The Game's Gone Crazier

For all the latest on the exploits of Uncle Festa, Godfather Cellino, Friar Brian, Old Big Gob, GianFredo Zola, Butterfingers Green, 'Arry the Albatross, The Grand Puppet Master, Il Duce Di Canio, Timmy Sherwood and a cast of thousands!

Monday 25 February 2013

If Arsenal buy Watford's Vydra, who gets the money?

Now here's the rub. Arsenal are being linked with Vydra and, if he is sold, the question arises, who gets the money? Presumably, not Watford.

I have to be very careful here because it seems that Watford Football Club are prepared to take a litigious approach should anything vaguely contentious be said, but some people are still puzzled by the seemingly inconsistent rules which allow Watford to field so many players signed on loan, because, if I understand it correctly, loan signings from abroad count in some peculiar way as transfers. But if they are transfers, does that mean Watford would pocket the dosh in the event of Vydra being sold? Not as I understand it because Udinese still 'own' the player.

Another question arises. I am categorically not suggesting that rules would be broken, but hypothetically, if a deal was agreed for Vydra, might it not be in the theoretical interests of Udinese and the Pozzos to instruct Zola not to risk the Czech goal machine in a dead rubber game after promotion has been secured or conceded to avoid the possibility of an injury wrecking the transfer?

And if that possibility, all be it simply a hypothetical possibility, exists, does this not bring in to question the wisdom of allowing clubs owned by the same family to effectively share their playing personnel? West Ham were famously fined £6m because, in theory, IKEA could instruct the club not to play Tevez. The third party clause was never activated but West Ham were still held to be in breach of the rules.

Now we all accept that Watford are not breaking the rules as they are written but many of us are honestly puzzled by what appears to be, in the words of Holloway, a "loophole". Watford are now occupying a promotion place and it seems very unlikely that this would be the case had the club been obliged to trade in the transfer market in the same way as other clubs without the multiple club ownership of the Pozzos.

Holloway called for the rules to be looked at and others have subsequently joined the band waggon, but you have to wonder why it took so long for concerns to be expressed. Maybe, if a challenge had been made earlier, the FA might have been forced to reflect on the fairness of a rule which, seemingly, advantages one club against others.

But then, maybe the appointment of Zola was a PR master stroke? How can you object when such a thoroughly decent guy is managing the club?

I reiterate that I am not suggesting that rules have been broken. However, sometimes rule changes have to happen to secure the proverbial "level playing field" that is so highly valued in sport.

54 comments:

  1. boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm slightly confused as to how you think the rule advantages one club over others? Any club is able to loan in players for a season from foreign clubs and have them count as transfers. ANY club could do it, only Watford has. The only reason that you have such an issue with it is that your club hasn't done it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. May I answer that with a question 1616? Would Udinese have loaned all these players to Watford if not for the fact that both clubs were owned by the same family? If not, can you not see that no other club is in the same position as Watford?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many clubs are owned by billionaires? ie Chelsea & Man City Not many - isn't that a tad unfair on the rest too?

      Delete
  4. 'Watford are now occupying a promotion place' - that's what it's all about, isn't it?! If we were languishing in the bottom half of the table, Holloway and everyone else wouldn't be getting their knickers in a twist about it.
    '..obliged to trade in the transfer market in the same way as other clubs...' You mean big spenders like Cardiff or Leicester (let alone huge spenders in the Premiership). What THEY do certainly maintains a "level playing field" doesn't it? Not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1632, that's why rules are being changed in relation to Financial Fair Play. But there's no possible conflict of interest involved there anyway, is there? In fact, Watford sold Young to big spending Villa didn't they? So Watford benefitted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You have to wonder why it took so long for concerns to be expressed" - I'll tell you why mate - it's because up until the Autumn Watford were languishing quitely in mid-table. The whole thing smacks of sour grapes stirred up by Holloway because Palace could only muster a draw at Vicarage Road. If they had won he'd have probably kept quiet and nobody would be bothered. COYH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Football League advised the club 6 months ago that it would be taking this action, they didn't actually wait until Watford were successful. The only reason that this situation arose was because the take over was only completed days before the transfer window closed and they had no other option open to them. The other point that no one seems to have picked up on is that Watford mostly only loaned young unknown fringe players who have subsequently proved their worth, not fully fledged Internationals or star players from the Udinese first team squad.

