Watford FC claim "It is clear from the decision of the Football Disciplinary Commission that the offences which the club has been found guilty of were committed by one or two individuals who are no longer associated with the club - and without the knowledge of the full board of the club" but since when has ignorance been a defence in law?
It makes you wonder if the "full board of the club" at West Ham understood that the Tevez deal broke the rules on a technicality and if the "full board of the club" knew about the "oral cuddles" that were allegedly given to Kia Joorabchian. I suppose it is easier to wash your hands of it all when the "guilty party" has left the club, and a little more difficult when the legal adviser has been promoted to the position of CEO. Presumably the CEO will not now negotiate a compensation package of £20m+ to a rival team missing out on promotion, should Watford go up.
Who were the players involved in this case? If any have played a role in this season's promotion push, then Watford have arguably benefited from wrong doing. The club's "lend lease" transfer deals (for the want of a better term), have already triggered cries of unfair from some; this ruling will simply heighten the sense of injustice in certain quarters.
That feeling is probably totally unjustified but affection for Watford is being tested still further.
Those quarters would be you again wouldn't they? The player concermed was Danny Graham who left two years ago for God's sake!
ReplyDeleteThe only people complaining this year are obsessed bitter Spammers like Martin Samuels and you and Holloway who has the credibility of a ninety pence note.
I used to not mind West Ham that much then I first saw your blog; now I find myself celebrating every time Frank Lampard comes back to amusingly haunt you.
Would that be the same Danny Graham who the club sold at a £3m profit after a ludicrously low tribunal valuation when he joined from Carlisle? No advantage gained there then!
DeleteWho were the other two players?
DeleteLucicrously low tribunal valuation? Get some perspective.
DeleteI bet you choked on your cornflakes this morning over this one. Mr Duxbury wins the day again.
ReplyDeleteWatford got in Kuszczak, Kightly, Nosworthy and Kacaniklic during this embargo. All quality players.
It's just not fair I can hear you cry. Good and I hope you continue to have a old good moan when Watford are promoted and beat the mighty 'ammers with another 79 Udinese players on loan.
BTW, Watford are now allowed to play matches with 15 players as the Football League feel sorry for their large squad of players not getting too much game time.
I agree with the first comment, I have number of friends who are West Ham Fans and they thankfully make sure they know at least part of the story before making an opinion, we at Watford were lucky to get rid of this dreadful little **** that brought this case to the football leagues attention, please drop this continuous slating of Watford based on a bitterness towards our CEO. Were you hoping we would get punished, if so that make you anti-football, not anti-Duxbury. So for sake of Watford and West Ham fans who as rule have never had issue with each other drop this pointless crusade and enjoy writing about your own club which obviously you love and have spent time on this blog for, Good luck with the rest of the season hopefully we will get there and we can enjoy banter of the right sort.
ReplyDeleteYour opinions are like Iraqi Muslims.
ReplyDeleteMostly Shit'ite.
Judging by ypur replies above you don't even know what Watford did wrong do you? So how can you judge if it is a fair result?
ReplyDeleteLet it go man, grow up and move on, the football league have conducted a very long and detailed investigation and levied an appropriate punishment.
ReplyDeleteForget your Duxbury obsession before you end up in court. I think you've got enough to worry about with your own teams relegation form. As well as working out how much your porn peddling debt ridden owners are going to mortgage you for to pay for your move to the great Stratford white elephant..
Danny Graham's tribunal set fee from Carlisle was anything but. In fact at the time most of us WFC fans felt ripped off at the time because DG was practically a free agent when he signed a pre contract with WFC. I'll add that Carlisle had absolutely nothing to do with DG's development either.
ReplyDelete"Ludicrously low"! how many other league 2 players fetch 500k + add-ons? not many I'll tell you.
