Day Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Football League members have voted to amend rules allowing clubs an unlimited number of international loans. Clubs agreed unanimously to close a loophole which meant Watford could last season legitimately bring in 10 players from Udinese, the Italian club that shares the Pozzo family as owners. Under the new regulations international loans will be treated the same as domestic loans, with clubs limited to a total of five loanees in matchday squads and a maximum of four from the same parent club. The vote, which required 51% backing, comes after Watford's approach drew heavy criticism from their Championship rivals. Ian Holloway - the Crystal Palace manager whose side beat the Hornets in last month's play-off final - was among the most outspoken critics, calling the previous system "ludicrous". He said in February: "I need some foreign scouts, or to befriend a big club like (Watford) have, and to nick all their players. "They've got nine from one club! It's a loophole and that's wrong. Unlimited foreign loans? It can't be right." http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/8762878/Football-League-clubs-outlaw-unlimited-international-loans-in-wake-of-Watford-success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It was pathetic. Luckily, they wanna good enough to go up in the end, but it would have been anti-football for a club owned by another to achieve promotion purely by lending a team rather than building one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Find it very ironic hearing Holloway moan about loan players, he got two promotions with major players being through the loan system. Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 It was pathetic. Luckily, they wanna good enough to go up in the end, but it would have been anti-football for a club owned by another to achieve promotion purely by lending a team rather than building one. Watford can easily get through another loophole.. Instead of loaning the players.. They can just buy them and then sell them again for the same price at the end of the season (and have written contracts) That's the problem with having the same owners in 3 different countries.. They can just balance their guys around and pay them exactly the same.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I didn't mind Watford doing it because it wasn't against the rules. But there really shouldn't be holes in the transfer system like that. I blame the rules. Is it much worse than Arabian princes or Russian gangsters buying clubs though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Watford can easily get through another loophole.. Instead of loaning the players.. They can just buy them and then sell them again for the same price at the end of the season (and have written contracts) That's the problem with having the same owners in 3 different countries.. They can just balance their guys around and pay them exactly the same.. Thats what I thought, its easy to get around and you cant stop them transferrring players between the 3 clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Unanimous, eh? Watford ought to change their nickname to the Turkeys because they have voted for Christmas. On the other hand, I suppose it's akin to Hornets voting for fly spray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Contain Nuts Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Hold on, their success? What success? Failing to win the playoffs is not success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Find it very ironic hearing Holloway moan about loan players, he got two promotions with major players being through the loan system. Hypocrite. disagree. The two situation are quantum leaps apart. Having effectively more than a starting XI at your club on loan, is very different to having a couple of loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 They will just go ahead and sign players on small contracts now, between the clubs that the family owns. All this does is stops other championship clubs from having the imputes to go to foriegn clubs (big clubs) and say look at how well 'vydra' did - look how much he is now worth, any unwanted players with ability could come here and be put in the shop window. Watford will be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyKnight Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Watford can easily get through another loophole.. Instead of loaning the players.. They can just buy them and then sell them again for the same price at the end of the season (and have written contracts) That's the problem with having the same owners in 3 different countries.. They can just balance their guys around and pay them exactly the same.. True. But that surely costs more to do with higher agent fees and signing on bonuses. The player/agent is in a lot stronger bargaining position and can seek other clubs during the moves rather than being almost 'forced' into a loan move. It can still happen but at a lot more risk to the selling club..... In my opinion anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 True. But that surely costs more to do with higher agent fees and signing on bonuses. The player/agent is in a lot stronger bargaining position and can seek other clubs during the moves rather than being almost 'forced' into a loan move. It can still happen but at a lot more risk to the selling club..... In my opinion anyway. But I don't think they will need an agent.. They'll simply just transfer the player with the same wages between the clubs.. Given that the owner is exactly the same, what possible negotiations will there be? It will be exactly the same as the loans.. Except the player will transfer for free, and then again at the end of the season back to Udinese/Granada.. And as Ambitious mentions.. This will favour them even more, given that it closes the loophole for other clubs to do it.. The only way to fully close the loophole is to say that players signing for one club can't be transfered back to the same club within 3 years of the transfer or something like that.. But that will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 But I don't think they will need an agent.. They'll simply just transfer the player with the same wages between the clubs.. Given that the owner is exactly the same, what possible negotiations will there be? It will be exactly the same as the loans.. Except the player will transfer for free, and then again at the end of the season back to Udinese/Granada.. And as Ambitious mentions.. This will favour them even more, given that it closes the loophole for other clubs to do it.. The only way to fully close the loophole is to say that players signing for one club can't be transfered back to the same club within 3 years of the transfer or something like that.. But that will never happen. Or an easier solution clubs with the same investor/owner (as they all have to be named anyway) can't transfer players between 'their' clubs. shouldn't be that hard to enforce, but it won't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Or an easier solution clubs with the same investor/owner (as they all have to be named anyway) can't transfer players between 'their' clubs. shouldn't be that hard to enforce, but it won't! *cough*maxwell*cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 I need to word this carefully, but does anyone else suspect any different reason these owners sent many players to another club they owned? Aside from these owners of Watford/Granada/Udinese...Imagine some OTHER owners, perhaps lacking the same undoubted level of honesty and integrity of the Watford/Granada/Udinese owners, but the other owners could feasibly do this for tax and money laundering purposes surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 *cough*maxwell*cough* I was pretty young at the time Eddie, but did I hear right that Derby County loaned Tottenham the money to buy Gary Lineker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIMBAUD Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 I was pretty young at the time Eddie, but did I hear right that Derby County loaned Tottenham the money to buy Gary Lineker? i think he's getting at the fact that deano moved to the rams from oxford which were both owned by the maxwell family. (the amount of actual money that changed hands has been disputed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 i think he's getting at the fact that deano moved to the rams from oxford which were both owned by the maxwell family. (the amount of actual money that changed hands has been disputed) yeah I know that, I recall Maxwell trying to buy into another club too, and that's when they introduced rules to prevent people being on more than one board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 i think he's getting at the fact that deano moved to the rams from oxford which were both owned by the maxwell family. (the amount of actual money that changed hands has been disputed) Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Maxwell wanted to Merge Reading with another team, Thames Valley Royals was the preferred name I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.