      Delete
    2. I think what this actually boils down to is nothing to do with loopholes (available to everyone), or loans policies (have a look at the number of loanees other clubs have) or the situation of the transfer market / FFP. The unresolved issue is the conflict of interest of the Pozzo family. As a Watford fan I couldn't be happier about what's going on but as yet there's no answer to the hypothetical question "what if Watford end up playing Udinese or Granada?" It's clearly a way of ever happening and probably never will. But. in principle. What if?

      Delete
    3. So boring.........jeez. No rules are being broken. Every club has the opportunity to take as many foreign loans as they want. Watford will sign the loan players that they want. It is a loop hole but gives Watford no more advantage than having a billionnaire benefactor.

      Delete
  7. Would anybody have cared if Lance Armstrong had finished mid field in all his Tour de France races? If no advantage is gained, who cares? Not that I am comparing the two as such, simply saying that nobody bothers with also rans.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm pretty sure the wealthy owners of Leicester, Cardiff or Forest could afford to buy the "Udinese B Team" as they're being called, just so happens they choose to spend their money elsewhere (Kuwaiti national team goalkeepers for example). Why is it an unfair advantage for Watford to "purchase" Udinese's players but it's not unfair for these other clubs to buy as they please with money that doesn't belong to them and wasn't earned by the club.

    Both scenarios involve clubs having access to players they wouldn't have done without their current ownership situation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Conflicts of interest appear all over the place. For example, should Palace play Blackpool towards the end of the season, Paul Ince could insist on Kevin Phillips sitting out the game thus giving an advantage to Palace's rivals. Not that I would cry for Palace but the loan system has several flaws, not just the one that allows unlimited foreign imports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The rules are absolutely clear here. A player on loan cannot play against the club that holds his contract to prevent any conflict of interest.

      Delete
    2. So Palace are weakened when they play Blackpool, giving other teams an advantage.

      Delete
    3. No, you miss the point. The rule is designed to stop Phillips deliberately missing an open goal to help the side that owns his contract. Surely you can see the sense in that? Scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to find a comparable. There are none. It is the shared owners that make the situation unique.

      Delete
    4. No you miss the point.

      Surely you can see that against Watford, Philips came on and turned the game, scored a goal and made a wrong decision late on, which would have handed Palace a victory.

      Against Blackpool they will not have (for the reasons you rightly say) the same strength up front, thereby given Blackpool an advantage over all other Championship clubs when playing Palace.

      Simple to fix - ban same league loans.

      Delete
    5. Let's make it a bit easier for the West Ham fan to understand by bringing it closer to home. Last night West Ham were happy to try to help Liverpool's attempts to make 4th place by having Andy Carroll play (& score) against Spurs. But when they play Liverpool they will drop him. If you are so concerned about "level playing fields" perhaps you should add this to your list of concerns regarding the anomolies and abuses of the loan system

      Delete
  10. Also, for Watford/Vydra/Udinese conflict of interest, see Palace/Zaha/Man Utd for the same issues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is a non conversation. As has been mentioned REPEATEDLY elsewhere, how can it be a loophole if the rules expressly state you can do it?
    If you want to revise the loan rules - all well & good.
    What needs looking at urgently is the advantage gained by selling a £15m player in Jan then instantly loaning the player back and the cash to strengthen the squad. Holloway wants to sell his Zaha cake & eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This would only be comparable if Palace and Man Utd were owned by the same people surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clarify your issue then - what is it? Ownership or loans?
      I don't believe you really care who owns us until you think it gives us an advantage with loans (in only one pool)
      If that case its the loan rules that need addressing & as highlighted with Zaha & Butland (who managed to keep the BCFC vaguely respectable for them against us) there a much wider advantage being gained.

