Rival Watch

[Stranded]

Ponzi more like

Nice.

Nothing dodgy going on of course, just a massive conincidence that the day after the sale of Sarr fell through, they sell (but don't lose) their left back to a club owned by the same people for a potentially inflated fee.

Not saying 16m is inflated naturally but can't imagine there are many LB's moving for that sort of price after signing for 4m from Nice and playing half a season in the PL for a relegated side.

[Mr Angry]

Watford sell Hassane Kamara to Udinese for €16m.

Udinese then loan him straight back.

For those unaware, the Pozzi family own both clubs.

Outrageous really, yet these owners get away with it time and time again.....

[Hendo]

Watford sell Hassane Kamara to Udinese for €16m.

Udinese then loan him straight back.

For those unaware, the Pozzi family own both clubs.

[Brum Royal]

From what I've seen on Twitter, Watford fans seem concerned that their financial black hole might be deeper than is being let on and this is a not so subtle way of plugging some of the gaps

[Lower West]

No one complained when Aluko was exiled to China.

Time for the practice to be clamped down hard on. Before there's a serious financial meltdown,

[Hendo]

Not quite the same situation though, is it?

[Nameless]

No one complained when Aluko was exiled to China.

Time for the practice to be clamped down hard on. Before there's a serious financial meltdown,

It was widely seen as being a very ‘convenient’ arrangement for us. We all saw it for exactly what it was.
The Watford situation is far more in depth and the league have had to change their rules as a result of previous ‘player sharing’ across the Pozzi estate.

[Stranded]

No one complained when Aluko was exiled to China.

Time for the practice to be clamped down hard on. Before there's a serious financial meltdown,

A loan deal to essentially get his wages off the books for a bit is a bit different than a club paying over the odds and immediately returning that player.

Already being strongly suggested that if Watford do go up, they may well even re-sign him next summer.

[Nameless]

No one complained when Aluko was exiled to China.

Time for the practice to be clamped down hard on. Before there's a serious financial meltdown,

A loan deal to essentially get his wages off the books for a bit is a bit different than a club paying over the odds and immediately returning that player.

Already being strongly suggested that if Watford do go up, they may well even re-sign him next summer.

We got a fairly hefty ‘loan fee’ for Aluko didn’t we ?

[Stranded]

No one complained when Aluko was exiled to China.

Time for the practice to be clamped down hard on. Before there's a serious financial meltdown,

A loan deal to essentially get his wages off the books for a bit is a bit different than a club paying over the odds and immediately returning that player.

Already being strongly suggested that if Watford do go up, they may well even re-sign him next summer.

We got a fairly hefty ‘loan fee’ for Aluko didn’t we ?

Possibly, though it wasn't outlandish to the Chinese market at the time.

The thing that makes this look dodgy, is the immediate loan back and the fact it comes so quickly after the Sarr deal fell through.

[Nameless]

A loan deal to essentially get his wages off the books for a bit is a bit different than a club paying over the odds and immediately returning that player.

Already being strongly suggested that if Watford do go up, they may well even re-sign him next summer.

We got a fairly hefty ‘loan fee’ for Aluko didn’t we ?

Possibly, though it wasn't outlandish to the Chinese market at the time.

The thing that makes this look dodgy, is the immediate loan back and the fact it comes so quickly after the Sarr deal fell through.

Except it’s not dodgy. There is no regulation of transfer fees or independent valuation process, there is no restriction on buying and selling between clubs whoever owns them. Not sure how you would stop it anyway.

[Hendo]

We got a fairly hefty ‘loan fee’ for Aluko didn’t we ?

Possibly, though it wasn't outlandish to the Chinese market at the time.

The thing that makes this look dodgy, is the immediate loan back and the fact it comes so quickly after the Sarr deal fell through.

Except it’s not dodgy. There is no regulation of transfer fees or independent valuation process, there is no restriction on buying and selling between clubs whoever owns them. Not sure how you would stop it anyway.

Just because there is no regulation, doesn't make it not dodgy.

They've essentially moved £16m from one club to the other with nothing changing hands to skirt round FFP/debt issues, would say that has dodgy written all over it.

[Lower West]

A loan deal to essentially get his wages off the books for a bit is a bit different than a club paying over the odds and immediately returning that player.

Already being strongly suggested that if Watford do go up, they may well even re-sign him next summer.

We got a fairly hefty ‘loan fee’ for Aluko didn’t we ?

Possibly, though it wasn't outlandish to the Chinese market at the time.

The thing that makes this look dodgy, is the immediate loan back and the fact it comes so quickly after the Sarr deal fell through.

Amounts to the same issue though. Watford are in dire straights financially. Owners desperately spinning the roulette wheel and praying the ball doesn't finish in the green zero slot.

[Nameless]

Possibly, though it wasn't outlandish to the Chinese market at the time.

The thing that makes this look dodgy, is the immediate loan back and the fact it comes so quickly after the Sarr deal fell through.

Except it’s not dodgy. There is no regulation of transfer fees or independent valuation process, there is no restriction on buying and selling between clubs whoever owns them. Not sure how you would stop it anyway.

Just because there is no regulation, doesn't make it not dodgy.

They've essentially moved £16m from one club to the other with nothing changing hands to skirt round FFP/debt issues, would say that has dodgy written all over it.

