AKCJ Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 But take into consideration the size of Watford. Burnley only get about 12k every home game, but if you take the average of their attendances and size of the town, they are the best supported club in the Country. They didn't get anywhere near to filling their ground for our playoff game even with one stand under construction. Joke support.
Fox92 Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 They didn't get anywhere near to filling their ground for our playoff game even with one stand under construction. Joke support. The highest average attendance last season was Brighton with 26k. 5k higher than both ourselves and Leeds, 10k more than Middlesbrough. Are Brighton the biggest club in the division? I don't think so. The attendance debate is boring. Mainly because people fail to see that a place such as Watford is much smaller than a City, especially a one team City, such as Leicester. (Attendance is only one factor when taking into consideration 'a big club'). I don't understand why we've got all this hatred about Watford. They beat us in the play offs, so have a lot of teams, get on with it. I know all this is about their signings, but it just makes us bitter which shouldn't be the case.
Matt Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 As I have always said supporters don't win matches though. Does it really matter? It's a nothing argument really, I mean I know i've joked and I do laugh at Coventry's support, it is woeful, it is pathetic but at the end of the day it means fuck all, I find many people use the argument when they are scraping the barrel. I've got bored of this topic tbh so havn't really read the thread for the last few pages, but how has it got onto 'our support is better than your support' argument?
Matt Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 The highest average attendance last season was Brighton with 26k. 5k higher than both ourselves and Leeds, 10k more than Middlesbrough. Are Brighton the biggest club in the division? I don't think so. The attendance debate is boring. Mainly because people fail to see that a place such as Watford is much smaller than a City, especially a one team City, such as Leicester. (Attendance is only one factor when taking into consideration 'a big club'). I don't understand why we've got all this hatred about Watford. They beat us in the play offs, so have a lot of teams, get on with it. I know all this is about their signings, but it just makes us bitter which shouldn't be the case. Yep, bitterness. People can say 'i'm not bitter' till they're blue in the face but if they weren't bothered/bitter they wouldn't even discuss Watford. Infact until the end of the season I didn't even know what Watford had done regards all the loans they had and I dare say if we beat them in the playoffs or hadn't played them in the playoffs or if we hadn't made the playoffs I doubt we'd be discussing them now.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 Yep, bitterness. People can say 'i'm not bitter' till they're blue in the face but if they weren't bothered/bitter they wouldn't even discuss Watford. Infact until the end of the season I didn't even know what Watford had done regards all the loans they had and I dare say if we beat them in the playoffs or hadn't played them in the playoffs or if we hadn't made the playoffs I doubt we'd be discussing them now. It's definitely bitterness, but without a doubt there is a conversation to be had here.
reids Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 You're not big enough to command multi-million pounds sponsorships (as far as clubs go, we're far bigger than you and it's only due to vested interests (being sponsored by our owners company) that we can get a fair bit in on that front) , n http://www.thelindleygroup.com/news/news/watford-fc-and-lindley-venue-catering-seal-18-million-partnership-deal-and-south-west-corner-development
Leeds Fox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 It's definitely bitterness, but without a doubt there is a conversation to be had here. Agreed. It's a talking point isn't it, but they haven't broken the laws of the game. If had done the same last season I think most of our fans would have seen our owners as 'clever' or 'savvy'. They beat us in the playoffs, after we almost took victory through cheating... and our fans are still bitter. God forbid it had been Deeney who dived and had scored the peno!
Matt Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 It's definitely bitterness, but without a doubt there is a conversation to be had here. There certainly is, but I was saying I wager that if we hadn't lost to them in the playoffs or hadn't played them in the playoffs or hadn't made the playoffs we'd be having the conversation though. The fact we did make the playoffs, did play them and did lose to them is the reason we are having the conversation, people aren't letting the converstation go, the conversation keep cropping up. Agreed. It's a talking point isn't it, but they haven't broken the laws of the game. If had done the same last season I think most of our fans would have seen our owners as 'clever' or 'savvy'. They beat us in the playoffs, after we almost took victory through cheating... and our fans are still bitter. God forbid it had been Deeney who dived and had scored the peno! Exactly, couldn't really put it any better.