      Delete
    2. The issue is that Udinese have only "loaned" these players to Watford, not to any of Watford's rivals. Why?

      Delete
    3. Because they own Udinese in the same way MUFC loaned Zaha back to CPFC instead of us

      Delete
    4. I don't think you are that stupid mate. It's not the ownership of the player, it's the ownership of the club that is the issue. If Man Utd and palace were under the same ownership, I would be objecting strongly to the Zaha deal. But the clubs' owners are not related are they?

      Delete
    5. No, it's nothing to do with ownership - United could instruct Palace not to play Zaha in a "dead rubber" game as he's their player. They wouldn't want him injured for no reason as they've just paid £10m for him. Just like your example of Udinese stopping Vydra playing for Watford. Both of those hypothetical situations only benefit Watford and Palace's rivals.

      The whole loan system is flawed.

      Delete
    6. But you're objecting on the basis that Udinese could stop Watford playing Vydra in order to cash in on him. Any parent club of a loan player can do the same regardless of whether they own both clubs, so it's a bad example of why owning more than one club is a problem.

      Delete
    7. So its on to have the player and the cash? You can turn a blind eye to that?

      So you are very concerned about unfair advantage and keeping football on a level playing field - but only in certain (Zola & Nani related) issues?

      Without the loan / transfer issue how is there any day to day playing / league benefit to having a club in the UK and a club in Italy & Spain?
      Broadly there is none really (although i'm sure if we looked harder enough some minor thing could be dragged up)
      It becomes an issue when loans & transfers are involved and a perceived advantage is gained.
      So its the loan system thats devised poorly & is being exploited in many ways as highlighted above.

      Plus I don't remember a stream of news articles in the summer of a mid table Serie A team refusing to loan players to championship teams.
      No one had even heard of Vydra et al.

      Its not like they are shipping Di Natale over & is disingenuous to the job Zola has done.

      Delete
    8. I have admitted that Zola has surprised me. And yes, it is the loans / transfers rule that appears inconsistently framed and which appears to be throwing up an anomaly. Watford are exploiting that situation and good luck to them. But if there is an inconsistency, then shouldn't that inconsistency be addressed? Would you be happy if one of Watford's rivals were exploiting what Holloway alleges is a "loophole"?

      Delete
    9. But they are, Hull have the Egyptian connection and have loaned a number of FULL Internationals, but no one has raised an eyebrow about that. Do you hear us complaining about that?

      Delete
  13. Your boring mate!!
    Obviously the money will go to Udinese, they own the player.
    As a business model, what makes more sense?!?! Spending millions or loaning players?
    Watford have broke no rules... who cares....if they change the rules then this would probably would not happen again....Watford have been a joy to watch this season....good on them!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Watford, Udinese and Granada are all owned by different people ... get used to it.

    ReplyDelete

  15. So 1709, in what sense are the loanees transfers? I'm genuinely striving to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To clarify, a loan between clubs in different countries involves transfering the players registration in the same way you would for a permanent transfer. The only difference is an agreement is attached that the registration will go back to the original club at a fixed date.

      As far as FIFA and the Football League are concerned, Vydra is a registered Watford player until June 30th and this is why he does not count as being "on loan".

      In order to close the "loophole" the Football League would have to place a limit on all player registrations from abroad or FIFA would have to create a proper international loan system where the player remains registered at his parent club.

      Delete
    2. I support your idea in the final paragraph. And personally, I would favour a ban on the loaning and selling of players between clubs under the same or related ownership.

      Delete
  16. 1) There is no "rub". If Vydra were to be sold, one of the Pozzo family businesses (Udinese) will get the money. It makes no difference to Watford or Udinese which it is, as the Pozzos support all their clubs as required. There is ultimately one wallet and resources are allocated to ensure the success of all 3 clubs.

    2) Your argument about not risking a sold player would apply if he were contracted to Watford too. The loan angle makes no difference.

