So! It looks as if Il Watfordano have not been completely transparent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21829894 Fair punishment or foul?
It must be getting bloody full under that carpet at the Disciplinary Commission. What with the QPR episode 2 years ago (about Faurlin I think) and now this. Minutes at the Disciplinary Commission: - "We have some sort of problem with a club from the London area about the signing of players?", "What's that? The London area? Best sweep it under the carpet then and hope no one notices especially those oiks from south Wales." I wonder what treatment we would get if guilty of a similar offence?
Great minds and all that ITI. Mind you they would probably say we would get away with it as the FAW sit in judgement over us. I know we have had this discussion before but will that change if we get to the Prem for next season. Perhaps any Swans keeping a watching brief can advise?
Andy, if my memory is correct (doubtful tbh) I think the Swans and us (if we get there) would fall solely under FA jurisdiction in the PL and not FAW because its a separate entity to the Football League. Not a bad thing imo given the FAW history
Looks like Watford have pulled off a pretty amazing 'buck passing/hand washing' exercise to me. Had they declared this they'd have had a transfer embargo that would have prevented them signing the vast majority of the players that have got them 3rd in the league!! QPR didn't deserve a deduction imo but Watford have MASSIVELY gained from covering this up. If they take the other auto spot Hull and Palace should be tamping. On the other point what have the FAW ever done for us? Can't see being under the FA instead will make any difference tbh.
Steve At least it would create a level playing field with all clubs subject to the same jurisdiction, good or bad. The FAW have been accused of some favouritism in the past with potential suspensions - wasn't there something with Purse around F A Cup Final time? They have also been pretty unsupporting in other issues as well.
So, if watfraud get promoted, they won't be able to sign any players for the prem? Along with the fact that 9 players will be returning to italy at the end of the season. They'll have to play academy players. Derby's record in the prem is under threat
I write this because I quite like some of the Cardiff fans who post here. They talk a lot of sense. I also have no objection to mindless dislike many people have to other teams, but please, keep it mindless. Don't pretend to base it on fact. A lot of misinformation is being presented on here. First, to respond to Itiwran; WFC has been very honest. It was the club and the new owners who informed the various authorities of the wrong doings of the previous owner, so it is incorrect to say that Watford have not been completely transparent . Second, the punishments have primarily been imposed on the previous owner, including costs of the case. He is clearly been seen as the guilty party, though of course, the club is the entity that is a member of the FA and FL. Third, the directors of the club were found to have been deceived by the previous owner. It was not 'the club' but an individual who was not honest. What the news reports do not say but which was reported last June was that one of the last attempted actions by the previous owner was to sack an employee who discovered his misdeeds. The employee managed to prevent the owner accessing the safe where he kept documentation on what he had done. The last point is the sanctions. The punishment is not a a transfer embargo. Watford are still allowed to buy players but every purchase has to be approved first. This is primarily to check that there is no repitition of what the previous owner did and that the club has sytems in place to prevent it. Right, now that is cleared up we can return to mindless bigotry. Unfortunately you are still going to win the Championship no matter how rude I am.
It appears there is no transfer embargo, they just have to ask the authorities nicely before signing each new player. I seem to remember Luton being dropped two divisions due to problems with their previous owners.
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, it comes down to the legal difference between a business and an officer of that business. In the Luton case the illegal actions were undertaken by the business. In the Watford case the illegal action were taken by an individual without the agreement of the other directors. Let me also add, and remember I support Watford, I think that the sanctions against Luton were way over the top.
Well put NZHorn, a good explanation and not rude or offensive at all. I'm sure you will appreciate that to us, looking from the outside, it was easy to draw the above conclusions and, in my case, draw a similarity with the gentle wrist slap QPR got for the Faurlin issue. In any case its all water under the bridge now as our clubs prepare for the final, big push.
