Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Watford: Transfer embargo? What transfer embargo?











Did none of you bother to read the linked article?

Under the terms of the embargo, Watford can still sign players with prior permission from league officials.

I seem to remember that the embargo was linked to financial improprieties in earlier transfers; basically the league are exercising an option to check the financial arrangements of any incoming Watford transfer and satisfying themselves that all is above board before sanctioning it, rather than resolutely banning them from undertaking transfers.
 




albionite

Well-known member
May 20, 2009
2,753
How many loans they had last year is a red herring. The main problem is there chairman owns 3 clubs, this really should not be allowed.

I would like to know how much they spent on these signings and how much these players would of cost if another club brought them.
 


shaolinpunk

[Insert witty title here]
Nov 28, 2005
7,187
Brighton
They just completely bending the rules to skip the embargo and also avoid worrying about FFP too

On the plus side though, Palace were interested in signing Acuna so Udinese bought him and then gave him straight to Watford :lolol:
 


albionite

Well-known member
May 20, 2009
2,753
Surprised there is not more outrage on this site about what Watford is allowed to get away with regarding transfers between the owner of his other clubs.
 




Surf's Up

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2011
10,147
Here
It's a bloody shambles. One loophole is closed so they just go out and find another one. All the usual arguments will be rolled out ("you can't blame Watford, they're not breaking any rules" etc etc) but basically they're taking the ****
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Maybe I'm alone in not being worried about what Watford are doing? I imagine most Watford fans are just glad that they are likely to be competitive and have a good chance of being up near the top again. I'll look forward to watching us play against them next season, they were totally quality down here last season and imo put in the best performance of any team at the Amex.

If the rules are such that they can be bent, so be it. It's up to the authorities to close the loopholes. Just can't get wound up about it. If we were still at Withdean playing in front of 7k I may feel differently but for now I just see our games against them as more interesting than most others this season.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,264
It's a bloody shambles. One loophole is closed so they just go out and find another one. All the usual arguments will be rolled out ("you can't blame Watford, they're not breaking any rules" etc etc) but basically they're taking the ****

perception is an odd thing. because they are under "embargo" you believe certain things to be true. when they are not true, you say its a loophole and a shambles. point is, they were never under an embargo that actually blocked them from transfers, only that they had to seek additional scrutiny from the league for transfers. its not a loophole, its precisely the terms of their embargo.

as for the ownership, i think it might be the way forward. if you consider how well Udinese have done both on pitch and financially, i'd be surprised if we dont see thi model more. as long as teams arent in the same competition i cant see anything to stop multiple club ownership. how different is it to feeder club agreements? wouldnt it be a good idea for BHA to buy a Spanish 2nd or 3rd tier club to get a stream of spanish talent while sending local talent out to get more 1st team experience and bit of broader horizons?
 






Finchley Seagull

New member
Feb 25, 2004
6,916
North London
Maybe I'm alone in not being worried about what Watford are doing? I imagine most Watford fans are just glad that they are likely to be competitive and have a good chance of being up near the top again. I'll look forward to watching us play against them next season, they were totally quality down here last season and imo put in the best performance of any team at the Amex.

If the rules are such that they can be bent, so be it. It's up to the authorities to close the loopholes. Just can't get wound up about it. If we were still at Withdean playing in front of 7k I may feel differently but for now I just see our games against them as more interesting than most others this season.

There really isn't any point in worrying about it. Unless you ban someone from owning more than one football club, what do you do? There is no way you can restrict permanent transfers between clubs. They're not really even bending the rules as it is a transfer between two clubs and they can set the fee.

I agree that they were good at the Amex last season. Best opposition team I saw last season although we didn't have Ulloa and Upson then and may have given them a better game with those two.
 


jgmcdee

New member
Mar 25, 2012
931
Although it might not be breaking the rules it is very clear that if a championship side is owned by someone rich enough to own additional clubs then the idea of an embargo is meaningless, which means that FFP is one rule for the very rich and another for the very very rich. It's all some sort of weird reverse money/player laundering.

Perhaps Tony should pick up Bexhill United so that he can funnel players through that and just forget about us meeting our FFP commitments.
 




Finchley Seagull

New member
Feb 25, 2004
6,916
North London
Although it might not be breaking the rules it is very clear that if a championship side is owned by someone rich enough to own additional clubs then the idea of an embargo is meaningless, which means that FFP is one rule for the very rich and another for the very very rich. It's all some sort of weird reverse money/player laundering.

Perhaps Tony should pick up Bexhill United so that he can funnel players through that and just forget about us meeting our FFP commitments.

I completely agree that it makes a mockery of FFP. Watford clearly can't afford these players at face value on their gates. However, what can be done about it. Unless you decide to ban someone from owning two clubs, which I'm not even sure is legal, there is nothing that can be done.

As someone said earlier, it may well happen more often now with FFP and the relative success of the Udinese/Granada/Watford system.
 


Husty

Mooderator
Oct 18, 2008
11,973
Although it might not be breaking the rules it is very clear that if a championship side is owned by someone rich enough to own additional clubs then the idea of an embargo is meaningless, which means that FFP is one rule for the very rich and another for the very very rich. It's all some sort of weird reverse money/player laundering.

Perhaps Tony should pick up Bexhill United so that he can funnel players through that and just forget about us meeting our FFP commitments.

There never was any ****ing embargo, I wish people would get informed before commenting.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here