    3) What is this about Watford taking a litigious approach? It's the first I've heard. Have they approached you?

    4) The Tevez affair was completely different.
    Tevez = illegal contract.
    Vydra = legal loan transfer.
    Good luck linking the two.

    5) There is no loophole. Watford are abiding by the rules. They have no unfair advantage. Your statement that "Watford are now occupying a promotion place and it seems very unlikely that this would be the case had the club been obliged to trade in the transfer market in the same way as other clubs" is based on a fallacy. Watford are not doing anything that another club can't do. Anyone can sign as many loanees as they like from foreign clubs.

    6) It took so long for concerns to be expressed because there is no loophole, no unfairness, no wrongdoing. There is nothing that "advantages one club against others." Watford just now have owners that can supply resources. Not loans that will have to be repaid, nor just lumber the club with debt, like so may other "benefactors" - but resources to help the club succeed. Resources like medical treatment for Tommie Hoban in Italy. Like a private jet to fly Matej Vydra home from international duty, like a number of unproven or underutilized squad players with the potential to be developed into an attractive and successful football team.

    Watford are lucky to have been chosen by such owners, but there's nothing unfair about it. And the Pozzos' model is a lot safer, more sustainable, and healthier for football and clubs than the "throw money at the team and worry about the debt later" solution that seems to be the popular alternative for ambitious owners.

    Far from being the cause of a non-level playing field, I'd argue that the Pozzo solution (worldwide scouting network, develop talented young players, allocate them where they're needed and will get top coaching, sell them at the peak of their value, rinse and repeat whilst sustaining top division football for each of their clubs) is a pretty good way to combat the problem of a non-level playing field caused by unsustainable spending and accumulation of debt by some club owners.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A thorough an interesting response Steve. I wonder if you would view things the same way if a rival club was doing this. I suspect not. I may be wrong but I thought our FA was opposed to clubs being turned into nursery teams and that's why the restrictions on the number of players from the same club was put in place. If so, can you not see a possible inconsistency with what is happening at Watford? I accept no rules are being broken, I am asking if rules need to be changed for the sake of consistency and a level playing field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way Steve, the answer to your question is yes.

      Delete
    2. There is no nursery club in this arrangement. None of the clubs are large and it could be argued that Watford have the greatest earning potential. So I don't think we need to worry about WFC becoming a nursery club. That could well be an issue in the future though with other owners and other clubs. So I agree it is something to worry about - just not in this case.

      Re. the answer to my question being yes. I'm shocked and very disappointed to hear that. I thought those days were behind us when Ashton left. Would you say there was any justification? Did you overstep the mark? Could it have been personal? I'm very sorry to hear that. I must admit I had misgivings when a certain person arrived, but until now he's said and done all the right things.

      Delete
    3. Thinking about it some more, I'm guessing it was about the transfer deal? In that case, I'm not surprised as it was a very serious allegation. He couldn't really let that go could he?

      FYI, SD announced last night that the club is laying on free transport to Hull because the game was put back from the Bank Holiday to the Tuesday night. They are also meeting with and consulting with fans over a lot of things. Apart from the Ashton & Baz eras, WFC have always been good with that sort of thing, but SD seems to be really embracing getting the fans involved. People whose opinion I respect that have met SD & GN have liked them and seem to trust them. GZ obviously likes and trusts them. i think he and GN are good friends. The only disturbing feature has been a number of respected backroom staff leaving. Most fans are won over. Personally, I'm still on the fence about SD. He obviously knows what the fans want to hear. Whether it's genuine or just good PR, time will tell.

      Everyone loves GZ of course! he has done an amazing job. Contrary to what Holloway thinks, he was not gifted World-class players. None of these players had done anything much before he got his little hands on them. He was given a huge player dump, a potential us & them mentality, and has, not only developed the players, but built a real spirited team that pull together with no apparent factions - all in an incredibly short time. I guess they all love him too!

