They are so blinkered on this subject that they simply fixate on wages, without taking into account other factors that count towards a club's profit/loss situation. Two of the names you mention above are prime examples of the right & wrong ways to operate under FFP. Leeds splashed out £6M for Viduka then later sold him for a lot less - £4M from memory - an obvious operating loss. Kewell cost them nothing having come up through the ranks, meaning the £5M they sold him to Liverpool for was obvious profit. Yet when we sign players on free transfers - which will obviously lead to either a break-even or profit-when-sold-on situation - we are obviously doing something illegal over the wages? That people can't think things through before spouting off at the mouth beggars belief really.
We're probably the most transparent club in the championship this season. Every transfer had to be approved by the league before it could be sigmned off. And yet they still moan................
The pozzos are famous for NOT paying top dollar wages at any of their clubs. Having said that I'm sure our old ceiling has been lifted and I'm sure we are operating well within the rules set by the FL. Our young players and academy graduates as has been said elsewhere here will reduce the average as will the foreign earners situation where continental players expect less than Britts. To be fair I never "liked" the fact that the likes of Reading had sugar daddies pumping millions into clubs that meant they could access more valueable players than the traditional Watford. Now we are in the position of being able to access quality on the cheap others don't like it, my opinion we're doing something far more positive for football than the Majedskis and Abramvichs of this world.... Anyway loving the football and its the wee man holding the reigns that's making the real difference...... In Zola we trust, THe new stand should be "The Gianfranco Taylor" stand.....
Exactly this. But since when did the football league and FA know the rules. We have to be doing something wrong and illegal. There is no way we can sign these players legally. It must be true as the all knowing Leeds and Leicester fans have said so. Never mind the fact that the Fl and FA have gone through each and ever deal with a fine tooth comb.
When GFZ has achieved what GT did at the club, then we should consider naming parts of the infrastructure of the ground after him. Note that I said when, not if......
We do appeared completly blinkered though in not seeing other peoples side of this: I appreciate that most of the players when they originally signed for Udinese were free but not all. So other clubs argument on this one is that should Udinese buy a player for 3 million then immediatly sell him to Watford for nothing then that is circumnavigating the fair play rules. It is not breaking the rules but it should be. That is a fact. The authorities have got to find a way of regulating this new business model fairly. It's clear to us that the group is being run financialy efficiently and profitably but the system could be abused at any time. We should also recognise that players are signing with the Group not Watford specificly (although we hope they prefer here) and will be moved around as best benefits the Group as a whole and the individual clubs. This will happen to us - just not quite yet. Wages - last year it was shown we paid all the wages. Well - we do have increased T/O so it's entirely possible. That said, the contracts could have Golden handshake agreements - i.e. signing on/off payments which may assist the reduced wages but we will never know. Again, the Group is well known for being prudent with it's pay structure and keeping within budget.
I agree with a lot of what you say Chris, but I don't think they have once paid a significant sum for a player them imemdiately sent him to us. They have picked up most on a free then transferred them to us. Not entirely sure why they didn't just sign them to Watford straight away - unless the signing-on fee was absorbed by Udinese. The rest they signed a number of years ago, haven't really appeared for Udinese/Granada (often loaned to other teams) then transferred to us. We have an increase in income so can pay a bit more in wages... the club certainly have increased our revenue streams commercially as well as through the gate. We have also let a lot of players go this summer, so a bit more flexibility with the new players on top of the loanees, who we paid wages for. I can see how some don't like what they are doing... but we have had to look on while other teams pay massive fees/wages for players that go way beyond their income. With FFP, they can no longer do this, which is why they are bleating so much and claiming it's unfair. If they could still spend millions how they want to, I doubt many would care about 'little old Watford'. Also doesn't help we were succesful with it last season...
I've highlighted the key words in that argument - they make it purely hypothetical as neither scenario has actually occurred, and neither is likely to occur - even though possible. Less likely, I should add, than Crystal Palace selling a player for £15M but keeping him for six months before letting him go to his new club. There is a certain level of trust under FFP that clubs will follow the rules - as there should be - but there are consequences for failing to do so, again as there should be. Quite why we should be singled out as cheats before the system has even been put in place and tested is anyone's guess - but it smacks of jealousy on the part of those who recognise that they themselves will suffer/find it hard to operate as they have been used to under the new rules. No recognition at all that we have been through the mire in recent years and have cut our cloth accordingly.
I don't ever remember any Leeds or Leicester players taking a 12% wage deferral to prevent administration as our players did 10 years ago. They knew a decent cup run would get them their money back and we got to the SF of the FA Cup, and the following year the League Cup.
