Yes I would criticise Ipswich but not to the same extent. Unfortunately when one club gains an unfair advantage by cheating it puts pressure on others to follow suit or be left behind. Also Watford have tailored their whole transfer strategy to exploit something we all agree shouldn't be allowed. This issue like many things is the difference between something being technically legal or being just. Personally I put justice before law and so IMO what Watford are doing is cheating. You say "Watford and Ipswich are doing precisely what they are allowed to do by the rules. If anyone is to blame it is the people who drafted the rules". The people who draft the rules are ultimately to blame, but it's interesting that this debate seems to divide those who believe in the ethics of good sportsmanship being the priority from those who say; "If it's not against the rules its ok." Again I'll pose the same question as #46; What if there was a loophole that neglected banning sharp spikes protuding from shin-guards? Would it be acceptable because it was legal? Where do you draw the line and where does sportsmanship come into it?
Like the rich are in a better position to avoid paying taxes compared to the poor. I guess what you're saying is if you can get away with it who gives a **** about fair play?
Hmm so Watford are now ruining the 'Gentleman's game'? The sport has been broken for a long time, and just because we are the first in this country to use a rule to our advantage, it doesn't mean we are the first or last who maybe use a rule to their own advantage. I don't understand how you can say it is Watford's 'fault' they are playing within the rules. It is just another rule people use... it's almost like a spoilt child whinging because someone was given a better present than he was! And your comparison to theft is just laughable! I believe i commented on the club's strategy earlier in this thread where all the loans (sorry, one year transfers) were a short term solution. In January we could have signed half a dozen more if we wanted to. But no, we decided to try and sign a few young British lads (Including Robbie Brady). This is our long-term strategy. To buy young British talent (and probably young foreign talent), develop and no doubt sell on for a decent profit. This will make us a sustainable football club. Pretty much what we have been doing for the last 20 years to keep our football club alive because since SEJ, we have never had a money man. The owners first priority was to sort our finances out caused by our previous owner (who is now banned from football, and why this case has come about). It was then to bring in a caoching team they thought would get Watford playing good football. Then they brought in the players they thought could play this, to complement our squad. It just so happens that some of these players they already owned after years of scouting and investing. Others were the likes of Almunia and Hall who could provide quality and experience Come this summer, we will bid for who they believe will be beneficial to Watford FC. I suspect we will sign a handul of the Udinese/Granada players who have performed and who would want to play for us for another season. They will be on permanent, long term deals. I very much doubt we will have many of these international 'loans' that seems to be ruining the 'beautiful' game anyway. If you want to lay blame anyone for ruining this 'gentleman's' game, I would suggest it was Sky and their money that is so sought after!
So with all the clubs that make such huge losses, with the FFP rules coming in, would you say that they are cheating seeming it is in the rules now, buit soon won't be? Where do you draw the line at Sportmanship? Paying a player £40k a week when other teams can just about afford a whole team on that? It's your opinion what we are doing is 'cheating'. I think there are plenty of teams 'cheating' more than us!
Loaning players, no matter where they are from or how many, isn't cheating. Owning two clubs is cheating. Hope that clears it up.
Whatever your future plans are is irrelevant at the present and your mockery of good sportmanship probably exposes the reason why you have difficulty grasping that your club has gained an unfair advantage over the rest of the league due to having multi-club owners. Call me a spoilt child or a whinger for pointing this out if you like but I don't think my opinion that Watford are cheats is in the minority.
So you accept you are cheating. I haven't condoned your other examples of cheating and in most cases I probably agree, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Is it purely out of convenience that we're ignoring the fact the PL has a rule stating you can only have 2 loans in your squad at a time, but we regularly fielded a team with McShane, King, and Zayatte thanks to the latter not counting as he was a foreign loan?
Absolutely. In the same way that it is being ignored that it is not cheating; there is no "loophole" as the rules are quite specific in stating that foreign loans are treated as transfers and not as part of the loan quota; and that it defies logic that Ipswich are less objectionable for doing it because they have been less successful.
No, what I'm saying is that being rich enough to own two clubs and swap players between them, is no different to be rich enough to just buy those players in the first place. I find some of the comments on this thread embarrassing, Watford have an advantage in that they can swap players between clubs, we have an advantage in that our owner can spend £6m on players and fund £8m a year in losses, where's the difference? It's rank hypocrisy.
