Watford

[wigan white]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else, but if Watford do go up, then surely they're screwed as theyre under a transfer embargo til September this year, for the Loan loophole saga!!! They supposedley only will have 14 players on their books after the loanees go back to their parent club.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else, but if Watford do go up, then surely they're screwed as theyre under a transfer embargo til September this year, for the Loan loophole saga!!! They supposedley only will have 14 players on their books after the loanees go back to their parent club.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the embargo is undergoing consideration, especially if Watford go up into the Premiership. The article I read outlined the reasons why the Premier League might look favourably on having the embargo overturned, but I can't remember what those reasons were.
Somebody point me to where I read this stuff. (I didn't dream it, honest).

[Gary the Enfield]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else, but if Watford do go up, then surely they're screwed as theyre under a transfer embargo til September this year, for the Loan loophole saga!!! They supposedley only will have 14 players on their books after the loanees go back to their parent club.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the embargo is undergoing consideration, especially if Watford go up into the Premiership. The article I read outlined the reasons why the Premier League might look favourably on having the embargo overturned, but I can't remember what those reasons were.Somebody point me to where I read this stuff. (I didn't dream it, honest).

It'll be erm, Money.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else, but if Watford do go up, then surely they're screwed as theyre under a transfer embargo til September this year, for the Loan loophole saga!!! They supposedley only will have 14 players on their books after the loanees go back to their parent club.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the embargo is undergoing consideration, especially if Watford go up into the Premiership. The article I read outlined the reasons why the Premier League might look favourably on having the embargo overturned, but I can't remember what those reasons were.Somebody point me to where I read this stuff. (I didn't dream it, honest).

It'll be erm, Money.

[aefevans]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else, but if Watford do go up, then surely they're screwed as theyre under a transfer embargo til September this year, for the Loan loophole saga!!! They supposedley only will have 14 players on their books after the loanees go back to their parent club.

Watford fan here.

Just to clear a couple of things up, the transfer embargo relates to the handling of the finances of the transfer of Danny Graham to Swansea in the 2011 off-season. Basically our then-owner was doing a bit of third-party embezzlement. This was an entire season before Papa Giampaolo bought the club and has absolutely nothing to do with the Udinese "loans". Udinese aren't going to suddenly recall the players, as Papa Giampaolo wouldn't strip his own business of its assets. We're not owned BY Udinese; we simply share an owner.

Second of all, I can confirm that, under the regulations of our embargo, (which runs until the end of the August transfer window), all our transfers have to be cross-checked by the FA (to make sure we're going about it the right way). Funnily enough, this embargo does not extend to amending the contracts of players already at the club. I can't imagine we will be getting that many (new) players from outside the family trinity next season, but we are by no means banned from signing any players. As we are not in administration we have the finances to trade in the playing market. and the FA wouldn't enforce a ban on us that prevented us from fielding a full match day squad anyway.

[truewhite15]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else, but if Watford do go up, then surely they're screwed as theyre under a transfer embargo til September this year, for the Loan loophole saga!!! They supposedley only will have 14 players on their books after the loanees go back to their parent club.

Watford fan here.

Just to clear a couple of things up, the transfer embargo relates to the handling of the finances of the transfer of Danny Graham to Swansea in the 2011 off-season. Basically our then-owner was doing a bit of third-party embezzlement. This was an entire season before Papa Giampaolo bought the club and has absolutely nothing to do with the Udinese "loans". Udinese aren't going to suddenly recall the players, as Papa Giampaolo wouldn't strip his own business of its assets. We're not owned BY Udinese; we simply share an owner.

Second of all, I can confirm that, under the regulations of our embargo, (which runs until the end of the August transfer window), all our transfers have to be cross-checked by the FA (to make sure we're going about it the right way). Funnily enough, this embargo does not extend to amending the contracts of players already at the club. I can't imagine we will be getting that many (new) players from outside the family trinity next season, but we are by no means banned from signing any players. As we are not in administration we have the finances to trade in the playing market. and the FA wouldn't enforce a ban on us that prevented us from fielding a full match day squad anyway.

Aye, but you will, surely, be royally screwed when your Udinese B-Team goes back next year if you are promoted?

[aefevans]

Aye, but you will, surely, be royally screwed when your Udinese B-Team goes back next year if you are promoted?

Again, why would they go back? Why would Papa Giampaolo strip his own business of his assets? It is in his own best interests for us to have the players. And even if he did shuffle one or two of the players round, we would be sent decent replacements.

[ChrisC]

Aye, but you will, surely, be royally screwed when your Udinese B-Team goes back next year if you are promoted?

