Other clubs' transfers

[Optimistic Nut]

Fuck off.

[Cajun]

Fuck off you hairy dyke.

[joeyt]

Oba Martins to Seattle Sounders in MLS is pretty much a done deal.

 

Why isnt he staying at Levante? He's doing well for them isnt he? Or is he just going to the US for the monies?

[GG]

Watford have loaned another player, seriously taking the piss like 

 

Seriously?

 

Ipswich have loaned 14 players this season. We've loaned 12. Why is no one having a go at them?

 

Crystal Palace, whose manager Ian Holloway claimed our approach is unethical, have loaned 8 players this season. In our most recent match, they fielded 5 loanees to our 6. Is that a significant difference? I'd say it's not.

 

When it comes down to the number of academy players fielded (in that match), we had 2 to their 2. No difference there.

 

The players on loan we've signed from Granada/Udinese will sign permanently if we want them and if there is no better offer (considering the case of Vydra). They're more 'our' players than those who play for Crystal Palace/Ipswich, or the droves of previous loaness we've had at the club (Cleverley, Lansbury, Foster, Adam Johnson, Weimann amongst others). I'd rather have the Pozzo contingent as we have it at present, with the chance for these players to become ours, than develop another club's player and not have a real chance of purchasing them.

 

The difference between the players we're loaning now and the players we loaned then is that a large number are not English. This has no detriment on our ability to field academy players, something we have a very strong history of doing. What then, is the problem? The fact that we are not fielding mediocre English journeymen like most other Championship clubs, instead fielding genuinely talented foreign players? That doesn't seem like a genuine bone of contention to me, more a symptom of jealousy. I can guarantee you that if we were teetering above relegation, no one would be complaining.

 

The fact is that we are able to field more of these loanees in any specific game as being loaned from abroad count as transfers in in the squad restrictions. In practice however, we don't really field significantly more than other sides to give ourselves great advantage. The fact that we're loaning these players from Granada/Udinese shouldn't be problematic either. The intention is to make them our players if we want them, but with players from abroad it isn't easy to guess whether they will adapt and settle, hence loans seem to make sense. We won't be getting loads of players from Granada/Udinese every season, just this season in order to quickly improve the competitiveness of the squad. There's little difference between this and having SAF loan players to Darren Ferguson's Peterborough. Nor any normal club affiliations that result in frequent loans.

 

Pretty much every argument against how we've proceeded this season is bollocks. We're just as reliant upon loanees as a lot of other Championship clubs, we produce as many if not more academy graduates than other clubs (which should continue for the forseeable future) and this will not be a permanent state. Nor are we breaking any rules. The fact that a small club like Watford can be successful without throwing a ton of cash at players is clearly something that must be stopped, especially considering the influx of suspicious foreign players that seem to be giving them an advantage. Bollocks.

[Mike]

Dad jokes, tbh.

 

[NEEJ]

Watford have loaned another player, seriously taking the p*ss like 

 

Seriously?

 

Ipswich have loaned 14 players this season. We've loaned 12. Why is no one having a go at them?

 

Crystal Palace, whose manager Ian Holloway claimed our approach is unethical, have loaned 8 players this season. In our most recent match, they fielded 5 loanees to our 6. Is that a significant difference? I'd say it's not.

 

When it comes down to the number of academy players fielded (in that match), we had 2 to their 2. No difference there.

 

The players on loan we've signed from Granada/Udinese will sign permanently if we want them and if there is no better offer (considering the case of Vydra). They're more 'our' players than those who play for Crystal Palace/Ipswich, or the droves of previous loaness we've had at the club (Cleverley, Lansbury, Foster, Adam Johnson, Weimann amongst others). I'd rather have the Pozzo contingent as we have it at present, with the chance for these players to become ours, than develop another club's player and not have a real chance of purchasing them.

 

The difference between the players we're loaning now and the players we loaned then is that a large number are not English. This has no detriment on our ability to field academy players, something we have a very strong history of doing. What then, is the problem? The fact that we are not fielding mediocre English journeymen like most other Championship clubs, instead fielding genuinely talented foreign players? That doesn't seem like a genuine bone of contention to me, more a symptom of jealousy. I can guarantee you that if we were teetering above relegation, no one would be complaining.

 

The fact is that we are able to field more of these loanees in any specific game as being loaned from abroad count as transfers in in the squad restrictions. In practice however, we don't really field significantly more than other sides to give ourselves great advantage. The fact that we're loaning these players from Granada/Udinese shouldn't be problematic either. The intention is to make them our players if we want them, but with players from abroad it isn't easy to guess whether they will adapt and settle, hence loans seem to make sense. We won't be getting loads of players from Granada/Udinese every season, just this season in order to quickly improve the competitiveness of the squad. There's little difference between this and having SAF loan players to Darren Ferguson's Peterborough. Nor any normal club affiliations that result in frequent loans.

