Watford & FFP

[RobHawk]

What a lot of people forget about Watford's transfer embargo is that a) the transfer embargo was only ever a supervision order, and b.) the FL also handed a three year ownership ban to Laurence Bassini (Watford's former owner). There's the punishment right there. The whole thing wasn't about the club, it was about the owner.

I understand it was an issue with the former owner, to be honest i don't know all the ins and outs of it! To me if the club are handed a transfer embargo that means that aren't allowed to sign any players during that time. What you have described isn't an embargo at all!

[Captain...]

My biggest gripe was that Watford were supposed to have a transfer embargo yet they released a load of players and have more than replaced them. Not sure where the punishment is there!

 

In relation to the Watford - Granada - Udinese issue, they are doing nothing wrong according to the current rules so i don't see what everyone is bitching about! Ok it might be against the principles of FFP but that doesn't mean they have done anything wrong!

 

Ownership of more than one football club is illegal, the fact they have 3 different owners but are clearly working together for a common goal is exactly what that rule is there to prevent.

 

Just because something isn't expressly written as wrong, doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Did you know that it was legal to rape your wife until 1991, that was when the law came in, but do you know why that law came in, because someone was forcing themselves on their wife. Back in 1990 it wasn't the case that everyone was raping their wives, the vast majority knew it was wrong even though technically it was legal. In 1991 a new law was created to punish the man who was raping his wife.

 

Now what I'm saying is, just because technically you can do something doesn't make it right, and they have already changed the rules once because of Watford getting an unfair illegal advantage, and they will do it again if they continue to do so. So saying they haven't done anything wrong just because they haven't expressly written a law to say it is wrong, is stupid, because it is an unprecedented situation which they are using to exploit brand new ffp rules, they will crack down on Watford further if they continue to take the piss.

[RobHawk]

Ownership of more than one football club is illegal, the fact they have 3 different owners but are clearly working together for a common goal is exactly what that rule is there to prevent.

 

Just because something isn't expressly written as wrong, doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Did you know that it was legal to rape your wife until 1991, that was when the law came in, but do you know why that law came in, because someone was forcing themselves on their wife. Back in 1990 it wasn't the case that everyone was raping their wives, the vast majority knew it was wrong even though technically it was legal. In 1991 a new law was created to punish the man who was raping his wife.

 

Now what I'm saying is, just because technically you can do something doesn't make it right, and they have already changed the rules once because of Watford getting an unfair illegal advantage, and they will do it again if they continue to do so. So saying they haven't done anything wrong just because they haven't expressly written a law to say it is wrong, is stupid, because it is an unprecedented situation which they are using to exploit brand new ffp rules, they will crack down on Watford further if they continue to take the piss.

 

 So basically, I can't rape my wife right?  

[RobHawk]

Ownership of more than one football club is illegal, the fact they have 3 different owners but are clearly working together for a common goal is exactly what that rule is there to prevent.

 

Just because something isn't expressly written as wrong, doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Did you know that it was legal to rape your wife until 1991, that was when the law came in, but do you know why that law came in, because someone was forcing themselves on their wife. Back in 1990 it wasn't the case that everyone was raping their wives, the vast majority knew it was wrong even though technically it was legal. In 1991 a new law was created to punish the man who was raping his wife.

 

Now what I'm saying is, just because technically you can do something doesn't make it right, and they have already changed the rules once because of Watford getting an unfair illegal advantage, and they will do it again if they continue to do so. So saying they haven't done anything wrong just because they haven't expressly written a law to say it is wrong, is stupid, because it is an unprecedented situation which they are using to exploit brand new ffp rules, they will crack down on Watford further if they continue to take the piss.

Onto the actual matter at hand, you've answered it yourself, they have 3 different owners so what's the issue?

 

Teams have worked together for years? Is it fair when a feeder team sends a mass of players to smaller clubs even though they may be stars in that league?

 

Wasn't it a bit weird when Peterborough seemed to get loads of Utd youngsters on loan all the time? 

 

Not saying i agree with it myself but in the grand scheme of things what you and i believe means jackshit! 

[Guest MattP]

Vydra goes to West Brom.

[aefevans]

Ownership of more than one football club is illegal

 

No it isn't. 

 

 

I understand it was an issue with the former owner, to be honest i don't know all the ins and outs of it! To me if the club are handed a transfer embargo that means that aren't allowed to sign any players during that time. What you have described isn't an embargo at all!

 

Apparently it was a "Type 19 Embargo". All semantics, I guess.

