned about the loan situation...that got closed but you still aren't happy. Hilarious. Well it's been the case all along that multi club ownership is not right because of things like this happening!! It truly is like us loaning our best players to some little league 1 team to get them promoted for financial gain. Awful. Sorry to be 'that guy', but the pedant in me is screaming out that we aren't owned by Udinese, we have a mutual owner. Pedantic, same thing really.
linemakers Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 UEFA need to bring in a ruling limiting one owner per club in Europe. I don't say that to stop Watford, but the likes of Man U Barca Chelsea man city real and other big clubs will be looking at this and thinking of buying smaller clubs in other countries in Europe for their team B players to bring on the young players and feed the main team.
reids Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 UEFA need to bring in a ruling limiting one owner per club in Europe. I don't say that to stop Watford, but the likes of Man U Barca Chelsea man city real and other big clubs will be looking at this and thinking of buying smaller clubs in other countries in Europe for their team B players to bring on the young players and feed the main team. This ruling already exists. Watford + Udinese + Granada are not owned by the same person. Well it's been the case all along that multi club ownership is not right because of things like this happening!! It truly is like us loaning our best players to some little league 1 team to get them promoted for financial gain. Awful. Pedantic, same thing really. and then you'd get relegated, and still end up with a championship + league 1 team.
leicsmac Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 This ruling already exists. Watford + Udinese + Granada are not owned by the same person. and then you'd get relegated, and still end up with a championship + league 1 team. One club per same conglomerate or family then, as it is clear to see vested interests still apply.
superhorns Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 One club per same conglomerate or family then, as it is clear to see vested interests still apply. Stop whinging like girls, you should be concentrating on finding an alternative to being the fall guys who buy average players for large amounts. We are doing you a favour by finding a sustainable method of competing with clubs with fickle rich guys that lose interest within a few years.
reids Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Is watfords forum so crap u have to come on here Yes, we have a moog on our forum.
leicsmac Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Stop whinging like girls, you should be concentrating on finding an alternative to being the fall guys who buy average players for large amounts. We are doing you a favour by finding a sustainable method of competing with clubs with fickle rich guys that lose interest within a few years. Did I say I approved of the money culture at LCFC and varying other clubs? Watford are merely using physical assets (players) instead of money from a willing source to fund their promotion push next year. To me the two methods are equivalent. And I approve of neither. Every single football club in Europe should be totally financially independent - I've always loathed the idea of 'feeder clubs', and while what Watford has done is very creative and not illegal, it takes the idea of feeder clubs to the next, rather scary level. For the record, I believe there's far too much money in the higher echelons of the game anyway and this has resulted in a tier structure in the Prem that is impossible to break without significant external funding, or creativity of the way Watford have displayed. It's sad. I don't blame Watford for trying a new angle to strengthen their side by using a different method to the usual, what really annoys me is the financial climate of football that makes it necessary in the first place.
superhorns Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Did I say I approved of the money culture at LCFC and varying other clubs? Watford are merely using physical assets (players) instead of money from a willing source to fund their promotion push next year. To me the two methods are equivalent. And I approve of neither. Every single football club in Europe should be totally financially independent - I've always loathed the idea of 'feeder clubs', and while what Watford has done is very creative and not illegal, it takes the idea of feeder clubs to the next, rather scary level. For the record, I believe there's far too much money in the higher echelons of the game anyway and this has resulted in a tier structure in the Prem that is impossible to break without significant external funding, or creativity of the way Watford have displayed. It's sad. I don't blame Watford for trying a new angle to strengthen their side by using a different method to the usual, what really annoys me is the financial climate of football that makes it necessary in the first place. I don't suppose many Leicester supporters were concerned about other teams struggling to compete when LCFC were splashing the cash thinking it would lead to the promised land instead of the financial mess that ensued. If you don't put all your energy in finding a sustainable model then history will repeat itself.
