Watford

I guess this is a loophole due to joint ownerships that allows them to move money about, whilst pretending to move assets about. Its clearly wrong, but probably within FFP. Shocking that they're so blatant about it.
 
Kosovo said:
View attachment 43348
Should this be allow.
Click to expand...

If Jill Scott wants to retire that's her decision to make....

As for Watford, incredibly dodgy and it really shouldn't be as it just seems like a way to get around financial fair play rules.

The problem is there's that many consortiums that own different clubs around the globe that it feels like the genie is out of the bottle on this one. If you clamped down on this where do you stand on clubs buying players and loaning to sister clubs to get around work permit rules which has been going on for a while too. Is one ok but another too far?

I'd like to see it all stopped but given how far it's gone it is probably a legal minefield.
 
When I saw the phrase 'sister club' alarm bells rang. That final paragraph suggests that if they make it back to the Prem then they'll just buy him back. Wonder how much they 'sold' him for? Probably the same £80M that Derby got for their stadium.
 
It's infuriating and certainly isn't in 'the spirit' of the rules is it?
I suppose it is a case of getting promoted to the top flight is all that matters, so s*d any concept of sportsmanship.
 
It's an easy one to clamp down on. The EFL could just make income from sister clubs not allowed under FFP.

It's ok to do it it helps them stay afloat financially etc but shouldn't be able to take advantage of it as a loophole.
 
It is not a new thing.
Owners having 3 clubs in different countries has happened previously. It is a really good way of circumventing the so called Fair Play rules.
 
Send this to my Watford ST holding mate. Apparently it’s being discussed on their message boards. All agree it’s legal money laundering. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top