Dodgy = against the rules. They have sold the player registration so something has changed hands. I agree owners having multiple clubs gives scope for being creative but all businesses constantly look at what they can do legally to benefit themselves.

[Hound]

They seem to be holding out for 30m for Pedro. On top of the 20m for Dennis, and now this as well

Can’t work out if they are totally skint or loaded….guess we’ll soon find out

[Stranded]

We got a fairly hefty ‘loan fee’ for Aluko didn’t we ?

Possibly, though it wasn't outlandish to the Chinese market at the time.

The thing that makes this look dodgy, is the immediate loan back and the fact it comes so quickly after the Sarr deal fell through.

Except it’s not dodgy. There is no regulation of transfer fees or independent valuation process, there is no restriction on buying and selling between clubs whoever owns them. Not sure how you would stop it anyway.

It didn't use to be dodgy in football to run up monster debts, default on them and keep all the players that you couldn't afford and win the Championship in the process - Hi Leicester.

Dodgy does not equal illegal or against the rules.

[Hendo]

Except it’s not dodgy. There is no regulation of transfer fees or independent valuation process, there is no restriction on buying and selling between clubs whoever owns them. Not sure how you would stop it anyway.

Just because there is no regulation, doesn't make it not dodgy.

They've essentially moved £16m from one club to the other with nothing changing hands to skirt round FFP/debt issues, would say that has dodgy written all over it.

Dodgy = against the rules. They have sold the player registration so something has changed hands. I agree owners having multiple clubs gives scope for being creative but all businesses constantly look at what they can do legally to benefit themselves.

Lol. No its not. Against the rules = against the rules.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dodgy

A dodgy car salesman isn't breaking any law, but they're doing things which are a bit underhand and dishonest - same is happening here.

What you have described is essentially dodgy, as it is trying to use a loophole to circumnavigate FFP rules which are in place. The rules which are in place should stop something like this happening. Added to the fact this is happening right after another big transfer deal fell through, come on? You'd have to be the most rose-tinted glasses Watford fan ever to think that nothing underhand is going on here.

A player is registered at one club, who's owners own another club. Essentially nothing has changed hands, the player is still registered to the Pozzi family at the top level.

[Mr Angry]

How to stop this?

Here are 3 easy to follow steps:

1. a player cannot be sold from Club A to Club B if the ownership of Club's A and B are the same (prevents direct circumvention of FFP rules)
2. a player cannot be sold from Club A to Club C, who then sell the player to Club B, within a 24 month period (closes the loophole where a 2nd club buys a player then immediately sells him onto another club owned by the same owners as the selling club of that player)
3. a player cannot be sold from Club A to Club C if a 3rd Party pays for the purchase of that player (closes the loophole where another organisation supplies the funds to the buying club to purchase the player - an organisation almost certainly connected in a myriad of ways to selling Club A)

Obviously, loaning the player immediately back to the selling club (as has happened between Udinese and Watford) is simply taking the pi$$, and by not stopping this clear circumvention of FFP rules, it opens the door to other, even more extreme, cases.

[Nameless]

Just because there is no regulation, doesn't make it not dodgy.

They've essentially moved £16m from one club to the other with nothing changing hands to skirt round FFP/debt issues, would say that has dodgy written all over it.

Dodgy = against the rules. They have sold the player registration so something has changed hands. I agree owners having multiple clubs gives scope for being creative but all businesses constantly look at what they can do legally to benefit themselves.

Lol. No its not. Against the rules = against the rules.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dodgy

A dodgy car salesman isn't breaking any law, but they're doing things which are a bit underhand and dishonest - same is happening here.

What you have described is essentially dodgy, as it is trying to use a loophole to circumnavigate FFP rules which are in place. The rules which are in place should stop something like this happening. Added to the fact this is happening right after another big transfer deal fell through, come on? You'd have to be the most rose-tinted glasses Watford fan ever to think that nothing underhand is going on here.

A player is registered at one club, who's owners own another club. Essentially nothing has changed hands, the player is still registered to the Pozzi family at the top level.

Someone who is ‘dishonest’ is doing something against the rules !
Exploiting a loop hole is not dishonest, it’s what every company tries to find.
The player isn’t registered to the Pozzi family, Only clubs can hold player registrations.
Clearly they are doing something to ensure they don’t fall foul of FFP but they are using legal methods to do it.

[Nameless]

How to stop this?

Here are 3 easy to follow steps:

1. a player cannot be sold from Club A to Club B if the ownership of Club's A and B are the same (prevents direct circumvention of FFP rules)
2. a player cannot be sold from Club A to Club C, who then sell the player to Club B, within a 24 month period (closes the loophole where a 2nd club buys a player then immediately sells him onto another club owned by the same owners as the selling club of that player)
3. a player cannot be sold from Club A to Club C if a 3rd Party pays for the purchase of that player (closes the loophole where another organisation supplies the funds to the buying club to purchase the player - an organisation almost certainly connected in a myriad of ways to selling Club A)

Obviously, loaning the player immediately back to the selling club (as has happened between Udinese and Watford) is simply taking the pi$$, and by not stopping this clear circumvention of FFP rules, it opens the door to other, even more extreme, cases.

Rules would need to be a lot smarter than that. You could drive a coach and Horses through those .
Pozzi A owns club A, Pozzi B owns Club B. Suddenly they can do exactly what you are trying to stop.
And it happens between clubs that have different owners (Hello Michael Hector)