But the fact is it COULD happen, not that it hasn't happened. A more unscrupulous club WILL take advantage in the future and that is why some control has to take place. A good example of one for us is Faraoni - transfered for an undisclosed fee from Inter before transfering to us 2 weeks later again for an undisclosed fee. If there was no differential between the fees then why not sign him direct with us? It is the only one that has been done like that to be honest - all others were likely to be free's or nominal value - although most likely with signing on fees at the Italian end. Btw - The rumour is that the undisclosed fee was in the region of 3m Euros for Faraoni - we will never know if that is bo##oc*s or not.
I was trying to answer Markos financial question. I don't care if others think Watford are doing the right or wrong thing they are jealous we have found a way through the rules their clubs have not. I am jealous of the top teams having Russ or arab oil money to spend, they have their way and we have ours.
We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here - I know that it could happen, in the business of football there is a whole lot more that could happen - my point is that it hasn't, yet we are being pilloried as though it has. Which is entirely unfair. Re the Faraoni transfer, I suspect the main issue that stopped him from being transferred directly to us from Inter was the strange system of dual player ownership in Italy. Inter only owned 50% of him - even though they signed him from Lazio on a free transfer - Udinese owned the other 50% and had to 'buy him out' before sending to us. Re his value - he only moved from Inter to Udinese as a makeweight - a cash plus player deal worth €11M in which Samir Handanovič went the other way, making a handsome profit for the Pozzos. You#re right - we'll never know the fee involved in his transfer to us, but those two points suggest IMO that the rumoured €3M was way, way off the mark.
Watford hold these players contracts, a "group" cannot hold their contracts - this is what "signing" means. It also means that if a player is sold to another club the sale will be from Watford and the funds paid to Watford. Now how those funds are later distributed is a matter for the private companies involved. We seem to be trying to making up some very complicated picture that is just not there...It also seems that there are a lot of football supporters quoting FFP and yet have no clue what it is!
Question, is it fair play to keep wages within the FL limits through a lucrative sponsorship scheme e.g. as a successful businessman you either sponsor the club directly through one of your companies or get a mate to do so and heh presto meeting the rules? I bet some are doing it!!
Exactly my point Aberdeeen - all that will happen with clubs like Man City is they will get another Abu Dhabi business to sponsor some other part of Man City not already sponsored to huge sums.
This is where it gets stupid. Let's say Sir Elton eanted to give us £2 billion. he couldnlt just stick it in the bank account but could set up a company called Elton John Ltd and then sponsor our shirts - for .5 billion a year over 4 years
There will be stipulations on what are 'reasonable' sponsorship amounts. They will look at previous sponsorship deals as a starting point and if any new deals go way beyond what has previously been secured, then they will investigate and punish clubs. They were meant to be looking at Man City's sponsorship deals as it is obvious they are connected with the owners and the jump in revenue is much more than they could generate from a normal deal. I just doubt the FA/UEFA/FIFA will have the balls to punish any of the big clubs... they will just want to make examples of smaller clubs! All it wil mean is the big stay big and smaller clubs have no chance of catching up
Could anyone tell me who put the inmates in charge of the Asylum? What is FFP for? I thought it was to regulate finance in football so that innocent parties - like the poor Inland Revenue - did not get stuffed when a club over extended itself and went bust owing millions. That would make sense. If it is instead designed to keep money out of football they should say so. That would be the only result of restricting the amount of money a club can earn from sponsorship. Or is it just a communist ideal to make sure Man U don't have any more money than Stockport?
For me it seems they want to keep the rich rich, and the poor from going bust to try and catch up. Big clubs who already have the infrastructure, the fan base, a good marketing strategy are the ones who will benefit. Someone like Man Utd know they will bring in so much commercial income and sponsorship that they know not many teams will be able to catch up. Man City got in just about the right time but you will no longer see another team spend so much in such a short space of time. The top teams will stay the top teams for a long time If they wanted it to be a truly level playing field, they would do something similar to rugby and have a club wage cap - I think rugby is £5m. Their wage bill cannot go over this, but they can spread it out how they see fit. You can have a couple of mega-stars on stupid wages but you need to balance it out over the squad. Obviously £5m would be too low for football. Eg, in the Prem, on the basis the average wage was £50k a week on a squad of 23, that wiold be about £60m a year. That might be a bit too high, so maybe £40-50 will do. It means you can have some higher than average, and plenty lower. I would also like to see more performance-related clauses. A lower basic... make them earn their money! I think you would also need a set transfer budget as well - maybe £20-25m, for example. Then the rest of the TV money can be distributed more fairly across the leagues (sliding scale of wage/transfer caps), and the rest has to go on your infrastructure/academy set up Unfortunately this would never happen...