Again, why would they go back? Why would Papa Giampaolo strip his own business of his assets? It is in his own best interests for us to have the players. And even if he did shuffle one or two of the players round, we would be sent decent replacements.

The players are all loans are they not? So would have to return to their respective clubs at season end. The league is closing the loop hole which allowed you to abuse the system so how would you get them all back without actually buying them?

I can see your owner selling them to Watford for £1 a pop

[aefevans]

Aye, but you will, surely, be royally screwed when your Udinese B-Team goes back next year if you are promoted?

Again, why would they go back? Why would Papa Giampaolo strip his own business of his assets? It is in his own best interests for us to have the players. And even if he did shuffle one or two of the players round, we would be sent decent replacements.

The players are all loans are they not? So would have to return to their respective clubs at season end. The league is closing the loop hole which allowed you to abuse the system so how would you get them all back without actually buying them?

I can see your owner selling them to Watford for £1 a pop

The Football League has never actually announced that the loophole would be closed. A couple of newspapers/media outlets just voiced it after Holloway ranted about it.

The players are not conventional loans in the sense that Chalobah and Briggs (on loan from Chelsea and Fulham respectively are). For example, there are players at Granada who have been "on-loan" from Udinese for four seasons straight. The reason they were "loaned" (rather than 'transferred') is because (in Zola's words) the deal went through quite soon before the start of the season. A number of fringe players and bench-warmers at Udinese were asked if they wanted to be involved in the Watford project and all but one agreed (the one who stayed preferred to try his chances at Udinese). My assertion is that while the players would, on paper, be transferred back to Udinese/Granada (as with all players on loan anywhere from anywhere), they would remain at Watford in person and train with the club until they were registered for the next season (although one or two players may change). A couple of players have moved their families and Daniel Pudil (another Udinese import) has found a school in Hertfordshire for his son.

We actually signed Fernando Forestieri permanently in January for free! That's the great thing about this; when it comes to signing players permanently, let's just say that negotiations between the Pozzos and the Pozzos shouldn't take too long.

[Worthy4England]

I agree that given a choice, your gaffer would probably keep them at Watford. I suspect TV revenue from the Prem would be worth that commitment and I'd be surprised if Udinese B had anything like the same TV wonga.

[BWFC_Insane]

How many 'loan' players can you field in a premier league match day squad?

I'm sure the limit is more restrictive than the championship?

Anyhow, good luck to Watford, I hope they go up now. Play the best football out of all the championship play off teams.

[aefevans]

How many 'loan' players can you field in a premier league match day squad?

I'm sure the limit is more restrictive than the championship?

Anyhow, good luck to Watford, I hope they go up now. Play the best football out of all the championship play off teams.

Thanks! And I'm not 100% sure, usually Premier League clubs are the ones doing the loaning. All I know is that the international loans rule is FA-devised rather than FL-devised, so the same rule would apply in the Premier League, but ideally we'll be looking more towards permanently signing the players than simply re-loaning them next year.

[plymouth wanderer]

How many 'loan' players can you field in a premier league match day squad?

I'm sure the limit is more restrictive than the championship?

Anyhow, good luck to Watford, I hope they go up now. Play the best football out of all the championship play off teams.

Thanks! And I'm not 100% sure, usually Premier League clubs are the ones doing the loaning. All I know is that the international loans rule is FA-devised rather than FL-devised, so the same rule would apply in the Premier League, but ideally we'll be looking more towards permanently signing the players than simply re-loaning them next year.

Change of subject mate

Do you rate Sordell?

[boltonboris]

You're only allowed 1 at a time from a club when you're in the Premier League aren't you? Or perhaps that's just from teams IN the Premier League.

I'm not sure.. But I can almost guarantee that the loan system that Watford incorporated last season (which they were well within their rights to utilise) isn't acceptable in the Prem's loan rules and regs

[BWFC_Insane]

You're only allowed 1 at a time from a club when you're in the Premier League aren't you? Or perhaps that's just from teams IN the Premier League.

I'm not sure.. But I can almost guarantee that the loan system that Watford incorporated last season (which they were well within their rights to utilise) isn't acceptable in the Prem's loan rules and regs

It's not entirely clear, but I did a google this morning, and it seems Watford might actually be ok. Seems that under premier league rules whilst there are restrictions on domestic loans, foregin loans appear completely unrestricted......

[bobo the clown]

You're only allowed 1 at a time from a club when you're in the Premier League aren't you? Or perhaps that's just from teams IN the Premier League.

I'm not sure.. But I can almost guarantee that the loan system that Watford incorporated last season (which they were well within their rights to utilise) isn't acceptable in the Prem's loan rules and regs

It's not entirely clear, but I did a google this morning, and it seems Watford might actually be ok. Seems that under premier league rules whilst there are restrictions on domestic loans, foregin loans appear completely unrestricted......