 

Pretty much every argument against how we've proceeded this season is bollocks. We're just as reliant upon loanees as a lot of other Championship clubs, we produce as many if not more academy graduates than other clubs (which should continue for the forseeable future) and this will not be a permanent state. Nor are we breaking any rules. The fact that a small club like Watford can be successful without throwing a ton of cash at players is clearly something that must be stopped, especially considering the influx of suspicious foreign players that seem to be giving them an advantage. Bollocks.

Gan on GG!

[Guest Roger Kint]

Watford have loaned another player, seriously taking the piss like 

 

Seriously?

 

Ipswich have loaned 14 players this season. We've loaned 12. Why is no one having a go at them?

 

Cant be bothered to read all that but Ipswich are just as bad clearly. Its like Suarez explaining his diving on 'well Bale does it as well' doesnt mean its right because someone else does it.

[Cajun]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

[Guest Roger Kint]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

[Guest JS]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

[Lotus]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

Why? If it isn't against league rules then why?

[Village Idiot]

Oba Martins to Seattle Sounders in MLS is pretty much a done deal.

 

Why isnt he staying at Levante? He's doing well for them isnt he? Or is he just going to the US for the monies?

 

Started strong, but he's declined as the season's went. Plus I'm sure the Sounders will pay more thanLevante if he goes there as a DP.

[Deuce]

Frédéric Piquionne signs with Portland Timbers.

[Guest Roger Kint]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

Why? If it isn't against league rules then why?

 

It is against PL rules, seems like cheating to get into a league with a squad that couldnt qualify to play in it imo. What happens if they get up? Always said there should be a sensible cap on loans, being able to field a side of them while other clubs have to spend money on their team surely isnt right?

[Lotus]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

Why? If it isn't against league rules then why?

 

It is against PL rules, seems like cheating to get into a league with a squad that couldnt qualify to play in it imo. What happens if they get up? Always said there should be a sensible cap on loans, being able to field a side of them while other clubs have to spend money on their team surely isnt right?

 

Surely the relevant point is that it's not against the rules of they league they're playing in. You seem to be indicating that a 'morality' should be adhered to, one that stretches beyond the principles of the competition they're in.

[Guest Roger Kint]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

Why? If it isn't against league rules then why?

 

It is against PL rules, seems like cheating to get into a league with a squad that couldnt qualify to play in it imo. What happens if they get up? Always said there should be a sensible cap on loans, being able to field a side of them while other clubs have to spend money on their team surely isnt right?

 

Surely the relevant point is that it's not against the rules of they league they're playing in. You seem to be indicating that a 'morality' should be adhered to, one that stretches beyond the principles of the competition they're in.

 

My point is it shouldnt be allowed in any league, the fact that a club is allowed to do it is the pisstake like i said from the start.

 

And the fact that foreign loans count as transfers shows what a farce the rule is.

[colinmk]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

[GG]

Cant be bothered to read all that but Ipswich are just as bad clearly. Its like Suarez explaining his diving on 'well Bale does it as well' doesnt mean its right because someone else does it.

 

Suarez is breaking rules, we aren't. There's a crucial difference.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

It's not really a club partnership in the way these things usually work. These players are effectively ours. There is a chance that it might not work out, so it makes sense for the deals to initially be loan deals. We are not developing players for Udinese's first team. We are developing players for Watford's first team. Some of them happen to have been loaned by Udinese, done all at once in order to quickly bring our squad up to the requisite strength level required to compete in the Championship. No rules have been broken in doing so.

 

It is against PL rules, seems like cheating to get into a league with a squad that couldnt qualify to play in it imo. What happens if they get up? Always said there should be a sensible cap on loans, being able to field a side of them while other clubs have to spend money on their team surely isnt right?

 

I don't think it is against PL rules, actually. International loans work in the same way as currently in the Football League, with no limits applied. If we get up, we will sign most of the effective players permanently and possibly borrow a few more from our sister clubs. Other clubs can loan players too, by the way, it's not a Watford-only thing. There's nothing stopping any other club from forging a partnership (though it's unlikely to be as overwhelmingly beneficial as ours) with a foreign club to loan players. So why is it wrong when Watford have done it?

