North North highlights a good point--Bas's defence. He made no defence of his actions, nor tried to explain them. He just said "you cannot disqualify me because I am not a convicted criminal, am not bankrupt and I do not have an interest in another FL club". Clueless and shameless.
Like most owners he didn't really care that much for the club and wanted to make money out of it..instead probably because he is a bad businessman the guy got caught out. We probably would have been better with his mate who was supposed to be partner but never came..I wonder why? BTW I presume when they mean 8 signed players its the likes of Kightly/Nosworthy/Alex K from last season rather than just all our "loan" signings as some rival fans have suggested.
The FL have been clever stating that the transfers have to be agreed by the football authorities as opposed to the FL because if we got promoted, it wouldn't apply. Although it states there isn't a fine, it wouldn't surprise me if the profit from the sale of DG would be factored in somewhere. As transfer money comes in in instalments, it won't be a single amount so the FL can't class it as a fine as it's not a single payment being made by the club. Also, when this process started, DG was still a Swansea player so we had no way of knowing that he would move in January.
If you haven't had enough reading about it there's a very good summary by David Conn in today's Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/18/watford-former-owner-banned-three-years Mr Conn is reliably good at getting to the nub of football's financial and administrative shenanigins. He's been sniffing around Leeds & Bates in a succession of articles for some time.
Just worked my way through Franks summary in the wobby , am absolutely staggered at the "club secretary " not reading what he was signing off . Barrea trying hard to protect Baz (and all his lies). How the hell were we taken in by these pricks? I hope the club take legal action against Baz LNOC and all parties that have rooked us. I suppose thats upto the Pozzo`s (thank god they took us over ). Would suggest that as a fan base we say a big thank you to the Pozzos for saving us.
I note from the judgment document that the authorities took note of our league position and prospects in settling on their sanctions. This seems to be a dangerous practice i.e. we'll dream up the punishment based on your success. Is this right ? However, what does concern me is this. If the authorities refuse all transfers until the end of the window AND all 'international loans' are treated as transfers, AND all our current Granada & Udinese loans terminate at the end of the season, then what sort of squad might we end up with next season ? Any thoughts - or am I just being machiavellian ?
I think there are examples from the past where they have done this, QPR and West Ham. I thought that they also said that they had to find WFC guilty in order to put virtually all the blame on Baz. It seems as if the punishment for the club was the minimum they could do.
That's a good positive spin. I suppose my misgivings, or your optimism will be exposed when the club actually attempts a transfer. I truly hope for the best, and in light of the sanction (and there being no other, fine,points etc) perhaps your view makes more sense. (I've often noted that to be the case) Cheers Portugal this week, La belle France on Easter sunday. Yess!
Agree that it seems wrong to suggest the punishment might vary dependent on league position. Perhaps if all international loans are transfers and the FL refuse all transfers then those players will be forced to stay with us till the next transfer window
Interesting how different journo's take a different spin on the same story. In the Guardian article it centres on Baz getting banned and then goes into more technical detail of the case, whilst the BBC web-site and that twat Clem on 5 Live last night focussed on our transfer embargo.
Journo's just want to paint the picture that all football clubs are money grabbing monsters. They don't want to spoil that image by looking into the story and seeing that an individual was responsible.
The Guardian story ends by saying that Bas did not benefit personally by his deals with the loan company. How did he convince them of that? He was not paying suppliers and was getting behind in payments due to HMRC, so the loans were not taken out just to ease the cash flow at the club. Perhaps this is the source of the money used to pay Bas his "consultancy fees" ---£300K was it not? We will never know what was going on, or what was intended by this bunch of chancers. Please do not call them "businessmen". I am hopeful that the "transfer embargo" will prove to be surmountable for next season otherwise we will be playing in whatever league with a team consisting of Almunia, Dickinson, Nosworthy, Hall, Doyley, Forsyth, Hogg, Yeates, Massey, Deeney and Forestieri, with Bond, Hoban, Hodson, Jenkins Iwelumo and Assombalonga on the bench. An honest team, capable of Championship survival, but not what we had in mind for next season.
If the worst came to the worst we are only embargo'd till the next transfer window - and presumably could get loans during that time anyway
There seems to be a bit of panic over the 'transfer embargo' and its possible adverse effect on our squad for next year. I may be a bit thick with my interpretation of this: "The club has been made the subject of a transfer embargo, but wishes to emphasise that the embargo referred to falls under Regulation 19 of the Football League Regulations. This is not an absolute bar on transfers, but rather a mechanism by which transfer business can be conducted by the club provided that the prior authorisation of the relevant football authorities has been obtained." - but to me that suggests that business as usual will be the case in terms of transfers. All that the 'embargo' is designed to do is ensure that there is no repeat of the underhand Bassini/Swansea/LNOC type of financial dealings that caused this mess in the first place & we will still have the ability to buy/sell/loan/swap players as we please (well, loan until the FL decide to plug that 'loophole'!). On another topic, it's been fun reading the comments on other club boards regarding the decision - the number of Holloway-esque plonkers who post their completely ill-thought out opinions without having bothered to read/think about what has happened is truly amazing. Some sterling work done on one board by Salisburykev to stem the tide of ignorance - but, as Canute found out, the tide was too strong for him & the minds of many are still awash with utter tripe.
Right, this is a good outcome for us, in my humble opinion. We didn't get docked points, or even fined. This seems very reasonable and logical from the Football League. Baz has got his name highlighted in a bad way and banned from the game for three years, in the meantime he'll probably ruin himself anyway. The 'Embargo' as BB suggests, I also think is just to check that what we are doing is above board. I am sure that during the hearing the Pozzos produced everything required in the correct manner or the hearing wanted. So, until they close the loophole it is business as usual - WE JUST NEED TO GET BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL ON THE PITCH WHERE IT MATTERS MOST !!!
I was pleased to read BBs post as I was begining to think that I had missed something or was being far too optimitic. Now that it is out of the way I think there will be an interesting sideshow. VGS v Baz may shed some light on were the Russos trying to get back in by the tradesmen door. Baz changed his statement from being the sole owner of WFC ltd to holding 50% of shares for VGS. VGS say that they lent him money, but didn't get the loan notes that he promised them. Should be an expensive trip to court for the loser. Last time they lent money they didn't get it back, but won the court case. Don't know if the money was actually repaid, but suspect it was. Then we might see the club go after Baz if they think it is worthwhile. Knowing how slowly the law works he will have gone bust again before a case could be heard.
