I'll proberly get shot down for saying this, but I was with a Client yesterday who is a close associate of Jimmy and Vince Russo. The conversation obviously directed to Watfordfc. Obviously I have no prove, only here-say, But from talking to my client, he told me that the Russo's are the 'consortium' buying WFC, and that Mr Bassini is just a front man to help purchase the club from the Lord, as The Lord will not do business directly with the Russo's. For Mr Bassini 'help' in securing the club, he's being paid a 6 figure sum with a possible place on the new board, depending on what he himself decides to do. GT will go back to being what he was proir to becoming chairman, with Jimmy becoming Chairman as before. The full details of the 'takeover' will become public with-in 6-8 weeks time. As for finance, the Russo's have the money to replace the pitch and finish off the corner 'building site' between the Rous and Rookery' in the summer. As for the East stand, thats still ongoing apparently. As I said from the beginning, it's all here-say, but I was most definitely convinced with what was said.
You will not be shot for this. What you have reported is good as shows what may be behind Hr. Bassini and we were wondering even if a good guess brings us to the Russo brothers.
You're more likely to get shot down for poor spelling TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if this scenario pans out.
Did Taylor not publicly stand against the Russo's? Hopefully it doesn't lead to Taylor being forced out of the club.... Anyway.....maybe it's a bit Simpleton, but Bassini and Russo both being Italian names was a clue in itself.
I would personally hope it is true as despite a hiccup or two with the Russos I believe they would be better for us than Baz. However this is a bit of an old speculation so I will not get my hopes up just yet.
They cannot get rid of GT or ST from the board, as this will trigger the bonds being repaid in full. I can't see GT working with the salad boys. For heresay, (but genuine mind, from a finance consultant who works closely with the banks in Harlow where the Salads are based (Royden)) was that when the Russos were trying to buy the club completely, it was because they desparately needed real-estate assets because their security on their various loans was insufficient and the banks were asking for money back - the y wanted control so they could put the vic up as collateral. Also, no offence Oxhey, but what business is it that you're in that you put a capital C on client?
I think you might have something there Oxhey ,it is sort of logical and would explain the "silence" about Baz`s plans , to pick up 100k for being a frontman isnt too shabby! If this is the case ,where does Panos fit in,as its his name as the director of the newly formed company?
The only people Baz has point blank said are not involved is the Russos so make of that what you will. I cant stand the salad boys and given a free reign would see the pair six foot under stamford bridge, cheldsea scum involved in the club, no thanks.
I do not want them back either. Although he seems dodgy I think I would rather take my chances and see what he comes up with.
The devil you know, or the devil you don't? Under the circumstances, I'd take the Russos every time. Although if it does happen, they'll deserve every bit of the stick and verbal abuse they get in the first few months.
Sorry, but I don't see what they could offer that they didn't before. They talked well about prudence, then took expensive trips at the club's expense to South America. In my book they are dodgy as is Mr B. The difference is that they are better at making it look as if they have money.
The devil you know drove the club to the point of administration, fell out big time with the legend that is GT, did not attract the confidence of a major investor (partner) and highly successful morally sound businessman, were easily outmanouvered in the boardroom when their continued presence would have killed the club. No I do not want to see those two anywhere near Watford, frankly I'd rather have anyone but the Russos. As Frenchie rightly points out these two drew down funds from the club and misspent money on scouting in argentina, give me a break!!!!!
I've never seen Ashcroft described in quite that way Aberdeen, but each to his own. The devil we know appointed Malky Mackay, recognised before the majority of fans that our finances were a ticking timebomb, and came closer to sorting out the South West corner than anyone else. While the GT incident cannot be overlooked, it's worth remembering that Taylor came back to the club when Jimmy became chairman, and there hasn't been any noticeable change in the way the club has been run since Taylor took over. If our biggest problem were that two men, singing from the same hymn sheet, didn't particularly like each other, I'd be singing from the rooftops, because we haven't been in a better position than that for at least a decade. The administration saga is another matter, one that cannot be fully forgiven regardless of their intentions. But I cannot believe that they took that plunge without being nigh on certain of Ashcroft stepping in. Which was what they had been calling for since the summer anyway.
Indeed and I am a fan of Ashcrofts moral stance. Malky appointed so Jimmy could spend money on himself. The majority of fans dont give a monkey about finance but the sensible ones saw the problem with Simpsons reign and Jimmy did little to improve on that though I confess we were moving in the right direction albeit at an incompetent pace. I will not give Russo any credit for GT coming back. They had not a care if ashcroft was going to step in or not all they wanted was to get their greedy mits on cash. Can't stick the salad munching wide boys.
Sorry, russo got ã1.7m for priskin so a few k for a trip to south america is nowt! Lets also not rewrite history, they supported the club financialy for a year, whilst 'the morally sound' guy above did nothing! They were going to get shafted off the board. They then did what they needed too to get their capital out- they were minority shareholders forced so why should their cash stayed in and supported the people forcing them out.
For those who hadn't noticed http://www.londonstockexchange.com/...rket-news-detail.html?announcementId=10851942
Aberdeen - I usually agree with a lot of what you write - but on the Russo issue I am on the other side of the coin My perspective is that LA was simply a silent partner who put up money and that Simpson was the Watford supporter who cared and wanted to make the club successful. However his "vision" overtook reality and the club got into deep trouble when the gamble for immediate promotion back failed. By that time ten of millions of pounds had been squandered. The Board led by Simpson lied when they said money was ring-fenced for development and over a number of other things. The Russos saw that the course the club was on was not sustainable and put in their own money and tried to wrest control of the club from the others. Remember at that time the vitriol we were all directing at LA, Simpson and co. However the Russos were not good politicians and it became clear that they were to be voted off the Board despite in effect having "rescued" the club. Now it got bitter. Jimmy resigned ahead of being sacked and basically the position became clear that the Russos were not prepared to put in their money for the others to ignore them and threatened the club with administration. Two points here 1) we don't know if they ever would have carried out the threat and 2) it was the others who forced them into that position by unjustifiably removing them from a Board where they were major shareholders and contributors. So now it was down to two parties trying to vie with each other to run the club - the Russos offered to buy out the others - but not at a share price acceptable to LA etc - how ironic that now seems with the price they accepted. Instead LA etc were themselves forced into a situation where they had to put up more money to keep the club going. However they were clearly only doing it until such time as they could sell out. That they have now done and "sell out" is what they appear to have done to us. Baz is a former bankrupt with no known business success, no known finance behind him and no known means of achieving his stated plans (anyone else remember the 8 page document we were all sent by the old Board about establishing us as one of England's Top Ten) The Russos are successful businessmen who insisted on a cost cutting and selling regime which more than anything else has brought stability to the club and their only "sin" was the threat to put the club into Administration if their offer was not accepted. I prefer the Russos
Leo , this time it is me that will do the fencesitting The Russo,s did a lot of good for the club and put us on the right track! How ever the Good Lord could have washed his hands of us that xmas but didnt! and for that I am grateful!
Norway: with the benefit of hindsight, I would take Ashcroft, someone who did the minimum possible to guarantee no administration, regardless of whether the team was good enough, over the Russos. But that is only down to the circumstances as they panned out. I'd stand by my stance at the time: the Russos were a better long term bet than Ashcroft, and were the only ones willing to actually do anything. As I also said at the time, their real mistake wasn't demanding their money back: it was not waiting for Ashcroft and Simpson to remove them. If they had done that, their follow-up actions might have been seen in a somewhat different light.
At least you know where you are with the Russos. Losing Ashcroft is a good move. So I guess watch this space.
