Basically people are annoyed a couple of potentially decent players are off (you talk like Suarez and Sarr have already gone ) and we might be keeping the ones they don't?
The way I see the breakdown for that marker: Gray = 15 Pedro = 15 Sarr = 10 Quina = 10 Murray = 5 Hughes = 5 Add in a few CB goals from corners and we aren't far away.
I think the writing is on the wall with outgoing players. It's clear by the list of absentees who are off. In fact they are gone already, in the respect none of them are playing. The only two I suspect could come back into the team are Hughes and Sarr, and they would make a massive difference of course, but I suspect you won't be seeing Deeney, Welbeck, Suarez, Estupinan, Deulofeu, Pereyra & Capoue wear a Watford shirt in a league game ever again.
I'm not sure what to make of the phrase 'gonners'. We'd actually be delighted if most of them were. Welbeck, Deeney, Pereyra, Femenia were never in our thinking. Deulofeu only in wishful thinking. The disappointments are Suarez and Estupinan and the reason being that Sarr has not got past that 50/50. I imagine that Liverpool are trying to shaft us and the club won't take less than it paid for him. Hence others have to go. This does not seem like it was the plan even a couple of weeks ago, but I would probably trade them both for Sarr. The idea that Capoue may possibly stay is actually quite heartening. Dawson - it's hard to care too much
Fine by me if half the clowns who got us relegated do one.... Watford should never have a player on higher than like 40k a week. Once they get to that stage they are a billy big ******** and could go for £20m+ they could then be easily replaced with the next young up and coming..... Anyone tell me that we did the right thing keeping Deeney or Docoure for example when we should have sold for circa £80m!!!!!
Yes - but as mentioned elsewhere, we have to be careful of still having a team that Sarr wouldn’t mind being part of if we are selling off other talent to keep him.
People are annoyed because: - Pozzo seems to fold to 'player power' at every opportunity. - The club's communication, when it exists, seems to mostly be ********. - Pozzo is selling players on the cheap - He is also selling everyone that is half-decent. I don't buy the argument that all relegated teams do this. Of course they will lose a few key-players, but it seems entirely possible that we are going to lose the vast majority of our first-team.
True and probably wise not to have filled their team with geriatrics. Wilson still only 28 - Deeney 32. Foster almost twice Ramsdale's age. Ake is an odd one. I don't see him as a £40m player (the Muff couldn't defend after all) and Sarr not, but that's Man City spoiling everything as usual and subsidising Muff to haunt us. Ultimately Ake was a player we could have and should have bought. In saying that, Muff spent £20m on him and got £40 back. We spent nothing on Estupinan and will get c£15m back. Taking Ake's enormous ages into account, the profit is about the same, though Muff have their £20m back when they need it.
I think it's a lot to ask of Pedro and Quina to deliver that many goals. They're both capable but young and raw in many ways; Pedro will have to become more clinical very quickly.
46 games in a standard season, asking Pedro to score 1 in 3 isn't by any means an unattainable or unfair ask. Quina would just need to score just under 1 in 5 games to get close.
It's all well and good looking at it like that, but unfortunately it doesn't make it entirely realistic. I'd be surprised if Quina got anywhere near 10. Would say 6 or 7 is more likely.
Based off what I've seen last night and around the league today, we'd be lucky to be top 10 this season.
Fair enough. I don't read every page avidly so you might be right. The whole point is that the arguments don't have to be abusive or aggressive. Even you stating I'm trying to be an internet policeman was unnecessary because it looks like you are trying to wind me up.
But that's assuming they play a full 46 games, which neither has done before, in an intense league over a shorter period of time than a normal season. Realistically they will probably play 35-40 games, and that's only if they remain fit. Pedro would need to score much nearer 1 in 2/2.5 to achieve what you'd expect of him, which is a lot of pressure on an 18 year old.