[Lotus]

GG clearly in the wrong, pisses me off when these clubs ship in a load of foreigners (usually from the same country) rather than develop their youth.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

Why? If it isn't against league rules then why?

 

It is against PL rules, seems like cheating to get into a league with a squad that couldnt qualify to play in it imo. What happens if they get up? Always said there should be a sensible cap on loans, being able to field a side of them while other clubs have to spend money on their team surely isnt right?

 

Surely the relevant point is that it's not against the rules of they league they're playing in. You seem to be indicating that a 'morality' should be adhered to, one that stretches beyond the principles of the competition they're in.

 

My point is it shouldnt be allowed in any league, the fact that a club is allowed to do it is the pisstake like i said from the start.

 

And the fact that foreign loans count as transfers shows what a farce the rule is.

 

Perhaps there's a bigger picture here. Money is so unfairly distributed throughout the leagues and IIRC there was some recent ruling whereby Championship (and lower) clubs will make even less from selling their young developing 'stars' to Prem clubs that there becomes a neccessity for lower league clubs to stretch credibility just to compete (in the absence of a sugar daddy).

 

I would think there's far bigger moral issues to do with the how the money football generates is spread than whether Watford sign several players from another club. A fairer system would negate the need for such measures.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Cant be bothered to read all that but Ipswich are just as bad clearly. Its like Suarez explaining his diving on 'well Bale does it as well' doesnt mean its right because someone else does it.

 

Suarez is breaking rules, we aren't. There's a crucial difference.

 

Thats another thing, have no idea who Ipswich have brought in but i am willing to bet they havent shipped over a load that normally wouldnt go there other than for a club partnership like Udinese. Seven or whatever from one club is a pisstake.

 

It's not really a club partnership in the way these things usually work. These players are effectively ours. There is a chance that it might not work out, so it makes sense for the deals to initially be loan deals. We are not developing players for Udinese's first team. We are developing players for Watford's first team. Some of them happen to have been loaned by Udinese, done all at once in order to quickly bring our squad up to the requisite strength level required to compete in the Championship. No rules have been broken in doing so.

 

It is against PL rules, seems like cheating to get into a league with a squad that couldnt qualify to play in it imo. What happens if they get up? Always said there should be a sensible cap on loans, being able to field a side of them while other clubs have to spend money on their team surely isnt right?

 

I don't think it is against PL rules, actually. International loans work in the same way as currently in the Football League, with no limits applied. If we get up, we will sign most of the effective players permanently and possibly borrow a few more from our sister clubs. Other clubs can loan players too, by the way, it's not a Watford-only thing. There's nothing stopping any other club from forging a partnership (though it's unlikely to be as overwhelmingly beneficial as ours) with a foreign club to loan players. So why is it wrong when Watford have done it?

1. It should be wrong and as going down easy isnt a crime either Suarez also thinks he isnt breaking any rules.

 

2. So you pay their full wages, paid to get them in and will pay the full market value for each of them? Or will most just leave ie Vydra/Anya who look like good players. Havent seen the rest so not sure who is good. Its two clubs with the same owner who has shifted 10 assets across to give them games on the cheap whatever way you want to class it.

 

3. PL rules state 4 loans of which only 2 can be long term and only 2 can be from clubs in the same league. On that basis then you wouldnt be able to do 1/3 of what you have done this season. You keep asking why Watford cant do it as if i dont care about anyone else. I clearly said more than once its a stupid rule that the league shouldnt have and the fact its some tinpot team like Watford doesnt change my opinion on it any more than if it was Boro, Leeds or any other team.

[GG]

1. It should be wrong and as going down easy isnt a crime either Suarez also thinks he isnt breaking any rules.

 

Diving is against the rules. I don't see where you're deriving a 'should'. There's no unfair advantage gained over any other club. Any other club could operate in a similar way to which we have.

 

2. So you pay their full wages, paid to get them in and will pay the full market value for each of them? Or will most just leave ie Vydra/Anya who look like good players. Havent seen the rest so not sure who is good. Its two clubs with the same owner who has shifted 10 assets across to give them games on the cheap whatever way you want to class it.

 

I'd assume we are paying their wages, Udinese's wage bill is relatively low, I don't see why they'd subsidise us directly. I can't say I know whether we paid to get them in etc.

 

Abdi, Cassetti, Pudil, Ekstrand, Anya, Battocchio will probably stay. Vydra will sign if we go up and don't get a ridiculous offer for him. The others haven't impressed enough to do so.

 

If you look at what Granada have done over the past few seasons, that's the blueprint. A load of players parachuted in from Udinese at the beginning to strengthen the squad quickly, but soon after that they're competing off their own strength. Nothing massively wrong with it, imo.

