So the Football League made some changes to Loan rules this summer. Watford have just signed four of last seasons Udinese loanees on Free Transfers. And I suppose at the end of the coming season, they'll all get free transfers back to Udinese? What a bloody shambles!
Wouldn't surprise me or be free transfered to the Spanish club they also own. There are rules that state you can not own more than one football club why are UEFA doing their usual let's ignore it and it might go away act again Pratini is an even bigger joke than Blatter and that takes real talent.
My post has stirred up a "Hornets nest" so much so that one guy from Warwickshire posted in Portuguese; For the benefit of those who do not speak Portuguese, here is the English translation; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/transfers/ 19 JULY Almen Abdi [Udinese - Watford] Free Scott Allan [West Brom - Birmingham] Loan Gabriele Angella [Udinese - Watford] Free Scott Arfield [Huddersfield - Burnley] Free Nicky Bailey [Middlesbrough - Millwall] Free Cristian Battocchio [Udinese - Watford] Free David Bell [Coventry - Notts County] Free John Cofie [Manchester United - Barnsley] Free Ben Davies [Preston - York] Loan Jamie Devitt [Hull - Chesterfield] Free Diego Fabbrini [Udinese - Watford] Free You are all missing the point; It is illegal to own or have majority financial interests in two or more clubs within the same country. Why? Because that situation is deemed to be one that could lead to a conflict of interest when the two clubs meet in a competitive fixture. Yet it is allowed for the same owner to have clubs in more than one country. So Watford fans think on this one. You win promotion to the Prem at the end of this season. The following season you win the FA Cup and enter the Europa League where you are drawn in the same group of four with Udinese, Granada and Motherwell. How will you feel if it is then made public that the owner of Udinese, Granada and Watford has decided that he wants Udinese to be the group winners with Granada second and that is what happens. You will never be certain that all the games were played honestly and without "dirty dealings". Eu sugiro que o Sr. Português fã de Watford que você também deve olhar para o quadro maior. Enquanto, Watford FC e Udinese estão aparentemente seguindo e obedecendo as regras, deve haver dúvida considerável entre o resto do mundo do futebol, de que algo não está certo. Quanto à transferência de negociação entre Bristol City e Ipswich. Dois jogadores, Skuse e Gerken, estavam fora do contrato em 30 de junho 2013, de modo eram livres para se mover onde que eles queriam. E o acordo de troca de Anderson para Ipswich e Emmanuel-Thomas a City foi instigada por Mick McCarthy, o treinador de Ipswich. Beware Hornets, those insects in the nest may yet come out and sting you all for your naivety. You have seen the "rebranding" of the Bluebirds of Cardiff. How will you be rebranded when your Italian godfather decides. Maybe he will move you like Wimbledon FC to another place in England; the sixth biggest English City for instance?
Its not something new for top european teams to sell up and coming players for peanuts with low buy back clauses in case they become good as teams likereal Madrid have been doing it for years which is why they dont loan as many players as the big clubs in England do. This has included Real in the past buying a player using one of these players they sold as a part ex (on the basis they buy the player and then part ex the same day). I remenber hearing on the radio the other week that Leyton orient might have going the same way according to their chairman that they have been linked with a take over from Napolis owners. The Orient chairman said that no offer has been received but they he would be very happy to talk given how successful it has been for watford
Yes we all know that has happened with clubs "selling" to another lower league club only to "buy back" but this situation is three European clubs owned by the same person/family. They are shuffling players around all three like a pack of cards and if not breaking rules, making the rules very elastic and as a result, pretty well useless. The sad thing long term is that many of the 70 odd Football League clubs could become just nurseries for big clubs from all over Europe because at present our league system has so much more depth with FIVE full time professional leagues. This is unheard of in any other European country where after national league Two, they all split into regional part-time leagues / clubs.
