On another hand we have not sold our best player and borrowed him back immediately. Is that technically wrong?
To repeat H's response - this is not a case of 'technically not breaking the rules', that is really a nonsense thing to say as the rules actually allow us to do what we are doing. If they didn't, we would never have been allowed to sign those players in the first place. Which leads nicely into your 'different rules for different countries' contention - again, there simply aren't any differences, they are the same. No 'adaptations', just the same rules. As to us being the first in the country to do this, well if you consider the UK as a country, we're not - it's being going on in Scotland for quite a few years. On the subject of morality - are you saying that what is happening at Watford is immoral compared to the £billions being thrown into the likes of Chelsea & Man City? Or even immoral compared to the financial shenanigans happening at the likes of Portsmouth where the £billions have been sucked out of the club? At least we are running on a sound financial basis - something that 95% of other clubs should be aspiring to. Can't be technically wrong as there is no rule against it - but morally wrong? Probably. Not to mention a trifle stupid for a club aspiring to promotion into the very league where he will be in opposition.
I thought there was only a certain amount of players you could have from one Club alone in the English league's. Unless that's just pure speculation on my behalf. Nothing can justify the amount of money being thrown into the likes of Manchester City. It should be stopped and I think FFP will gradually have that impact on the top Clubs. The only way to solve it, is to introduce caps and maximum spending amounts. Or else it's going to continue. I wasn't trying to insinuate that Watford were breaking rules and I apologise if my post came across that way. It's just due to what I thought was allowed and not allowed in the English game, would propose that Watford were using different (although they aren't) rules for self benefit. But finding out that there aren't really any differences, then it's fully justifiable and Watford deserve credit to an extent for doing something no other team in the English League's have done yet. Fair play to you all.
To be fair, there would be a fair chance that some of us would be claiming it to be unfair if it was another team exploiting this rule. I think there were a few around the forums commenting on how unfair it was that Bellamy was at Cardiff a few seasons ago on a fraction of his Man City wage. Similarly, Donny Rovers having a number of players on a fraction of their wage to put them in the 'shop window' - although it didn't work for them, so not so much outrage! The problem with us is as soon as one media outlet was enraged by the situation, without knowing the full details, many others jump on the band-wagon. Forutnately Zola has been winning over some of the critics with some fantastic football at times... but there are still some out there that don't like it! No rules are being broken so they just have to deal with it, the same as we have to deal with people moaning. As for the loan rules - I'm not aware of any limit on how many a team can have from one club, I just think you are only allowed 5 loanees in the matchday squad. You also have to have 6 'home grown' players, which we normally fill quite comfortably (with 4 of those being Watford Academy players on Friday).
If you start listening to what Holloway says and take it seriously it will always make you angry. The man is a loon and always has been. Who cares about his opinion. COYH.
If I own a Company producing widgets in Italy and another in Spain and another in England producing the same widgets then, being a good European, I utilise the European employment laws to maximum advantage and can move my workforce around as I like. Therefore, if I choose to have some Italians in England, some British nationals working in Italy and Spain I can do it, in fact should some of my workforce ask me to work in another European Country I have to consider it. Owning three football clubs is no different and much like the UK Government has to comply with EU employment legislation regarding freedom of movement, so does the Football League. The football league can make rules for clubs within England and Wales but cannot dictate over EU law which is why we can have as many european 'workers' on temporary loan as we like.
Holloway appears to be a buffoon, but he knows how to work the media. This was a statement timed for media consumption to raise the profile of the game and maybe to get his excuses in first, anticipating a defeat. We can expect more of this from other managers and fans, if we continue to do well (every manager defeated by Manchester City draws attention to the "£200 million pounds worth of talent" on their bench). To be fair to the critics, many Watford fans did not at first understand what was going on at the club when all the loanees first appeared--we did not know if it was legal, and we worried about the implications. Would the club lose it's identity.? (No) Would our Academy players be marginalised or hindered in their development? (To some extent , yes). Now we understand "the project" a little better, we have come to accept it and even become defensive if it is criticised. The model of co-ownership of clubs across different national leagues, and unlimited transfer of players between co-owned clubs gas been tolerated for some years in the case of Udinese and Granada, but extending the model to include a club in the English football league is a new situation, and a backlash is to be expected. Any new regulation would need the co-operation of all the football bodies in Europe. Likely?
There is a limit of loans from one club to another - four - but the regulations clearly state that it refers only to clubs within the Football League and the Premier League.
Not quite the same thing, yet! but moving towards it? http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/360/8492723/boro-confirm-brazilian-link-up
"Mowbray stressed that nobody should expect too much from the link-up in the near future." Scared of the backlash? lol... Thanks M Frenchie
Anyone else notice that in the BBC article within the list of our foreign "loanees" was Jean-Alain Fanchone who is longer at WFC?
Which is good reason to ignore them all and not get wound up about it. We just carry on our on merry way. A bit like in GT's day when 'hit-and-hope long ball football' was put to scorn while we happily finished runners up in the league, had an exciting run in Europe and got to an FA Cup final. He who laughs last etc etc.
Don't post often but was actually going to make a point of saying how impressed I was with how Holloway changed things for Palace on Friday, he made a concious effort to put three up front against our back three after about 30 minutes and it clearly made a big difference. But then I saw his comments on the tele and he went down drastically in my estimations !!
Hi Ethel and I totally agree , always thought he was a good manager , however gone down in my estimation now.
welcome to posting Ethel! And i completely agree, can't take that away from him, his changes were far too effective and we did nothing to combat it...well done to him for that, but his comments take away any respect i might have had!
You're right GG...but it's very difficult to ignore all the idiotic comments! lol..i'm not very good at that. <deep breaths needed!>