[Captain...]

No it isn't. 

 

 

It is within UEFA. Of which Granada, Watford and Udinese are all a part of, so yes we can own a small Thai team, and Sheffield United can own a Chinese team, but Watford, Udinese and Granada are owned by the same group, but as it is not officially declared interest, despite it being obvious.

[Captain...]

Onto the actual matter at hand, you've answered it yourself, they have 3 different owners so what's the issue?

 

Teams have worked together for years? Is it fair when a feeder team sends a mass of players to smaller clubs even though they may be stars in that league?

 

Wasn't it a bit weird when Peterborough seemed to get loads of Utd youngsters on loan all the time? 

 

Not saying i agree with it myself but in the grand scheme of things what you and i believe means jackshit! 

 

But they are working together to get Watford promoted, which is wrong. Fergie sent players to his son, but were bound by limited loans, but that was a personal relationship and not a business one, Fergie wanted to send out a player on loan, chose Peterborough as he probably has a closer relationship with his son, and can get more reliable reports, and trusts him to act in his best interest. Personal relationships happen everywhere, but promoting one club at the detriment to others has to be ruled out.

[aefevans]

It is within UEFA. Of which Granada, Watford and Udinese are all a part of, so yes we can own a small Thai team, and Sheffield United can own a Chinese team, but Watford, Udinese and Granada are owned by the same group, but as it is not officially declared interest, despite it being obvious.

I'm pretty sure the rule is that two clubs can't compete in the same competition, rather than a blanket ban on multiple ownership. Udinese and Granada have shared an owner for some years, plus the Watford deal went through - I think someone would have noticed.

[Captain...]

I'm pretty sure the rule is that two clubs can't compete in the same competition, rather than a blanket ban on multiple ownership. Udinese and Granada have shared an owner for some years, plus the Watford deal went through - I think someone would have noticed.

 

They have a different owner, so technically it is within the rules, even though they are clearly working together.

[aefevans]

They have a different owner, so technically it is within the rules, even though they are clearly working together.

Father and son.

[Harry - LCFC]

Explained it many times already. Prices are altered by the Pozzos to stay within FFP - This isn't competition, no matter how you spin it. If a club is able to acquire players without having to compete in the transfer market like the rest of us they have a huge advantage over their opponents. Whether it's illegal or not, colluding on this scale is without question morally wrong IMO, every club is set up as an individual and should compete as an individual.

 

Some Watford fans seem to think it's acceptable that they can be excused from the transfer market, I certainly don't. Glad someone else is happy to question what's happening too.

[Guest MattP]

Well within the rules what they are doing.

 

Clearly morally wrong though.

[Jordan]

One note about prices, to follow on Harry - LCFC's point: I'd guess confidently that the Pozzos are saving money on player wages by signing players for Granada in Spain (where players are relatively undervalued) and having them play for Watford in England (where even second-division salaries are inflated).

[Harry - LCFC]

One note about prices, to follow on Harry - LCFC's point: I'd guess confidently that the Pozzos are saving money on player wages by signing players for Granada in Spain (where players are relatively undervalued) and having them play for Watford in England (where even second-division salaries are inflated).

 

Yep I'd go along with that. Watford fans tell me wage demands are low amongst their younger players, while talk about wages is always going to be speculative it does seem likely that what they're saying is true. If so I've got no problem with it, it's up to the players to negotiate their salary and if they don't demand high pay packets that's up to them.

[Jordan]

Watford youngsters can make all the demands they want, but their bargaining power has been reduced by the influx of cheaper loanees.

If more English clubs entered Pozzo-like schemes, it would have an effect--mostly negative--on player wages across the board, for better or worse.

[Guy1960]

Ownership of more than one football club is illegal, the fact they have 3 different owners but are clearly working together for a common goal is exactly what that rule is there to prevent.

 

Just because something isn't expressly written as wrong, doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Did you know that it was legal to rape your wife until 1991, that was when the law came in, but do you know why that law came in, because someone was forcing themselves on their wife. Back in 1990 it wasn't the case that everyone was raping their wives, the vast majority knew it was wrong even though technically it was legal. In 1991 a new law was created to punish the man who was raping his wife.

 

Now what I'm saying is, just because technically you can do something doesn't make it right, and they have already changed the rules once because of Watford getting an unfair illegal advantage, and they will do it again if they continue to do so. So saying they haven't done anything wrong just because they haven't expressly written a law to say it is wrong, is stupid, because it is an unprecedented situation which they are using to exploit brand new ffp rules, they will crack down on Watford further if they continue to take the piss.