Open letter to bragantino 1) I do not read that right wing rag the Daily Mail 2) Please do your own research we sold one player to Ipswich town Anderson in a swap for Jay E Thomas the other players Ipswich signed were players who were out of contract at Bristol City. 3) The owners of Watford, Udinese and Granada have been very careful to stay within the letter of the law but have gone way outside the spirit of the law. 4) Had Watford won the Championship play offs they could have very easily been shortly in a situation where there could easily have been a conflict of interest had they managed to get into a european tie against one of the other sides owned by the same people. 5) I can almost be certain that should any two of these teams be drawn against each other in an european match then EUFA and every betting company and exchange will be watching for any odd betting behavoir which could cause the clubs grief even if the match is played fairly an example. Watford are drawn against Udinese in a Europa league knock out match and someone apparently unconnected with either club places a bet, Having noticed that say Watford are playing better away from home than at home, Watford to win away and lose at home and Udinese to go through. Results Udinese 0-1 Watford ..... Watford 1-2 Udinese which would mean Udinese go through on the away goals rule. Do you think that EUFA would think ah well that's football or would there be investigations launched by the various football authorities and whoever the bet was with, and should it turn out that the person placing the bet had a connection with either club however fragile the connection, or even worse the bettor was a member of one of those far eastern gambling groups that have a history of dirty dealings, both clubs could be excluded from the competition under the assumption that there was some collusion. My understanding of the rules regarding the anti corruption investigation dept at EUFA do not say that they have to prove beyond any doubt that corruption has taken place only that they have to show that there is enough evidence to show that on the balance of probability corruption has taken place, it would then be up to the clubs to try and prove that nothing untoward had taken place and proving a negative is not easy and regardless of the result there would always be suspicion of collusion. This has nothing to do with Newspapers or other media it is human nature the worst part of it is both clubs could be totally innocent but could find themselves relegated from their respective divisions.
Clearly, Steve Lansdown needs to buy Napoli, send Kilkenny, Baldock and Fontaine off to them, and give us Reina, Cavani and co.
Managers a like Villa boa's want Spanish style feeder clubs here in the left division. Dutch and Belgian sides also use African as feeder teams. the fa and football league should be saying no way . no good blaming platinnis and blatters look closer to home
Partly you are right but only partly it is no good the FA and FL making a stand only to be overrulled by UFA or FIFA because what they say or do cotraveens their rule book we need to force those organisations to take action which means making Pratini and Blatter do their jobs damn nearly a miracle there I know.
Point still remains. It's the fa and football league who leave the door open saying open for business = make it up as you go along. People point at Europe and yada but it's England that is held up as one of the worst (greediest) countries there is. Warford are finding a way to compete with the EPL cash coming down as parachute payments and the rest.
Just a quick comment re multiple ownership in Europe. There is no rule stating that multiple-ownership of clubs can not take place. There is, however a rule stating that two clubs owned by the same person can't compete in the same competition. Watford have got around this by placing the Udinese owner's son at the top of the pyramid in Watford. Ergo different owners. Also, in the case of two clubs owned by the same person qualifying for the same European competition, the owners don't generally decide; it is decided by who finished higher in their respective leagues and which round those clubs qualify for. It is normally the highest-placed club or the club that qualifies for the later round that goes through.
Which is what was said they are sticking to the letter of the law as it stands but not the spirit of the law and please note this is not envy that is behind people who are worried about it we are perfectly happy with our owner and wouldn't want overseas owners we have seen what can happen to a clubs history etc with foreign owners not too far from us. I might be a little envious of their league position but I wouldn't want the cost of what is happening to other clubs in order to find success. Thinking about MKDons - Wimbledon, Coventry City, Cardiff City I am obviously not sure what all the Watford fans think about the situation obviously as the only ones I know personally are older like me so perhaps have an older way of looking at things if the majority of the fans are happy then please carry on it just seems that more and more clubs are acting like greed and bending the rules til they squeak is the best way forward, to myself and many others it seems to be the short end of the wedge towards the destruction of what English/British football was all about but it looks like in the end greed wins out. Some clubs will go to any lengths to get into the EPL and that is not a jibe at Watford I wasn't too impressed with Crystal Palace either selling their best player for £15M to get him back on loan for 6 months then the manager and board making statements to the effect that he should be allowed to return on loan for another season if they wanted him back that much why did they sell him in the first place if not to gain an advantage, to have £15M to strengthen the squad and still have the player. I have no doubt that some will just put this down to sour grapes because Palace got promoted and my club got relegated but I would have been as unsettled if we had sold Adomah last year and kept him on loan to help us gain promotion, we might have gotten into the land of milk and honey but there would have been a slightly sour taste to the milk etc in the way it had been done perhaps I am just old fashioned.