Soar Fox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 They beat us in the playoffs, after we almost took victory through cheating... and our fans are still bitter. God forbid it had been Deeney who dived and had scored the peno! How did we almost take victory through 'cheating'? If Casseti hadn't have touched Knocky in the first place he wouldn't have had the opportunity to go down. He might have made the most of it but why shouldn't he?
Matt Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 How did we almost take victory through 'cheating'? If Casseti hadn't have touched Knocky in the first place he wouldn't have had the opportunity to go down. He might have made the most of it but why shouldn't he? So you wouldn't have claimed Watford had cheated or any other opposition if they did it? You'd have accepted it? Hey, if we'd scored the penalty i'd have took it, i'd have celebrated it, I wouldn't give a fuck, but I know for a fact if what Knocky did was against us, it wouldn't just be the loans discussion we'd be having on here, it'd be a Watford cheating against us discussion aswell.
Bert Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Is it illegal to be bitter these days? So what if people are. Some people need to get a grip of their holier than thou attitudes. Boring.
Rocky Dennis Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Getting dogs abuse in Twitter, anyone care to join in the debate? https://twitter.com/hornetmatt/status/359001362358468608
Harry - LCFC Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Agreed. It's a talking point isn't it, but they haven't broken the laws of the game. If had done the same last season I think most of our fans would have seen our owners as 'clever' or 'savvy'. They beat us in the playoffs, after we almost took victory through cheating... and our fans are still bitter. God forbid it had been Deeney who dived and had scored the peno! In my opinion what they're doing is just downright wrong and should not be allowed. I think it's a weak argument to simply say 'they haven't broken the rules' - that doesn't make it right, people are too quick to accept that the laws of the game have been correctly written and represent true fairness. This is not always the case - last season for example people kept telling me they had acted within the laws of the game but the changes made to loan players clearly demonstrates how unacceptable such behaviour was. The rules on loan players were wrong and have since been corrected. Call me bitter and all that shit but let me tell you've I've disliked their activity right from the start of last season. I'll admit that losing to them made me more angry but the feelings were already there, don't assume I'm challenging Watford purely because we lost to them. There's much more to it than that.
Swalker Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Getting dogs abuse in Twitter, anyone care to join in the debate? https://twitter.com/hornetmatt/status/359001362358468608 I'll pass this time. They seem to jump on me whenever I tweet about football normally anyway fancy a day off from their boring predictable responses
Fox92 Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Don't care if we 'cheated' to win a penalty. I've seen many teams cheat against us, which result in a goal. If we would have scored the penalty, I would be jumping around all over the place, not feeling sorry for Watford.
Ashley Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Don't care if we 'cheated' to win a penalty. I've seen many teams cheat against us, which result in a goal. If we would have scored the penalty, I would be jumping around all over the place, not feeling sorry for Watford. You could quite easily say Knockaert shrugged off Briggs for the fun of it in the lead up to Cassetti 'challenge'.
Leicesterpool Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Speaking of which this off topic but i finished my video a few weeks back http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDcxdD5LYEE&feature=c4-overview&list=UU-XWD3MapA9-hv13gtjuBPw it really was hard making this, the only sweet part of it is knowing Watford didn't go up either, anyway the pen the miss doesn't feature thank god! If you just want to relive the pre match feel. The more i watch, the more for revenge.
Swalker Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Don't care if we 'cheated' to win a penalty. I've seen many teams cheat against us, which result in a goal. If we would have scored the penalty, I would be jumping around all over the place, not feeling sorry for Watford. You could quite easily say Knockaert shrugged off Briggs for the fun of it in the lead up to Cassetti 'challenge'. Ultimately he cost them still which is nice to know
Leeds Fox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 How did we almost take victory through 'cheating'? If Casseti hadn't have touched Knocky in the first place he wouldn't have had the opportunity to go down. He might have made the most of it but why shouldn't he? Being 'touched' doesn't give a player a right to go down. Diving is cheating, Knocky dived, therefore cheated. I would still have loved him to score the pen, don't get me wrong!
