No - a loophole does not suggest that somethings slighty outside of the rules. It usually indicates an oversight by the rule makers which still allows someone to legally avoid a rule or to act outside of the spirit of the rules without actually contravening them. Anyone employing a loophole is acting within the rules.
by your own definition then, we have not used a loophole. We have not legally avoided a rule, nor have we acted outside the spirit of the rules. We have simply abided by the rules, just as any other team could, had they wanted to.
And, in addition, i will add that i don't know how many loanees you have had this season, but for example, i do know that Ispwich have had 14, the same number as us. Are they finding loopholes too? I think not. They are just abiding by the rules, just like every team in this division. And Mr Ian Holloway sold his best player, and then loaned him back...should that be allowed? Of course, it's within the rules. The fact that his player will perhaps help them get promotion is by the by. It's in the rules. Every team that abides by the rules uses them to their own advantage, whatever the rules are. We have used this one, just as Hull have managed to get 3 international Egyptian players and you have loanees too (i'm sure you must do!).
Watford have done nothing wrong, good luck to them. It's the rules on loan players that are wrong. I would like to see tighter restrictions on loan players so clubs aren't able to buy up a load of promising youngsters just in case they are good enough. At the last count I think Chelski had 22 players out on loan. Again no rules broken but that means they have a load of players that other clubs could have signed. I would like to see clubs only allowed 3 loan players per season and only 2 in the matchday squad. If clubs were only allowed to loan out 5 players per season it would make for a more balanced league. This could also help to reduce ridiculous wages paid to very average players.
We have got 2 loans. Michael Keane from Man U and Harry Kane from Spurs We have done the same thing as Watford are doing now just not on the same scale We had Kyle Naughton, Jeff Bruma, Ben Mee, Patrick Van Aanholt, Diomansy Kamara and Yakubu playing. One of them had to drop out the matchday squad completely as it would have broke the 5 loans players in a squad rule. But we still played with 6 loan players as Miguel Vitor who was on loan from Benfica didnt count in the permitted 5 loans allowed to be named
If you'd read my original comment properly you would see that I make no suggestion that Watford have broken any rules and that any team in the same position would have done the same. Yes, like most teams, Hull City do have players on loan - currently two players who are registered with a foreign club (Gedo and Fathi) and three who are registered with English clubs. (Elmohamady, Stockdale and Boyd). Earlier in the season we also had Robbie Brady and David Meyler on loan but signed both players on permanent deals at the first opportunity. I do detect a hint of unjustified paranoia in your responses which suggests that you are not entirely comfortable with the arrangements.
I am far more comfortable with Watford's use of the loan market utilising reserve team players that none of us had heard of before this season, than Hull and Leicesters method of trying to buy promotion. If Watford had spent half as much as either of these then I think the soap box preaching from the people in this thread would be waranted. I think it would be poetic justice if both Hull and Leicester failed with their gamble after the shocking losses in their accounts
Hull City's shocking losses? Leicester £29.7m Bolton £22.1m Blackburn £18.6m Bristol £14.4m Boro £14m Ipswich £14m Cardiff £13.6m Forest £11.4m Birmingham £10m Hull £8.7m Brighton £8m Derby £8m Charlton £7.5m Huddersfield £5.7m Leeds £5m Palace £5m Wednesday £4.9m Millwall £4m Talking out your arse again TC.
TC - your post would have more merit if it didn't fly in the face of footballing reality - Man United, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Villa ... aren't they all constantly trying to 'buy' success? ... and the losses in their accounts make ours look like some spilt loose change .. and if either of us make the Premiership those particular debts would be deemd a worthwhile 'investment' .. Arsenal probably have the best balance sheet of the so called 'Big Clubs' but their fans are getting more and more disgruntled at the lack of silverware .. Swansea and Wigan are the best run IMHO. Now don't misunderstand me, I think football economics stink - but unless you bring in some form of foreign player quota and a 'draft' system for promising youth to help change the status quo, I'm afraid you are stuck with it ... we may have the debts but our owners (and Hull's and Cardiff's for that matter) are more than capable of meeting them from their own purses ... ours have just bought our ground which has an immediate benefit to our balance sheet. We are lucky to have them in that regard. Football is all about the 'haves' and the 'have nots' - I don't particularly like that but that's the way it is - the inappropriately named Champions League is little more than a mechanism for keeping the wealth (TV rights etc) in the hands of the top 3 or 4 clubs in every European League - I'd change it - stop rewarding 2nd, 3rd and 4th place - the old European Cup restricted to the actual Champions of each league had far more credibility - switch and seed it if necessary. The rest should all be in the Europa or even a Cup Winners Cup final (for those victorious in their own domestic cup competitions). Now the loan system is pure wrong IMHO (nothing to do with Watford by the way) - the whole concept of being able to play another clubs players in place of your own is wrong - it is a short term fix that inhibits the development of younger players and can also be used unfairly for tactical advantage by those clubs with bigger, better squads - e.g Lukaku can't get a game at Chelsea but he can be instrumental in taking points off Chelsea's main rivals? - how is that right? ...
HULL City lost close to £9m in the year to July 2012, newly-published accounts have revealed. The figure is down from losses of more than £20m in the previous year, when owners Assem and Ehab Allam looked to start their cost-cutting across the business. However, a new £7m loan was needed from the owners in the year, taking the total now owed to them to £48.8m. Despite huge changes to make the club more efficient, the £8.7m loss means finances at the KC Stadium remain a concern for the Allams, unless they hit the jackpot with promotion to the Premier League in May. New Financial Fair Play regulations will impose strict limits on the losses of Championship clubs from December 2014, and could see transfer embargoes placed on sides breaking the limits. Given City's turnover also fell from £11.4m to just over £11m, it effectively means this season marks the final opportunity for the Allams to bankroll a promotion. They have looked to do that by supporting Steve Bruce to the tune of £3.5m in the current transfer window to sign David Meyler and Robbie Brady on three-and-a-half-year deals. That investment will have lifted the amount now owed to the Allams to over £50m. The accounts show a further £2.3m was spent on players between July 31 2011 and July 2012 last year, a figure which no doubt takes into account the first payment towards the £2.6m fee agreed for striker Nick Proschwitz. Also revealed in the papers is that no compensation was paid out for loss of office, despite the exit of former chief executive Mark Maguire in December 2011. The period does not cover agreements made with former manager Nick Barmby or head of football operations Adam Pearson, following their sackings from the club last summer. Only talking out my arse because I failed to mention the £50M of debt Hull City aleady have and your posted figures conveniently failed to include the payoffs made to the previously sacked Barmby and Pearson http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-17838867-detail/story.html#axzz2MZJbjn4H Fosse - I agree, but teams that overspend are far more guilty than those that use the system to their advantage in my opinion - I think the Watford way is far fairer than the Hull, Leicester and Cardiff ways and applaud this new FFP ruling
I hardly need a history lesson on Hull City from a Millwall fan. Our owners bailed us out by settling historic debt, but what you claimed was that we were buying promotion with shocking losses, which is simply untrue, half the league are trading with bigger annual losses than us.
