Jump to content
IGNORED

Bilic gone.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, E.G.Red said:

On their fans forum they see Wilder as a Nigel Pearson figure. To firefight and steady the ship 

yes the outward trip to Calais was steady; fire under control and sea calm.  But on the way  back, the fire got Wilder and the sea got Wilder and the directors got Wilder. By the time the ship docked, it had all gone Pozzi and Wilder was toast, soggy toast. They were only gone three hours.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Street red said:

S**t Owners..

They were good owners up to a point.

Promotion, the multi club model (how I hate that however), several years of PL, a Cup final and semi final and some quite good football under Silva, Gracia, arguably Flores and certainly in their promotion campaigns. NP too.

However they have sacked managers too soon. I would say to varying levels from first to last:

1) Flores first spell arguably.

2) Silva arguably, although links with Everton helped destabilise.

3) Gracia- firstly kept them up, first full year was close to top half, Cup final. Sacked after 3 or 4 games the next season- after being backed in the market?

4) NP. He may have kept them up although with the run-in perhaps not. He would have taken them back up and seen them re-emerge stronger however.

5) Sacking the guy who got promoted 7 or 8 games into the PL season- Munoz- after a point a game, it seems harsh. However Watford did it anyway.

6) Edwards- They spoke well of backing him last year, they did not. He is now above them with Luton.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder if they could be looking at a bit of a squeeze if they don't go back up. Hence the desperation with this move.

It would be their final year of Parachute money and their FFP adjusted loss limit would drop from £72m to £61m.

The 2nd year of Parachute Payments is also about £10m lower iirc- perhaps a bit more. Posting losses for some years now though perhaps their PL season last year will show a profit.

Their recent dice rolling deserves to catch up with them.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think that’s a finite position. So much change and spinning the wheel so often will invariably lead to spinning out eventually 

I think you're right, they're dependent of suckling the premier league cash nipple.   Fail to get back over 3 seasons and they are in a whole world of pain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I do wonder if they could be looking at a bit of a squeeze if they don't go back up. Hence the desperation with this move.

It would be their final year of Parachute money and their FFP adjusted loss limit would drop from £72m to £61m.

The 2nd year of Parachute Payments is also about £10m lower iirc- perhaps a bit more. Posting losses for some years now though perhaps their PL season last year will show a profit.

Their recent dice rolling deserves to catch up with them.

Exactly this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

In one year he has been sacked by two clubs, in two different countries!

What are the odds on Parker at Watford before the end of next season? Can’t be much.

If you look carefully I think he’s the one in the blue cardigan:

(and yes I know I pasted this clip earlier in this thread but it’s just seems so appropriate!)

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A bit harsh, surely.

To buy a player at a bargain price of £3M, sell him a few months later for £17M and then loan him back seems excellent business to me.

For goodness sake, we got young Alex Scott for absolutely nothing, £0, and there are suggestions that we might sell him to Newcastle for £25M plus and loan him back for a season. 

Are the EFL going to investigate?

Leave poor Watford alone!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It’s clearly a ruse. Basically using a club in one country to bale out the financial issues of a club in another country owned by the same people. The fact that he has then be loaned back to Watford makes it even more ridiculous. I would like to think that the EFL, FA & UEFA would throw the book at them, but we all know that won’t happen.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s clearly a ruse. Basically using a club in one country to bale out the financial issues of a club in another country owned by the same people. The fact that he has then be loaned back to Watford makes it even more ridiculous. I would like to think that the EFL, FA & UEFA would throw the book at them, but we all know that won’t happen.

Yeah agreed.

It sort of can cut both ways too- I maintain Pererya and Deulofeu were worth more than they went to Udinese for, certainly for the pair. Cheating on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah agreed.

It sort of can cut both ways too- I maintain Pererya and Deulofeu were worth more than they went to Udinese for, certainly for the pair. Cheating on both sides.

I know there are other groups which own more than one club and will loan players between them, but it’s the selling of players between clubs that is just a way of transferring funds surreptitiously between jurisdictions. How can the valuations be at a true market level when they are basically buying and selling from themselves? They can inflate or deflate the price however it suits them. That can’t possibly be ethical.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the one slam dunk defence for Watford would be it it doesn't impact on the profit and loss at all.

I don't see how it could be the case but if it was truly to do with cash flow as their statement in August claimed then that wouldn't impact upon their Profit and Loss account- the starting point for FFP.

Problem is the hugr mark up- had it been at book value, no gain or loss on disposal in the Profit and Loss well...but purchased £3.6m, sold £16.9m, it has to have turned a big profit?

Purely cash flow I don't care but...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I suppose the one slam dunk defence for Watford would be it it doesn't impact on the profit and loss at all.

I don't see how it could be the case but if it was truly to do with cash flow as their statement in August claimed then that wouldn't impact upon their Profit and Loss account- the starting point for FFP.

Problem is the hugr mark up- had it been at book value, no gain or loss ob disposal in the Profit and Loss well...but purchased £3.6m, sold £16.9m, it has to have turned a big profit?

I’m not the money man like you but to me that looks like a nominal £13.3m profit which I am sure would be helping Watford for FFP, especially if they don’t get promoted and the parachute payments are cut for next season.

Imagine if we could have sold Semenyo to a club also owned by the Lansdowns elsewhere in Europe and he never moved because he was straightaway loaned back to us. Not only does it help the finances of the club at a particular point without being counted as direct investment, it also benefits the football team at the same time.

I thought parachute payments were bad enough but at least those are above board. This is just underhand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

I’m not the money man like you but to me that looks like a nominal £13.3m profit which I am sure would be helping Watford for FFP, especially if they don’t get promoted and the parachute payments are cut for next season.

Imagine if we could have sold Semenyo to a club also owned by the Lansdowns elsewhere in Europe and he never moved because he was straightaway loaned back to us. Not only does it help the finances of the club at a particular point without being counted as direct investment, it also benefits the football team at the same time.

I thought parachute payments were bad enough but at least those are above board. This is just underhand.

Oh I completely agree. I'm sure it's a profit on disposal, their initial argument was about cash flow though which looked odd at the time and still looks odd. Ideally that profit should be disregard entirely for FFP but the Fair Value tests...how the hell that works for player transfers who knows.

It helps them to comply with FFP numerically potentially and frees up FFP headroom ie wages, amortisation and or agents/signing on fees or whatever with the profit- i wonder if the loan back was the final straw for the League. Talk about cake and eat it!!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...