Benditlikevydra Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 Is that true? I've not seen that reported anywhere, nor the Pozzo's declare that they have a common interest between the clubs? The Clubs are owned by different parts of the family, but if UEFA see that there is an association in ownership, then rules are there to deal with it.
Benditlikevydra Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 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? Watford have bought nearly all their players, rather than loaned. I think only Belkelem was loaned. Watford don't run a £17m operating loss each year nor a multi-million £ debt - it's swings and roundabouts! Why not moan at Red Bull for building up the best technical team in the Grand Prix world which enables them to deal with the regulations better than the rest?
Guest ttfn Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 Why not moan at Red Bull for building up the best technical team in the Grand Prix world which enables them to deal with the regulations better than the rest? Because its not remotely comparable.
Benditlikevydra Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 Because its not remotely comparable. It is very similar in that they try and make their money go further, within the rules, just like every other team. If, at the end of the season the authorities change the rules, so be it, they work around the new rules, just like every other team.
Captain... Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 Watford have bought nearly all their players, rather than loaned. I think only Belkelem was loaned. Watford don't run a £17m operating loss each year nor a multi-million £ debt - it's swings and roundabouts! Why not moan at Red Bull for building up the best technical team in the Grand Prix world which enables them to deal with the regulations better than the rest? Because Watford haven't built the best technical team, they are piggy backing off the team created by Udinese, you are more Torro Rosso. But it is not comparable, unless red bull give Torro Rosso Mark Webber for a few races to get them up the rankings. Yes you have bought a number of your loan players from last season, sorry acquired for free, but even your one loan deal stinks, Granada buy a player and immediately loan him to Watford. Do you honestly not think this is dodgy? Do you not think that it gives you an unfair advantage in that you can acquire players without spending a penny from your sister clubs? As a football fan do you really think this is the way forward? And as a Watford fan are you not worried they are going to punish you for it?
Benditlikevydra Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 Because Watford haven't built the best technical team, they are piggy backing off the team created by Udinese, you are more Torro Rosso. But it is not comparable, unless red bull give Torro Rosso Mark Webber for a few races to get them up the rankings. Yes you have bought a number of your loan players from last season, sorry acquired for free, but even your one loan deal stinks, Granada buy a player and immediately loan him to Watford. Do you honestly not think this is dodgy? Do you not think that it gives you an unfair advantage in that you can acquire players without spending a penny from your sister clubs? As a football fan do you really think this is the way forward? And as a Watford fan are you not worried they are going to punish you for it? Our owners have the football structure behind them. What is wrong with that? Leicester are "piggy - backing" off King Power, their owners, who run duty free shops! Do you think LCFC could handle the £17m operating loss, or massive debt without them? Leicester havn't suddenly found spare £millions to fund their operation. That is what happens when new owners come in to "rescue" clubs that are struggling. Chelsea, Man U, Cardiff, Bolton, Blackburn, Hull, QPR, Reading, Leeds, etc, etc. All these clubs, including yours, get an "unfair" advantage over clubs without rich owners. It just so happens that our owners are contributing a different asset (players) than other owners (cash). Which, in these days of FFP, is fortunate, unless they change the rules. But the FFP was brought in to reduce debt and Watford are not increasing debt and all our transfers have been ratified by the League, so why should they punish us? We even voted to change the loan regulations with every other Club this summer. The latest Loan signing, isn't dodgy at all. Every Club in the land is thinking of inventive ways to beat the FFP rules, without breaking them, and that will include taking loans. We are no different. But, if we fall foul of the FFP rules we will get punished, in the same way as Leicester would. Be assured that the League will be looking at your recent King Power sponsorship deal, along with Forests with the Kuwait deal. Are you worried about getting punished for that? As for the future of football, our youth team just came third in the prestigious Milk Cup, beating Liverpool and just losing out to Everton on penalties (after being 3-0 up). Both these Clubs have Cat 1 status, like Leicester have. Our leading scorer is now being hunted by Arsenal. We'll probably lose him for little reward. Why should we spend £m's on developing players for rich Premiership clubs. Until youth development is made viable, it is just throwing money away.
