Is this really fair?

I didn't say I wanted english football to go like that. You just asked if it was fair and I've said technically it is.

You said you didn't mention wealth. Well, you implied it was to do with wealth when you said "The only reason Watford have taken an unfair advantage on the other 23 clubs is the fact that the owners of Watford OWN Udinese and Granada and that's where all these "loan" players are from".
Then after saying you isn't mention wealth in your next sentence you rubbish multi-millionaire owners.

This is why I suppose I have trouble understanding your points of view sometimes.

'How about teams can only field a player if they were born in the same city?'

Athletico Bilbao used to only take Basque players,don't know if that's still the case,probably not!

It matters not if it is fair they have exploited the situation to suit their club and as the rules stand at the moment are able to do so. Could be interesting if they gain promotion. Does anybody know if they have agreed to to purchase the players and what kind of fees they would have to pay. Interesting.

It matters not if it is fair they have exploited the situation to suit their club and as the rules stand at the moment are able to do so. Could be interesting if they gain promotion. Does anybody know if they have agreed to to purchase the players and what kind of fees they would have to pay. Interesting.

Was it fair that Wolves were in a position financially to pluck Matt Jarvis from poor little Gillingham for a pittance, when those finances - in part - were available because a rich old man took advantage of tax laws that are loaded in favour of the super rich?

Our then British owner was not allowed in the country HIMSELF for much of each financial year so as not to trigger a much higher rate of tax against his huge pot of money.

You could argue, therefore, that Wolves' promotion under McCarthy - he spent millions - was both entirely legal and immoral. The same could go for the financing of our ground rebuild first time around and, to some extent, this time around.

Both Haywood and Morgan have used and do use tax loopholes that are far more immoral than anything Watford are doing.

If anybody is shuddering at the speck in Watford's eye, they might want to first take the plank out of their own club's eye - stopping your support of the club both emotionally and financially would be an excellent starting point in your crusade for moral uprightness.

Ignore those who cannot see the bacteria and therefore argue it doest not exist

Or those who list off people with surname Jackson

The thread actually evolved into listing people with christian name Jackson

T'was truly amazing.

Pataya, your question about if Watford had agreed to buy the players is probably irrelevant due to the fact that all 3 clubs have the same owners, registration of the players will probably be transferred without the transfer of funds

Herbie, I think you've been side tracked. This article is about whether or not clubs can "bend" the loan rules, not about finances.

My point is that Watford are allowed to have 10 players on loan from sister clubs abroad as they are considered transfers (even tho' no money is involved)

The Football League rules state that only up to 5 players can be in a match day squad and only 2 from the same club, regarding loan players.

Watford have 6 from Udinese.

That's my point.