I don't have a problem with english talent rubbish that others are spouting. Any club would do the same given the opportunity and football is a cruel sport where regardless of what nationality the better player gets picked. The problem lies elsewhere imo. What I do have an issue with though is this clear exploitation of the fact your owners own a couple other clubs with the squad size to do this so easily, shuffling players around at will. I think this is why imo is should be illegal to own multiple clubs in the same sport. Its just a loophole, whether you are loaning players or buying them it doesnt matter. Your owners still have the same players at their disposal regardless to use wherever they want as long as the player agrees to the deal and is happy. It just doesn't seem fair and in the spirit of the game, as I say though I don't blame watford because pretty much every club would try to take advantage of this situation one way or another
Thank you, Josh. That is a perfectly reasonable opinion, written in civilised language. I suspect that there will be attempts to stop multiple ownership in the next few years. The problem is that there are legal issues, I believe.
I can't speak for others but if the shoe was on the other foot then no I wouldn't be happy either. However, you're the first to come on here and criticise the rule rather than the club and that's the point - everyone would exploit it given the chance and i must say i'm a little surprised it's still in force. Then again under EU ruels there's probably not a great deal to stop it. Thanks though - yours is a markedly different tone from the other visitors on here and very much appreciated
Not to mention that we are not alone - other examples exist in Europe. There's even one in Scotland, although that one is about to stop after the owner went belly-up.
.....and practical ones too. It would be very difficult to define, let alone enforce, "multiple ownership". What if Pozzo senior owns one club and Pozzo junior, say, owns another? Or a cousin of the Pozzos, or Pozzo's wife etc. etc......? Or 2 clubs are owned by 2 people who are partners in a third company but have no "relationship", supposedly, through the football. I would suggest that it is virtually impossible to prevent this happening.
The only thing those two brainless idiots know is how to talk out of their backsides and what they don't realise is that plankton has more inteligence than they have, talk about making complete idiots of themselves. The old saying of if you don't know what your talking about, its best to say nothing certainly applies.
I have a memory that we once signed 7 players from Leicester for the start of a new season. Does anyone know the details?
Is it fair and in the spirit of the game when billionaire owners buy a whole team of players? No, but it's just a part of football. You wouldn't complain if it was your club they owned.
I believe Flitton is talking about the fans from other clubs. Might be a good idea to use quotes next time!
In response to the various remarks that suggest "Watford are ruining the English game", I put it to you that we are doing the English game a bigger service than any team in the Championship, if not the country. We are integrating young English players into the pass-and-move style of football that this nation so craves - attractive, attacking football that not only pleases the eye, but also gets results. It would be impossible to implement this style of play using only English players, as the pool of talent just isn't there. So we import from Italy and Spain, where this ethos is ingrained within the players from a very young age. And here's a hard fact for you: during the 2012/13 season, Watford's home-grown talent played more minutes than any other team in the Championship, bar Middlesbrough. Over the next couple of years, a new generation of technically gifted British players will appear off our production line. To my second point, and this is very crucial: the extensive use of the loan system last season was a one off, and the recruitment drive of players from Udinese/Granada this season will also be a one off - we now have a good-sized squad of players who are contracted for years to come, and so player movement between the clubs from here on out will be less aggressive. Granada went through exactly the same thing; now they are virtually self-sufficient, with the odd player or two being loaned from Udinese into an otherwise all-Spanish squad. Regardless of the above, we will still have to put up with the ignorant and out-dated comments of opposition fans, but remember this: very soon, they will be eating their words...
Which is exactly my point, its such a hard one for the FA to get right because legally there is no wrong doing so its such a delicate situation. It would almost be considered unfair on the pozzos if they were to bring in a rule of one club per owner because the rule would be so specific to football clubs. I do think something needs to be done. Would I be complaining if it were Leeds? I'd like to say yes but I know I wouldn't and a very very small minority of Leeds fans would be if any so there is a fair bit of hypocrisy towards Watford as a club from other fans And comparing it to the billionaire owners is fine but FFP is coming in to try to stop that because it is recognised that these millions are not in the best interest of the game or fair for all clubs.
You are right NZ, we did. I cannot find the details at the moment, but remember that none of them ever made the 1st team.
Mid-way through the 1948/49 season, we signed five from there (reputedly after asking "How much for the whole team") - three permanent and two on loan. One of the loan players became the oldest ever to play for us, although I think Alec Chamberlain may have that 'honour' now.
Must be a different mob then - the five I'm thinking of all played for the 1st team - Tommy Egglestone made over 180 appearances.
J.Goodall 44 years, 87 days Bradford Park Avenue (a) Southern League Division 1 14 Sep 1907 A.F.R.Chamberlain 42 years, 327 days Newcastle United (h) FA Premier League 13 May 2007 Chamberlain’s was an extremely brief appearance as a substitute – other than this, his last appearance was at 41 years, 243 days)