 

3. PL rules state 4 loans of which only 2 can be long term and only 2 can be from clubs in the same league. On that basis then you wouldnt be able to do 1/3 of what you have done this season. You keep asking why Watford cant do it as if i dont care about anyone else. I clearly said more than once its a stupid rule that the league shouldnt have and the fact its some tinpot team like Watford doesnt change my opinion on it any more than if it was Boro, Leeds or any other team.

 

Loans are temporary transfers which are defined as such only between domestic clubs. No restrictions apply to the number of loanees from non-English clubs.

 

Calling us a tinpot team doesn't really help your case in any way and is a bit unnecessary and is pretty much symptomatic of the condescending attitude towards our club that's cultivated some kind of siege mentality amongst our fans against others. We'll sign who we want (from Udinese).

[Guest Roger Kint]

Its not really a club partnership? Cassetti - Signs a one year deal with Udinese then is sent straight to Watford on loan for that year. How else can you describe it other than a partnership? 

[GG]

Its not really a club partnership? Cassetti - Signs a one year deal with Udinese then is sent straight to Watford on loan for that year. How else can you describe it other than a partnership? 

 

Not a traditional club partnership insofar as the players are coming to Watford to play for Watford, not coming to Watford to develop their chances of playing for Udinese.

 

With Cassetti, I reckon there's some kind of tax benefit to him being paid in Italy and being on loan at Watford. Why would Udinese want him?

[Guest Roger Kint]

1. It should be wrong and as going down easy isnt a crime either Suarez also thinks he isnt breaking any rules.

 

Diving is against the rules. I don't see where you're deriving a 'should'. There's no unfair advantage gained over any other club. Any other club could operate in a similar way to which we have.

 

2. So you pay their full wages, paid to get them in and will pay the full market value for each of them? Or will most just leave ie Vydra/Anya who look like good players. Havent seen the rest so not sure who is good. Its two clubs with the same owner who has shifted 10 assets across to give them games on the cheap whatever way you want to class it.

 

I'd assume we are paying their wages, Udinese's wage bill is relatively low, I don't see why they'd subsidise us directly. I can't say I know whether we paid to get them in etc.

 

Abdi, Cassetti, Pudil, Ekstrand, Anya, Battocchio will probably stay. Vydra will sign if we go up and don't get a ridiculous offer for him. The others haven't impressed enough to do so.

 

If you look at what Granada have done over the past few seasons, that's the blueprint. A load of players parachuted in from Udinese at the beginning to strengthen the squad quickly, but soon after that they're competing off their own strength. Nothing massively wrong with it, imo.

 

3. PL rules state 4 loans of which only 2 can be long term and only 2 can be from clubs in the same league. On that basis then you wouldnt be able to do 1/3 of what you have done this season. You keep asking why Watford cant do it as if i dont care about anyone else. I clearly said more than once its a stupid rule that the league shouldnt have and the fact its some tinpot team like Watford doesnt change my opinion on it any more than if it was Boro, Leeds or any other team.

 

Loans are temporary transfers which are defined as such only between domestic clubs. No restrictions apply to the number of loanees from non-English clubs.

 

Calling us a tinpot team doesn't really help your case in any way and is a bit unnecessary and is pretty much symptomatic of the condescending attitude towards our club that's cultivated some kind of siege mentality amongst our fans against others. We'll sign who we want (from Udinese).

 

1. I have repeatedly said it shouldnt be a rule that you can do it. Not going to bother saying it again if you havent got it yet.

 

2. As you dont know anymore than me theres nowt more to say really.

 

3. Can you post the rule that says that? Never seen the endless foreign loans thing before in the PL.

 

4. You seriously need to take off your Watford glasses ffs, i obviously mean that your bleating over 'why us' isnt an issue as i keep saying its anyone who does it. If you find it condescending that i dont particularly care about your club anymore than i would for another of the 90 odd lower league clubs then there isnt much i can do really.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Its not really a club partnership? Cassetti - Signs a one year deal with Udinese then is sent straight to Watford on loan for that year. How else can you describe it other than a partnership? 

 

Not a traditional club partnership insofar as the players are coming to Watford to play for Watford, not coming to Watford to develop their chances of playing for Udinese.

 

With Cassetti, I reckon there's some kind of tax benefit to him being paid in Italy and being on loan at Watford. Why would Udinese want him?

 

So do you agree with the Tories who use offshore tax loopholes too? Its using a partner club to skirt round rules, thats what it looks like tbh.