2045, the question in the title is genuine. It seems Watford escaped punishment because of ignorance; I didn't think that was a defence in law. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a West Ham fan who feels aggrieved about the way our "club", or its representative(s), handled the Tevez affair. Perhaps there are no parallels; again I am no lawyer, but the Third Party Agreement was never triggered at West Ham yet we were still fined and agreed to a massive compensation pay-out. Watford, it would seem, benefited from the "offences" for which the club was found guilty, yet no punishment was applied beyond an embargo on transfers that does not stop transfer activity. To the layman, it all seems bemusing.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance of the law is not a defence. Ignorance that an offence is being committed in your name could well be depending on the facts and certainly makes for compelling mitigation. In this particular case the FL panel found quite clearly that while Bassini was off loaning money from unapproved sources at no point did he bother to consult anyone else at the club. Nor did the money ever go into the football club's bank account.
DeleteWatford did not get a fine or points deduction because they did nothing wrong.
DeleteIt was the previous owner who was devious and deceitful. He kept everything from the board and monies were passed through his own account and not the club's.
Watford were the victims of this guy and he took money out of the club and he owes Watford £1.8m. This will probably never be recovered.
Money from the sale of Mariappa to Reading was retained by the Football League, some £3.5m. Only a small percentage has been passed to the club, so that indeed was a fine placed on the club.
Bottom line is, the club were victims of a dodgy owner, and this is why they have escaped punishment.
No. The judgement is clear. Bassini hid all his dubious dealings from any Watford staff and pocketed the money. Watford did not know nor did they benefit - Watford actually lost money (i.e. the money that Bassini took and now the FL's Q.C. fees).
DeleteGet a life, and do some research before spouting rubbishy!!
DeleteEmbargoes aren't punishments they are there mostly to stop clubs spending money they don't have, at least Watford had that cash covered without (ehem) gambling all the family silver on promotion as we have seen at other clubs. They certainly didn't bring in any Teves's, just bog standard replacements for squad players out of contract or sold. In Bassini's defence, money spent on ground improvements suggests more a likely oversight than malice and had he actually asked then the FL had little reason to refuse.
ReplyDeleteSporting advantage? ... hardly, WFC finished 11th just one place higher than the previous season and even a reversal of results against us could not have saved any of the three that dropped.
Seems funny that you are complaining about ignorance doesnt it?
ReplyDeleteThis is brilliant news
ReplyDeleteWatford have got away with it and some West Ham nobody pipes up again for some benign reason. As i have said before mate, time to get a girlfriend, get and life and focus on your prized "Academy of football" currently being steered towards the Championship by that well known maestro of "let's play football on the floor, the west ham way" that you currently have in charge
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but yours are utter rubbish - they are merely a restatement of what is in the public domain spiced up with your usual anti-duxbury vitriol.
go and get laid, you need to
"but since when has ignorance been a defence in law?"
ReplyDeleteYou do realise that no laws were broken? Only football league regulations. Hardly a hanging offence is it?
Scott Duxbury is doing a marvellous job at Watford.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that. West Ham's loss is Watford's gain.
DeleteI think it's fair to say that the three independent QC's who presided over this enquiry are in a stronger position than you are to rule on the rights and wrongs of this, and indeed decide what punishment if any is appropriate. Are you REALLY challenging the legal basis of their decision ?!
ReplyDeleteAre you Martin Samuel in disguise?
ReplyDeleteYour fixation with all matters Watford is bordering on the obsessive.
I know Duxberry, Nani didn't get everything right during their time at Upton Park but who does in football.
Sometimes you have to wonder if some people understand what is written. Two documents to go through which make it quite clear that the club was misled and lied to by the previous owner.
ReplyDeleteReally you should do your research before creating such nonsense as you make yourself look foolish.
To clarify your arguement, the issue is with outgoing players, not incoming. Your penultimate paragraph in your article states "If any have played a role in this season's promotion push, then Watford have arguably benefited from wrong doing".
ReplyDeleteDanny Graham et al have 100% contributed nothing to this seasons campaign!
Duxbury and Nani are doing a great job.
ReplyDeleteGood work duxbury.
ReplyDeletestill playing that ugly long ball stuff?
Why is this Hammers fan so bitter????????
ReplyDeleteHow come you've stayed quiet over the disgraceful award of the Olympic stadium to West Ham, with the taxpayers mainly footing the bill?
ReplyDeleteIs it because West Ham are your club and can do no wrong?
I'm sure if Watford or Leeds were involved in this we'd not hear the end of it.