Not sure if your referring to my comments as embarrassing or hypocritical, but I haven't condoned the inequality of rich club's advantages, nor do I think anyone suggesting good sportsmanship has a prime place in football is embarrassing. This has been a good civilised debate so far so lets not start insulting people for their views. Back to the main point. Watford do as you say have an unfair advantage in that their owners also own other clubs and can therefore manipulate the rules in the way others have no opportunity to - Would the Italian and Spanish clubs have been happy to loan all those players to Watford or any other Championship team if there wasn't a multi-ownership? It's unlikely, so Watford have gained an unfair advantage which is unsportsman-like. We like many clubs have gained an unfair advantage because we have rich owners who are willing to bank-roll the club. This is also wrong, but it is a disparity that goes back through the history of the sport. That in itself is no excuse, but the FFP rules are at least adressing the issue.
Got to say I agree with this, to a club with no money (Barnsley for example), they would see both us and Watford having an unfair advantage when it comes to player recruitment and squad depth. However our advantage has been addressed and will be removed when the financial fair play rules come into force, with that the only way to bring in a large number of good quality players will be through loans like Watford have done, for that reason I think there need to be a review of the current loan system.
My comments weren't aimed at you personally, just the posts on this thread suggesting that Watford were cheating, or at least gaining an unfair advantage. Their advantage is no less fair than ours and I'd rather we weren't trying to be holier than thou, when in principal, we're pretty much doing the same thing.
No idea, it was undisclosed as far as I'm aware, though I don't really see what it has to do with the principal of what is ethical and what isn't.
Gosh there is a lot of hypocrisy and muddled thinking on this topic. Kev has already explained the facts a few times but they get muddied in the confused waters - for anyone who does not want to know any facts but just dislikes Watford skip this post Here is my tuppence worth. There are two issues 1 Watford had an owner called Bassini who controlled the club personally. He cheated by diverting funds that should have gone into the club's accounts and put them in his own. He did not tell the rest of the Watford Board about this so nobody knew. He sold the club to the Pozzo family. When they saw what he had done they reported it to the League. Technically Watford were at fault as what he did was in their name but the authorities were able to see that it was him and not the club who did wrong. He got a ban of 3 years for this. Watford got a transfer block until the end of August which prevents the club making transfers without the prior authorisation of the League. This means that the League have time to make sure Watford's new owners behave properly like other clubs do. Most Watford fans disliked Bassini and distrusted him as he kept cancelling fans forums and meetings to explain how he as a recently discharged bankrupt had got the funds to buy Watford in the first place. We were proved right and were glad to see the back of him. 2 Watford's new owners - the Pozzo family own two other European clubs. This is just a fact - some corporations own more than one club - and nobody has particularly had a problem with it. The Pozzos now decide who manages and plays for Watford - exactly the same as the owners of Hull, Cardiff, Palace, Leicester and so on. If the Pozzos had bunged millions into Watford - like Cardiff, Leicester Hull etc etc and Watford had used the money to buy the players they now have on loan nobody would be singling them out for criticism. That is what the rich elite of Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd etc have been doing for years. You might not like it and it might mean the playing field is not flat but it is a fact of life - we live with it. What has got everybody's knickers in a twist is that the Pozzos did not pay themselves millions to transfer players form Udinese and Granada to Watford but loaned them. It made sense - if you own two clubs transfers are payments from pocket a to pocket b. It does not give Watford an unfair advantage any more than Cardiff, Hull and Leicester having had millions poured into them gives them an unfair advantage. Well I suppose that having millions poured in IS unfair to clubs without rich owners. The loan rule is stupid - why is there a limit on UK loans but not on foreign ones - well we don't know - you would have to ask the league but if it is OK then why would you think twice about doing it? If the rules had included foreign loans you can be sure Watford would now have debts similar to Cardiff, Hull Leicester etc and would still have the players the Pozzos want. Is having large debts a better route forward than loans? I doubt it The other issue of anyone owning two clubs is a red herring - international corporations own lots of clubs so you can be sure that there are many international examples of dual or multi ownership - good luck and a lot of fees to the lawyers who try to draft laws to stop that. I would argue that having associated clubs in different leagues and moving and developing talent on an international stage can benefit the game - the problem will come when Watford and Udninese are both in the Champions League - but tell me how many of you think we will get there in your lifetime?