I cannot add to what NZHorn has written as it is factual and fair. What I find uncomfortable is the way that the BBC have reported it and the way that the author of this thread has used it to make his point, not that I blame him. If he had looked around a bit more he would have come across this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/18/watford-former-owner-banned-three-years You can see the different way that the issue has been looked at. The newspaper man is very well respected in his football investigations, rather more than can be said about some of the tabloid articles found on the Beeb these days.
This article is based upon the BBC link in POST #1. Are you seriously trying to tell me you wouldn't have formed the same opinion if the club concerned were one of the other top six clubs currently battling for promotion to the Prem? Pull the other one. Your club gained an unfair advantage from the actions of an employee at your club . Can you deny that?
I think you have missed the point ITIWRAN of what I was saying. If you or anyone else, including me, creates a thread it should be well informed and accurate. The BBC put up an article which focused on the so called transfer embargo, whereas the Guardian piece was looking at the previous owner. The same thing, but looked at from different angles. To only take one leaves an unbalanced thread, so when people point out that there is more to it than one side you cannot be surprised. Factually the 'employee ' was the owner who was removing money from the club account into his own account. How did that benefit the club? Because he was doing that he lied to the other directors to cover up his misdeeds. He also kept it away from the FL for the same reason. How did that give the club an unfair advantage? You seem to be talking about top six clubs, whereas this all goes back to last season where we only finished in mid table. I think you could be getting two different things mixed up.
Actually ITIWRAN we hornets CAN deny that. If you are interested the position is that it was only the OWNER - Bassini who gained. Complicated story but Bassini is a former bankrupt who somehow managed to persuade the previous owners of Watford that he had gone from bankruptcy to the ability to put about £4m into the club in a couple of years - he never explained how he achieved this miracle as I have worked my entire life as hard as I could and not got much past £4. Truth is he did not have the money so he took money from transfers and put it in his own bank account and lied to the rest of the Watford Board about it. Since he had appointed them all anyway it was just a dishonest one man band. The club should have had the money put into their accounts and if they had it would have been all legitimate. So Watford Football Club were in reality the VICTIMS of fraud. The FL understood this and so punished Bassini - not hard enough most Watford supporters feel. Thankfully though his ban may stop him taking over Portsmouth and other clubs he has been rumoured to have sniffed around to try to line his own pockets. The transfer embargo is fair as the FL can now check that the new owners understand and comply with the rules - not a problem as they were the whistle blowers. Couple of other things - I think most Watford supporters actually do think Luton were treated too harshly (although I guess most of us still enjoyed their plight but that shows how shallow we are) Lastly congratulations on your promotion - however you feel about not "putting the mockers" on it - you WILL be promoted - hang on long enough and maybe Wrexhamand Newport will follow Swansea and Cardiff and make it the Anglo-Welsh Premier League. (My local team Carmarthen may take a while longer to make it there )
OFH & Leo, thanks for the heads up and your views, much appreciated. if you read enough snooze papers you can glean the truth on most things printed. so in essence the old Watford board were either greedy or thick, is that right?
Bassini was greedy and dishonest and his Board were his appointed dummies and yes probably thick. Collectively they took us to the brink of administration so whatever you think of our new owners and the whole loans saga we are just grateful to still have a club. If you ever got a chance to ask Malky about it I suspect he would tell you that was why he left us - he had dealings with Bassini first hand and it cannot have been pleasant - we did not appreciate then why he would sign a new contrac tand then walk out but with hindsight we probably do now. Never mind - onwards and upwards and if we can pull out of our mini slump maybe we can join you next year in the Prem.
If Watford have gained a football advantage then they should be deducted points - if not then justice done. I hope Hull get 2nd though. Watford are basically a feeder club for a Italian side. Sadly I think Udinese B will get 2nd. I can see them beating us but I think we will do them a favour by at least getting a point when the pressure should be off us at Hull. Saying that id prefer Udinese B to Palarse and their comedy ultra fans.
