Wolfie once again has confused the issue with his original article. The title asks if it is FAIR, then the article asks if it is right.

There is a difference between the two.

It is FAIR because all other pubs in the league had the same opportunity.

Whether it is RIGHT will be a personal opinion that will differ from person to person.

*clubs not pubs

Beer on the brain

I haven't confused anything Pundit.

The whole article is about whether the rules are fair. Everything else within the European community is equal. This particular subject seems to "bend" the rules somewhat.

If the Football League has rules they should apply throughout the EU, or at least all Associations should have a common ruling.

A loan is a loan. No transfer fee is involved. How can you allow 10 loans and just call them transfers because they're from another country? That's not fair.

Wolfie
Please tell me how it can be unfair when the other 23 clubs in the league had the opportunity to do the same thing. I think this is clear-cut.

I think the dilemma you're having is over how morally acceptable it is?

Pundit, like I 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, apart from the guy from Chelsea.

The other 23 owners don't have the connections the Italian family have.

No other owner in this division has the same advantage.

It's not about the details of money or wealth, in terms of FAIRNESS it remains that the opportunity to do this was there for all clubs.

Any owner of any club in our league could do the same as Watford's owner and purchase other clubs to feed their team.

They could and its legal
But everyone company can avoid paying uk tax, clubs can take on a benefactor with illegally gained funds, they can, we can and its legal, but it doesn't make it right, doesn't make it morale and doesn't make it something I agree with.
But many ways to skin a cat I guess

Is that the way you really want English football to go Pundit? By the way, I didn't mention money or wealth.

It's bad enough in the Premiership, with all these multi-millionaires taking over clubs, as their play thing.

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.