Which may, in an Allardycesque way, be within the rules. Overall it's not good though, is it ?

Even while we did it ... & with Wilshire & Sturridge to great affect ... it struck me as not quite right. When it was done on the Watford scale, albeit 'legal', it looked way beyond 'not quite right'.

Anyway, it's done now & we'll see what becomes of it long term.

[as]

They're as bent as Elton John.

And they were the most plastic fans in Wembley's history when we played them, silent before the match, then happy clappers in the ground, then silent afterwards.

Sh*t club but the media will be w*nking all over them as they're in the South.

[BWFC_Insane]

You're only allowed 1 at a time from a club when you're in the Premier League aren't you? Or perhaps that's just from teams IN the Premier League.

I'm not sure.. But I can almost guarantee that the loan system that Watford incorporated last season (which they were well within their rights to utilise) isn't acceptable in the Prem's loan rules and regs

It's not entirely clear, but I did a google this morning, and it seems Watford might actually be ok. Seems that under premier league rules whilst there are restrictions on domestic loans, foregin loans appear completely unrestricted......

Which may, in an Allardycesque way, be within the rules. Overall it's not good though, is it ?

Even while we did it ... & with Wilshire & Sturridge to great affect ... it struck me as not quite right. When it was done on the Watford scale, albeit 'legal', it looked way beyond 'not quite right'.

Anyway, it's done now & we'll see what becomes of it long term.

I think the issue with Watford is that they have an owner who owns a second club. I'm not that bothered if a club goes out and loans 16 players IF it's within the rules of the league....

I mean many clubs rely on loans, and actually I think the loan system is a great way to develop players.

So I think that's fine.

It's just the Watford owner also owning Udinese, that makes me a bit uncomfortable.

[aefevans]

Change of subject mate

Do you rate Sordell?

Yeah, he was good when he was with us. I must admit, I think he moved a bit too soon, but our then-owner (the dodgy one) forced through the transfer. I'm not sure he was ready to step up, regardless of which club he went to, but I must admit he's slipped off my radar somewhat of late.

It's not entirely clear, but I did a google this morning, and it seems Watford might actually be ok. Seems that under premier league rules whilst there are restrictions on domestic loans, foregin loans appear completely unrestricted......

I think the issue with Watford is that they have an owner who owns a second club. I'm not that bothered if a club goes out and loans 16 players IF it's within the rules of the league....

I mean many clubs rely on loans, and actually I think the loan system is a great way to develop players.

So I think that's fine.

It's just the Watford owner also owning Udinese, that makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Yeah, I believe the internation loan ruling is a product of the FA rather than the Football League itself.

Next year, we will be loaning more players out to other clubs, as a number of young talent via the famous Pozzo scouting network (at least two or three off the top of my head) have been ear-marked for Watford, who we will then loan out ourselves (well, you all know how that works).

As for ownership of more than one club, as a matter of technicality, Udinese and Watford have been registered with different persons as owners, whilst both being under the same ownership: Udinese is registered as being owned by Giampaolo Pozzo, whereas Watford is registered as being owned by his son, Gino (who has since relocated with his family to Hertfordshire). I have a vague understanding that that this is because European Competitions (Champions' League; Europa League) will only allow one club per owner to take part. If any part of the situation is a loophole, it's that. Not that I'm complaining.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

You're only allowed 1 at a time from a club when you're in the Premier League aren't you? Or perhaps that's just from teams IN the Premier League.

I'm not sure.. But I can almost guarantee that the loan system that Watford incorporated last season (which they were well within their rights to utilise) isn't acceptable in the Prem's loan rules and regs

It's not entirely clear, but I did a google this morning, and it seems Watford might actually be ok. Seems that under premier league rules whilst there are restrictions on domestic loans, foregin loans appear completely unrestricted......

Which may, in an Allardycesque way, be within the rules. Overall it's not good though, is it ?

Even while we did it ... & with Wilshire & Sturridge to great affect ... it struck me as not quite right. When it was done on the Watford scale, albeit 'legal', it looked way beyond 'not quite right'.

Anyway, it's done now & we'll see what becomes of it long term.

I think the issue with Watford is that they have an owner who owns a second club. I'm not that bothered if a club goes out and loans 16 players IF it's within the rules of the league....

I mean many clubs rely on loans, and actually I think the loan system is a great way to develop players.

So I think that's fine.

It's just the Watford owner also owning Udinese, that makes me a bit uncomfortable.

And some Spanish club too (Granada, just looked it up)...