Leeds Fox Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 In my opinion what they're doing is just downright wrong and should not be allowed. I think it's a weak argument to simply say 'they haven't broken the rules' - that doesn't make it right, people are too quick to accept that the laws of the game have been correctly written and represent true fairness. This is not always the case - last season for example people kept telling me they had acted within the laws of the game but the changes made to loan players clearly demonstrates how unacceptable such behaviour was. The rules on loan players were wrong and have since been corrected. Call me bitter and all that shit but let me tell you've I've disliked their activity right from the start of last season. I'll admit that losing to them made me more angry but the feelings were already there, don't assume I'm challenging Watford purely because we lost to them. There's much more to it than that. It's morally wrong, I completely agree! They aren't doing anything illegal though, it's up to the FA/FL/EUFA or whoever to stop them doing it. Every club signed up to the same rules, you can't complain about a team sticking within them. Ultimately they're a nothing club, playing the system and not the game. When they're stopped, they'll never be anything more than a mid table championship team or worse.
Guy1960 Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 It's morally wrong, I completely agree! They aren't doing anything illegal though, it's up to the FA/FL/EUFA or whoever to stop them doing it. Every club signed up to the same rules, you can't complain about a team sticking within them. Ultimately they're a nothing club, playing the system and not the game. When they're stopped, they'll never be anything more than a mid table championship team or worse. Morally wrong? Since when did morals and football go together. It's funny how your club are the only one alongside palace to give a monkees. Would suggest it's a case of sour grapes and the fact that because of financial mismanagement you're saddled with distinctly average players on unrealistic wages and can't now deal with FFP It's cubs like yours which has inflated the transfer and wage market which is why FFP was introduced in the first place.
aefevans Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 It's morally wrong, I completely agree! They aren't doing anything illegal though, it's up to the FA/FL/EUFA or whoever to stop them doing it. If it's multiple-club ownership, then it's UEFA who hypothetically deals with it. As for the transfers, there's not really much anyone can do about it without wandering into EU law territory.
Harry - LCFC Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 Morally wrong? Since when did morals and football go together. It's funny how your club are the only one alongside palace to give a monkees. Would suggest it's a case of sour grapes and the fact that because of financial mismanagement you're saddled with distinctly average players on unrealistic wages and can't now deal with FFP It's cubs like yours which has inflated the transfer and wage market which is why FFP was introduced in the first place. And now that we have FFP to deal with the spending side of anti-competitive behaviour lets have rules drawn up to deal with the pricing side. You aren't paying fair prices because you don't bid for players, you're given them by the other components of the Pozzo superclub. Your strategy looks better than our old spending one because it's 'sustainable' but really its not all that different. You've simply eliminated the costs altogether rather than borrowing money to pay for those costs.
Guy1960 Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 And now that we have FFP to deal with the spending side of anti-competitive behaviour lets have rules drawn up to deal with the pricing side. You aren't paying fair prices because you don't bid for players, you're given them by the other components of the Pozzo superclub. Your strategy looks better than our old spending one because it's 'sustainable' but really its not all that different. You've simply eliminated the costs altogether rather than borrowing money to pay for those costs. One of the aims of FFP is to bring down price inflation relating to transfers and salaries. That's what we're actually doing and effectively too. In strict appliance of FFP we're doing rather well.
Harry - LCFC Posted 21 July 2013 Posted 21 July 2013 One of the aims of FFP is to bring down price inflation relating to transfers and salaries. That's what we're actually doing and effectively too. In strict appliance of FFP we're doing rather well. Ah, this old 'sustainable' argument again. What you're actually doing is passing the costs on to someone else, Udinese (and others) pay these prices by not getting the fee they should be getting for their players. But why would Udinese do this? Why wouldn't they want the payments that selling their players? Udinese aren't acting as a seperate club in their own interests, they're acting in your favour - But why? Why would a club go out of its way to help another? Because the Pozzos own them and are happy to sell players for free as it'll get Watford into the richness of the PL which is of greater benefit to them. Have no doubt about it, these players have to be paid for even if it isn't you who pays. This is not that dissimilar to what we did I'm afraid. Borrowing money (getting Udinese to take the hit) to pay for players. It's all the same really, not paying fees that you should be paying. The only difference is that you never have to give that money back so you're strategy is actually less fair than ours as there's no punishment further down the line! PS - Sorry for the essay but this topic infuriates me like no other. I won't stand by while people try to justify this and pretend its fair when I know otherwise.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.