Guy1960 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 UEFA need to bring in a ruling limiting one owner per club in Europe. I don't say that to stop Watford, but the likes of Man U Barca Chelsea man city real and other big clubs will be looking at this and thinking of buying smaller clubs in other countries in Europe for their team B players to bring on the young players and feed the main team. Many clubs have had arrangements with others to mutual benefit so nothing new and this is likely to continue. Take a look at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feeder_teams_in_football Man Utd for example have had 40 plus players on loan at FC Antwerp in Belgium..
goose2010 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 shocking Fourth Official â€@FourthOfficial_now Watford can't buy the players themselves due to FFP, Udinese and Granada buy them and then sell them on a 'free' to Watford
eye666 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 All this fretting over Watford won't last long. The owners are obviously astute businessmen and know that by taking a small English club to the Premier League brings a massive amount of cash. Get them promoted, have a few seasons of taking the TV money and then run. They'll be back in the lower leagues not long after and football equilibrium will be restored.
leicsmac Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I don't suppose many Leicester supporters were concerned about other teams struggling to compete when LCFC were splashing the cash thinking it would lead to the promised land instead of the financial mess that ensued. If you don't put all your energy in finding a sustainable model then history will repeat itself. You're repeating your previous point and attempting to generalise. Don't. It won't work. I shall repeat myself also: I didn't approve of Leicester spending ridiculous amounts of money in order to achieve success. The same way I disapprove of any club using either a new-found sugar daddy or creative transfer policy in order to secure players that nominally they would not be able to afford. However I recognise that both of these things are sadly symptomatic of being able to advance in modern football. That is the real problem. What happens when 'feeder clubs' actually become fully owned subsidiaries of a bigger club, cease to function as their own and merge? Perhaps in fifty years time we may be down to just a dozen professional clubs, the rest gone bust or been absorbed? Scaremongering, probably - but it's possible.
Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Why should they change now. Premiership teams continue to buy players from abroad. But they aren't buying them are they, they are being given to them either free or stupid prices by their own familys other team. How on earth you can compare that to a premier league team actually spending money and paying a players actual value to another team.
kingfox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 shocking Fourth Official â€@FourthOfficial_now Watford can't buy the players themselves due to FFP, Udinese and Granada buy them and then sell them on a 'free' to Watford Well that's a load of shit. Because every player they have signed apart from Acuna, have been playing for Udinese outright.
Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Well that's a load of shit. Because every player they have signed apart from Acuna, have been playing for Udinese outright. Well it's not shit is it... are Watford paying the going value for these players? No they are not.
Bert Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Morally wrong what they're doing but within the laws and we are powerless to stop it. Annoying as it is, our moans won't affect a thing apart from making us look like sore losers.
kingfox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Well it's not shit is it... are Watford paying the going value for these players? No they are not. Udinese & Granada buy them? No they don't, because all of one player were on Udinese's books, and have played for Udinese, apart from Acuna. So Fourth Official is talking shit on that score.
Tielemans63 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 It's just-legal cheating, let's be honest. The only debate is whether as an individual you think it's right or wrong. The authorities clearly couldn't give a shit about looking into what's going on so Watgrafinesecules haven't done anything wrong other than manipulate rules that are unfit for purpose. PS If our owners splashed out on overpriced, overpaid and overrated players then that's their perogative! Not sure how that's on a par with owning multiple football clubs and (legally) playing the system?
superhorns Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 You're repeating your previous point and attempting to generalise. Don't. It won't work. I shall repeat myself also: I didn't approve of Leicester spending ridiculous amounts of money in order to achieve success. The same way I disapprove of any club using either a new-found sugar daddy or creative transfer policy in order to secure players that nominally they would not be able to afford. However I recognise that both of these things are sadly symptomatic of being able to advance in modern football. That is the real problem. What happens when 'feeder clubs' actually become fully owned subsidiaries of a bigger club, cease to function as their own and merge? Perhaps in fifty years time we may be down to just a dozen professional clubs, the rest gone bust or been absorbed? Scaremongering, probably - but it's possible. You may not like that the professional game has moved on from clubs employing players from a 10 mile radius but football has changed and will change further. My point is to highlight the proven quality of the Pozzo's support to their teams over a very long time without resorting to ruinous and reckless financial dealings. They have a sustainable model based on effective scouting and improving young players. Maybe there are some aspects to their dealings which are worth considering?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.