Palace deserved it, watford didn't turn up and they'll go again next year and try and win the championship next season.
Will the loophole regarding loaning a full team just about be there for them to abuse next season or will the FA sort it out?
They can't stop it, Watford can just sign them all for free transfers and then sell them back at the end of the year.
Most clubs in this league use the loan system, I see no problem with Watford have done. City benefited from the loan system massively. No one is killing English football, English players will get into the team if they're good enough.
All that said, I now have to put up with the rantings of that yokel baked bean head Holloway spoiling my match of the day viewing next season..
Won't be able to use the other (foreign) clubs to subsidise their contracts though. Agents will get involved as soon as the contractural link with the "parent club" is broken making it a significantly more risky strategy. The player needs to trust the word of the club Watford is borrowing off and the club needs to trust that the player won't just sign elsewhere and not for watford as soon as he is released.
Let's be honest, the choice was hardly a tantalising one. I'm sure I'll find a way to hate everyone in the Prem next year anyway for a host of reasons, so whoever came up today doesn't really matter to me.
Look at most of the players that have been loaned, they are young players who wont be on big contracts anyway. What Lewis said is ridiculous, no one is gonna be released on free transfers, they'll simply buy the player. Infact, I don't think it's illegal for selling clubs to still pay a % of the wage after selling the player either so that would solve any problem with large contracts (if there is any).
Palace deserve to win it today, and I am pleased for the ex Tigers getting promotion. The only down side is having to suffer Holloway all next season spouting his gob off.
I didn't mean that they would release the player and then re-sign for Waford. I mean a transfer where no fee is paid, hence the "free transfer."
Not sure - players having "a percentage" of wage paid by another club usually happens with free transfers and the payment from the other club is part of the severance - as happened with Barmby comng to us from Leeds. He had a contract with them for a certain value, so his pay-off was what he was owed minus the wage we were paying him - still cheaper for Leeds than honouring his contract which no-one else would match (that, or he insisted he would sit on his contract unless his terms were met - and would only sign for us). In effect it amounts to a club paying a proportion of his wages but in legal terms it is just part of the severance agreement. Leeds had no option to recall Barmby in any way when he came to us, he was contracted only to us and no-one else as far as I am aware. I'm sure Watford and their owners will look for a way around the new rules - but I don't see an obvious way of doing what they have done this season without additional risk. Permanent moves mean new contracts, at which point agents can intervene - Players can refuse to sign if better money and terms are on offer elsewhere. "selling" clubs can include a favourable option to re-sign at a later date (such as first-option clause) but that leaves the player no guarantee he will be re-signed - so to all intents and purposes, from a player persepctive the deal would amount to a permanent move and would be looking for the appropriate remuneration and securities from the new contract - something Watford may or not be able to afford under the FFP rules regarding expenditure. Furthermore, there is monopolies legislation relating to anti-competitive practice which could come into play regarding cut price transfer fees between the clubs. Basically, questions would be asked if you were willing to let somebody go for free to one club but refuse to trade with another offering a fee. Then there is the consideration that the football league (including club chairmen who have access to lawyers) wouldn't be pushing for this change if it was only going to limit their own options regarding international loans and not affect the Pozzo arrangement. The aim is for a more not less even playing field - surely? There are a lot of factors here but it will make it more difficult for Watford to do what they have done to the extent they have. Riskier for both the club and the player due to the ending and signing of new contracts at both the beginning and end of the "loan" - the involvement of agents and the lack of long-term contractual security for either party may just be risk factor that will limit the Pozzo's options somewhat. They will obviously look for a way around it though - and may or not be successful. If I were in their shoes I'd be looking to exploit "intangible assets" - such as a player of coach of limited real-terms value to Watford as an exaggerated make-weight in a deal which is favourable. Watford will still probably have some advantage in terms of mulit-ownership but that should be reduced somewhat from this season with the loan rule change and FFP in effect hitting them in a double-whammy. I wouldn't be surprised if they are half as competitive next season as this as a result, though again, I'm no oracle and may be wrong. It will be more difficult to do what they have this season though, I'm sure of that.
Both sides were ****s. O'Keefe booting the ball at Abdi like a petty **** was bad, but Abdi's rolling around was pathetic. Ekstrand booting Wilbraham was disgusting, but the way Wilbraham was writhing in agony on the floor was a ****ing joke. I was convinced he'd torn his ligaments or something the way he was rolling around and banging the turf. There were a few typical Palace diving incidents, one in particular by Williams where everyone in the Palace end were screaming for a penalty (of course).