      OK, enough rambling. @Hammersfan, keep up the good work provoking discussion and Dirty Leeds fans, but take care not to tangle with the lawyers!

      Delete
  18. the money from the sale would go to pozzo, not the club. if you look at the bigger picture: none of the players are owned by a club so to speak, they are owned by a family who decide which club they play for each week. pozzo would get the money and im sure reinvest some to udinese to keep their fans happy and also invest in watford as, should we get to the premier league, would make the pozzos from very rich to mega rich. its all business but aslong as results are coming in nobody cares

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's a dangerous line to take Charlie. The CLUB owns the registration, not the owners. Wasn't that part of the issue with Tevez, that IKEA J retained the registration of the player?

      Delete
  19. Retard.

    By the way it's not fair Carroll scored today, he's not yours.

    Not that it mattered. Haha

    ReplyDelete
  20. When it comes to attracting sponsorship, every club is open for business on an equal footing.

    So let's step back from the partizanship and take a broader view. When the Pozzo's moved in, Watford were on the brink of administration. So what is better for the Football League competition: a club playing attractive football that is challenging for promotion, or another basket case like Portsmouth? My case rests.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why are you all so quick to bite? Every week this bloke trots out the same anti watford, leeds etc rubbish and every week people respond.

    We dont care what you think, enjoy the hoofball and see you next season.

    Also I shouldnt imagine the club have contacted a two bit wind up merchant like yourself, albeit judging by the responses a half decent one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A very good debate guys, good points, but Watford would not DIRECTLY get the money, but as they are owned by the same people, that is a complete red herring, it dosnt matter a jot, it will just go into the pot. For years Watford have been passed from pillar to post, with some very dodgy people in charge, but now they are owned by REAL football people. Maybe I am biased, but the Watford takeover is the most secure in English football for years, with no one throwing money regardlessly, it is being run as a business, unique in this day and age, and I for one am enjoying every second !!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve C makes a very valid point that you conveniently skipped over - there is no level playing field in football. Those that can afford to pay big wages, those that benefit from massive Sky payments (including parachute payments) and worst of all, those who can't afford the massive wages, but still pay them - these are the clubs that create a non-level playing field. Yet Watford (with a sustainable business model that doesn't threaten the club's very future)are the bad guys ??? If anything, we're levelling up the playing field. How else could we realistically challenge the bigger clubs? Traditionally we've produced some decent home-grown talent - but this merely benefits the bigger clubs (again) who cherry pick our best prospects, taking advantage of our dire finances, which sends us send us back to square 1.
    I suspect that the moaning fans have been quite content with Watford's traditional role as football's friendly whipping boys - and their new-found concern regarding the loanee system is simply a cover for their outrage us daring to get above our station.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Can't wait to see what he has to say when Watford play West Ham off the park next year, winning 2/3-0... Spitting feathers me think he will be!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nice to see the "big" club supporters are already feeling threatened by tiny little old Watford.

    ReplyDelete
  26. FFP does not stop billionaire owners doing anything. What it actually does is set a status-quo. Teams who earn more money, get to spend more money. How in any way is that fair? It's hard enough for smaller teams to compete with teams who get worldwide commercial revenue.... but now, by the rules, they really can't.

    All Watford are doing, is what we can. We don't have billionaire owners, we can't spend tens of millions and get ourselves into debt like so many other clubs. What we're doing is within the rules, and to be honest is no less fair than what any other club is doing. At the very least, we're not getting ourselves into administration and running our club into ruin.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have only scanned these comments but everyone is missing one very important point. Watford,Udinese and Granada are not owned by the same person. Each has its own named owner. They just all happen to be part of the Pozzo family. As a result the three teams are linked by relationships. Relationships could be formed between any clubs in theory. All rule changes will just make it harder for others to follow suit, so I say bring these rules changes on as it will only further strengthen Watford as we hopefully embark on some very successful years.

    ReplyDelete
  28. hammersfan talking bollox again?? dont worry watford fans,my club leeds get it everyday on here!!

    ReplyDelete