well well, now who do we believe? http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sp...=Feed: WatfordFC (Watford FC ... Latest News)
I believe that Sky Andrew said it, but not that he meant it. Let's assume that Sky Andrew's sole motivation is money. Had we kept Sordell until the summer, what interest would he have had in keeping Sordell here on a couple of grand a week for an extra year, when he could be on 5 or 10 times that? And on top of that, why would he pass up a signing on fee? If Sordell left on a free in 18 months, we would have got a tribunal fee, and unless I'm mistaken the agent wouldn't have gotten a cut of that.
About as much as Tevez's agent. I don't doubt that the quote Bassini gave was accurate, but equally I've seen no reason to doubt that we advertised Sordell and Mariappa via this agency.
that does sound plausible. Hmm, it's all very worrying. The club says we don't need to sell, and yet it seems they're putting our top players in the shop window. Mixed messages don't help us feel any more comfortable with the situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if what Sky Andrew has said in the WO is correct simply because our owner has so little credibility. Bassini's other comment about selling to Cardiff being 'remote' also looks dubious based on reports in Wales that they had 3m offer accepted for Sordell. The one comment from Bassini I do believe was a few weeks back when he said he was looking into paying the bondholders back early. It was Mariappa's choice not to join Wigan, if he had agreed terms that would have taken our income from transfers and sell on fees to around £13m with only £1m being paid out. If he goes in the summer (which you would imagine he will) then Bassini may well be in a position to repay the full £10m to the bondholders (I think its either £2.5m or £3.5m that has been paid already) and he would assume full ownership of the club. Some may point to investment in the pitch, tannoy, pub, ground etc. But is there a lot of evidence of that so far? I would also imagine that our annual operating losses are a fair bit healthier than they were in the last published accounts (-4m I read somewhere) due to a lot of high earners coming off the wage bill so all this transfer revenue must be doing more than servicing debt. If he does assume full ownership in the next year or two he will have 100% control of a debt free club and the next owner will pay a lot more than £440,000 for that.
So the title of this thread should read: Who is the villain - Baz or Sky? And the answer is both! My take on this is that they are both telling their truths i.e. from their point of view. If SA is completly truthful about neither him or Marvin wanting to go then why didn't he sign the improved Watford contract? The players being hawked around via an agency? Well maybe after interest came in for them the club looked to create competition to get the best price? I'm being generous with that view I know. I certainly want to believe that story from The Mirror about Malky's conversation with Coyle because that is a hoot! By the same token we all know we are a selling club so we were not surprised about the sale and subject to knowledge about the add-ons I think we got a good price for someone that the jury is out on as to what standards he will eventually achieve in the game (I have been a fan of his since before he was loaned to Tranmere and I always thought he would end up a bit like Cyril Regis or a rich man's Heskey but in fact he is turning into his own man now). Neither Baz or Sky had to make their statements and I think when there was less than a day to complete the deal decisions and statements can be made & misunderstood that don't always reflect well afterwards. Baz takes it that he he won't sign the new contract now (31/1) then he won't sign at all whilst SA is saying they may have signed had the deadline been longer - that would have been a big risk by Baz & the club had they allowed MS to stay and not sold. What I do want to see is all this money that the club brought in over the last 9 months spent on capital projects. I realise that the increased squad with an extra 10 players + loanees in costs increased money per annum to employ but over the period of their contracts that can only be about 3m in cost compared to the 10m + we have received in transfer fees (although that will mostly be in instalements and not up front). So lets now see Baz comit to a timetable of the works now. He has paid of the initial Bond repayment and there is a strict schedule of payments which I believe he will stick to - I don't see any value to him paying them off early but he is in a position to do so now I would suggest.
I think that Bas would be a fool to lie to us, (but you never know) I would like to hear from Marvin but I doubt if he will say anything
Marv was just on SSN, saying he wasn't expecting to leave and was ready to stay for the rest of the season and to give Watford his all... Something fishy somewhere...
Why oh why are things not black and white, it is not a national secret no government is going to fall if we know the truth Too much cloak and dagger for my liking
Anytime I hear two sides of the story, with such an extreme difference, I tend to think it is somewhere in between, with both sides exaggerating their own case; Bas wanting to defend his decision of selling MS, making it look like his hands are tied and if we don't sell now we can lose millions! The agent defending the player, making out the club wanted to sell. I'd say that once interest was known, the club wanted to fulfill the money we could get for him, so they may have advertised his availability rather than have one team being able to offer a lower amount and have a 'monopoly' in signing the player. The agent wants to fulfill his clients potential - both monetary and playing ability - so advises to look for a move that will suit him! I wouldn't be surprised at all if the agent advised not to sign a new contract so we had to sell now or risk losing him for a lot less further down the line
I suspect Marvin wanted to stay (he didn't hand in a transfer request) but once we accepted the offer a deal was likely. Maybe the agent is trying to say Marvin didn't feel wanted in the end. Mind you agents can be greedy as well as owners.
Maybe the agent was trying to say that, but I doubt Marvin was. He wouldn't need an agent to say that for him and the general tone of all of his 'public statements' certainly suggested otherwise. I'd go along with the greedy agent theory - even reckon 'Onest Baz was telling the truth.
I'm with you NNW - Sky Andrew has always said that he would prefer MS to play games at Watford rather than warm the bench at a low level Prem club. For me, MS got his head turned by the media hype and a short term huge increase in wages. Only time will tell it it is the right move for him..
I believe that all three are not telling things as they were but I believe Sky Andrew less then Lawrence Bassini and Marvin Sordell is trying to make things better. Football agants are not very high on my trust list and football club owners are not much higher.
The trouble is that Baz has not gained any trust yet, and does little to try and win it with his reluctance to tell people what his plans really are. Football agents work for their own gain as much as a players, bringing about a conflict of interest. Players can get out of contracts far too easily by refusing to get on the team coach. Fans are kept in the dark as to what is happening, but as long as they continue to turn up and pay they should expect nothing more.