Captain... Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 Our owners have the football structure behind them. What is wrong with that? Leicester are "piggy - backing" off King Power, their owners, who run duty free shops! Do you think LCFC could handle the £17m operating loss, or massive debt without them? Leicester havn't suddenly found spare £millions to fund their operation. That is what happens when new owners come in to "rescue" clubs that are struggling. Chelsea, Man U, Cardiff, Bolton, Blackburn, Hull, QPR, Reading, Leeds, etc, etc. All these clubs, including yours, get an "unfair" advantage over clubs without rich owners. It just so happens that our owners are contributing a different asset (players) than other owners (cash). Which, in these days of FFP, is fortunate, unless they change the rules. But the FFP was brought in to reduce debt and Watford are not increasing debt and all our transfers have been ratified by the League, so why should they punish us? We even voted to change the loan regulations with every other Club this summer. The latest Loan signing, isn't dodgy at all. Every Club in the land is thinking of inventive ways to beat the FFP rules, without breaking them, and that will include taking loans. We are no different. But, if we fall foul of the FFP rules we will get punished, in the same way as Leicester would. Be assured that the League will be looking at your recent King Power sponsorship deal, along with Forests with the Kuwait deal. Are you worried about getting punished for that? As for the future of football, our youth team just came third in the prestigious Milk Cup, beating Liverpool and just losing out to Everton on penalties (after being 3-0 up). Both these Clubs have Cat 1 status, like Leicester have. Our leading scorer is now being hunted by Arsenal. We'll probably lose him for little reward. Why should we spend £m's on developing players for rich Premiership clubs. Until youth development is made viable, it is just throwing money away. I am not worried about FFP sanctions as we are apparently within them, and have made bugger all summer signings to stay within them. If we do fall foul of them it will be our own fault for irresponsible and reckless spending, which I was very critical of, under Sven. We are not looking at ways of getting round FFP, we are trying to operate within it. You do make an interesting point about FFP being about protecting clubs from financial mismanagement, and nobody can accuse the Pozzos and Watford of that. So maybe Watford will not get punished. I've still yet to see anything about the Pozzos declaring their common interest in the 3 clubs and it being sanctioned by the FA and UEFA. As for developing youth players, well football is going down a very dodgy route at the moment and the bubble will burst as people start realising that it is no longer a sport in this country, but a business, and local teams don't exist any more. Multiple club ownership is just another sign of it. Whilst you can argue that Watford are innovators and haven't broken any rules it is a dangerous precedent. My fear is that more clubs will be looking to follow this model, I also fear that teams operating in this way could exploit it further and "loan" in a big player for big games.
aefevans Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 I am not worried about FFP sanctions as we are apparently within them, and have made bugger all summer signings to stay within them. If we do fall foul of them it will be our own fault for irresponsible and reckless spending, which I was very critical of, under Sven. We are not looking at ways of getting round FFP, we are trying to operate within it. You do make an interesting point about FFP being about protecting clubs from financial mismanagement, and nobody can accuse the Pozzos and Watford of that. So maybe Watford will not get punished. I've still yet to see anything about the Pozzos declaring their common interest in the 3 clubs and it being sanctioned by the FA and UEFA. As for developing youth players, well football is going down a very dodgy route at the moment and the bubble will burst as people start realising that it is no longer a sport in this country, but a business, and local teams don't exist any more. Multiple club ownership is just another sign of it. Whilst you can argue that Watford are innovators and haven't broken any rules it is a dangerous precedent. My fear is that more clubs will be looking to follow this model, I also fear that teams operating in this way could exploit it further and "loan" in a big player for big games. Football went down that route about 20 years ago, surely?
Super_horns Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 The main worry for ANY of us developing young players must be the fact the Premier league clubs will be able to "poach" any top youngster for almost nothing under these EPPP rules?
Benditlikevydra Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 I am not worried about FFP sanctions as we are apparently within them, and have made bugger all summer signings to stay within them. If we do fall foul of them it will be our own fault for irresponsible and reckless spending, which I was very critical of, under Sven. We are not looking at ways of getting round FFP, we are trying to operate within it. You do make an interesting point about FFP being about protecting clubs from financial mismanagement, and nobody can accuse the Pozzos and Watford of that. So maybe Watford will not get punished. I've still yet to see anything about the Pozzos declaring their common interest in the 3 clubs and it being sanctioned by the FA and UEFA. As for developing youth players, well football is going down a very dodgy route at the moment and the bubble will burst as people start realising that it is no longer a sport in this country, but a business, and local teams don't exist any more. Multiple club ownership is just another sign of it. Whilst you can argue that Watford are innovators and haven't broken any rules it is a dangerous precedent. My fear is that more clubs will be looking to follow this model, I also fear that teams operating in this way could exploit it further and "loan" in a big player for big games. Every penny that LCFC exceed over the £8m loss allowed this season will be crucial. If they aren't doing everything they can to reduce that amount by manoeuvring, putting certain income/payments either in out without the time limits, etc, etc, in the same way as every business tries to reduce their tax, then they don't deserve to be running a business at all. Particularly a football team with 000's of fans. Platini has already said that he has no issue with multiple ownership across different countries as there is no conflict of interest. That is why there are rules to ensure such clubs cannot play each other in a competition. What is there for Watford to declare? I would imagine that the separate family membership owners of father and son, are not to get round football rules as the ownership is still related, but are more about taxation and corporate governance in the same way that many businesses are split into smaller units. For example, I would be surprised if Leicester City's profit and loss would be found on King Power's balance sheet - they would be separate business entities. This is normal business practice. Regarding the idea of loans being manipulated, well they can still only loan from Europe across the usual transfer windows as UEFA still treats international loans as transfers. Watfords loans last year, and Belkelems, recently, were season long loans, not short term. On the other hand, there were many loans of only a few weeks between "normal" clubs in England within the domestic loan windows. So your fears, on current evidence, are groundless where multiple ownership clubs are involved.
Lamby Posted 15 August 2013 Posted 15 August 2013 They need all the money they can get if they're charging £26 for an away ticket
Basingstoke Fox Posted 16 August 2013 Posted 16 August 2013 They need all the money they can get if they're charging £26 for an away ticket Ticket details for Charlton away: Charlton Athletic Football League Championship Saturday 31st August Kick-Off: 15:00 We have been given an initial allocation of 2,000 tickets for this fixture. Ticket details are as follows: Adults: £26
Super_horns Posted 16 August 2013 Posted 16 August 2013 They need all the money they can get if they're charging £26 for an away ticket That is probably about the average for the league...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.