 

Owning more than one club is not illegal.  It's just not allowed in the same division in the same country.  Barcelona and Real Madrid both have teams in their second division..

[Guy1960]

Watford youngsters can make all the demands they want, but their bargaining power has been reduced by the influx of cheaper loanees.

If more English clubs entered Pozzo-like schemes, it would have an effect--mostly negative--on player wages across the board, for better or worse.

 

Isn't a negative effect on wages the whole point of FFP? and Watford's youngsters such as Sean Murray, Tommy Hoban, Bernard Mensah have all been given long contracts something we were never able to do under our previous regimes so no suggestion bargaining power has been affected in the slightest..

[Benditlikevydra]

This is hilarious.

 

Watfords owners are expected to forget that they already own about 100 players, they should forget that they have an established scouting network, the envy of Europe and they should forget that it has taken 25 years to build it, and they should buy other players instead, because some rivals fans are starting to cry about it!        .

 

Ridiculous and pathetic.

 

...and Usain Bolt should run in flip-flops to even things up a bit as well.

[Captain...]

Owning more than one club is not illegal.  It's just not allowed in the same division in the same country.  Barcelona and Real Madrid both have teams in their second division..

 

They are their reserve teams, and therefore the same club, and strict rules are in place to ensure no conflict of interest, such as limited movement between the clubs during the season, I think any B player can be called up to the A squad, but they can't recruit players from the A squad. The B teams can't be promoted to the same division as the A team and cannot play in the cup competitions. But more importantly it is all above board and a declared interest. Grenada, Udinese and Watford are declared as separate interests and have no official ties.

 

If you want Watford to operate like a B team then they would be excluded from any European competitions as Udinese regularly qualify for Europe.

[Benditlikevydra]

They are their reserve teams, and therefore the same club, and strict rules are in place to ensure no conflict of interest, such as limited movement between the clubs during the season, I think any B player can be called up to the A squad, but they can't recruit players from the A squad. The B teams can't be promoted to the same division as the A team and cannot play in the cup competitions. But more importantly it is all above board and a declared interest. Grenada, Udinese and Watford are declared as separate interests and have no official ties.

 

If you want Watford to operate like a B team then they would be excluded from any European competitions as Udinese regularly qualify for Europe.

 

 

 

[Captain...]

This is hilarious.

 

Watfords owners are expected to forget that they already own about 100 players, they should forget that they have an established scouting network, the envy of Europe and they should forget that it has taken 25 years to build it, and they should buy other players instead, because some rivals fans are starting to cry about it!        .

 

Ridiculous and pathetic.

 

...and Usain Bolt should run in flip-flops to even things up a bit as well.

 

Well buying any players would be a start, rather than loaning them, or getting them for free on deals that no other club can compete with because of undisclosed business interests. It is not about evening things up, it is about things being fair, and with ffp rules hitting many clubs hard in this division, why should Watford be able to by-pass them by getting other clubs to buy players for them?

[Captain...]

There is no conflict of interest, therefore no issue.

 

If Watford unbelievably reach the same European competition at the same time as Udinese, then there are already strict rules in place that only one can enter, and which Club would be decided by strict guidelines - already laid down in anticipation, by UEFA.

 

 

 

Is that true? I've not seen that reported anywhere, nor the Pozzo's declare that they have a common interest between the clubs?

[Benditlikevydra]

They are their reserve teams, and therefore the same club, and strict rules are in place to ensure no conflict of interest, such as limited movement between the clubs during the season, I think any B player can be called up to the A squad, but they can't recruit players from the A squad. The B teams can't be promoted to the same division as the A team and cannot play in the cup competitions. But more importantly it is all above board and a declared interest. Grenada, Udinese and Watford are declared as separate interests and have no official ties.

 

If you want Watford to operate like a B team then they would be excluded from any European competitions as Udinese regularly qualify for Europe.

Sorry messed up last post.

 

There is no conflict of interest, therefore no issue.

 

If Watford unbelievably reach the same European competition at the same time as Udinese, then there are already strict rules in place that only one can enter, and which Club would be decided by strict guidelines - already laid down in anticipation, by UEFA.

[Captain...]

 

Sorry messed up last post.

 

There is no conflict of interest, therefore no issue.

 

If Watford unbelievably reach the same European competition at the same time as Udinese, then there are already strict rules in place that only one can enter, and which Club would be decided by strict guidelines - already laid down in anticipation, by UEFA.

 

 

See reply above