Agree entirely. Last night was Quina's thirteenth senior-level league appearance ever. Let me repeat that. THIRTEENTH league appearance EVER. He has scored one league goal. He's 20 years old. Our fans acting like he's about to play 46 matches, score loads, operate like a seasoned professional. It's madness. He deserved to play more, but I thought he was increasingly anonymous and didn't make great decisions last night. Joao Pedro played 25 league matches for Fluminese and scored four league goals. He's 18 years old. So basically he needs to massively increase his goal scoring ratio, while operating as a central striker (which doesn't seem like his natural position). Show me how often Championship clubs get promoted while relying on players who are that young and inexperienced. Even Norwich two years ago had young players with more experience. Need to be realistic.
I'm not dismissing the idea that the Pozzos are asset stripping prior to selling but surely selling players would mean the money goes to the club not the owners? Perhaps one of the many accountants could explain if it's possible for the Pozzos to sell the club's assets and put the money in their own pockets? What they did when they sold Granada was move the players they wanted to keep (like Penaranda and Success!!) to Udinese and us (Foulquier!!!). I'd be more worried if they were doing that.
He played a lot of games in a short period of time in various competitions in South America (10 in 37 overall), so I don't think he'll be a complete fish out of water in a 46 game season. Obviously he won't play every game, but nobody will, I think double figures is a reasonable target. Quina is inexperienced, but he did fine when called upon in the Premier League (was disappointing last night admittedly), and there has to be a time where players like him really come to the fore. Besides, it's not as if we're gonna be solely reliant on those two, there is also experience in this team
Not an accountant but I've owned a few companies down the years. Cash is a business asset, it is possible for buyer and seller to make a specific agreement over cash assets. It's not as simple as Gino walking away with a suitcase full of used fivers and tenners though - Gino has to pay tax on income. An alternate approach might be to pay himself an extraordinary dividend before putting the club up for sale, it's still income and it's still taxed though.
You can absolutely do that. That's exactly what we did when we bought our business; we got all the non-cash assets, previous owner kept the cash assets (and any liabilities not specifically listed in the sale contract). From the perspective of paperwork, we created a new company and transferred the assets into it, leaving the stuff we didn't buy behind (which turned out to be a very good thing, because the previous owner had a bunch of debt she didn't disclose!).
If we are going to sell the likes of Estupiñan and Suarez then we need to get on with it and not mess about haggling too much. Would much rather have £25m for the pair now with some available to reinvest in the squad than £28m with a week of the window to go. Same thing holds for all the rest of them, if we don't want them then bin then off sharpish, we can't afford to continue with yesterday's squad for much longer.
But the club have lenders who have a charge over the ground and all the players contracts-those lenders -as at june 19 were owed £70m plus we owed £50m in outstanding transfer fees. Those creditors have a claim on any cash realised from player sales before Gino gets his hands on it. I can't see how he can pay himself a dividend. Firstly the club is insolvent and its shareholder is Hornets Investment Ltd-that company would receive any dividend and its accounts are a mirror image of the club so it is also insolvent so cannot pay a dividend. If the club -by selling players and reducing its overheads can make a profit sufficient to make it solvent then it can pay a dividend but again unless all the debt is repaid-or the lenders come to some agreement with Gino then he may not be permitted to do so.
The club is insolvent???!!! Tell me more.... Lenders have no basis to demand early repayment providing a business is meeting it's commitments to whatever finance or credit arrangement exists. Dividends are matters for the board of directors of a business.
Whats to tell, the club has filed accounts showing more liabilities than assets-it has a negative P&L account so its my understanding it can only pay dividends out of retained profits-there aren't any so it cant I did not say the lenders are demanding repayment-no one knows what the terms of the loan are but its not beyond the realms of possibility that the loan has a relegation clause in it thus causing it to become repayable or other conditions on player sales-why would a lender stand by and watch assets be sold to find it had no security. The real point i was trying to make was that Gino cannot just sell players and pocket the cash/pay dividends when there are creditors who have prior claim on the proceeds so the buyer and seller cannot make a sweetheart deal without complying with the terms of the arrangement and i suggest that will not be on the basis that Gino can do what he likes just because he ultimately owns the club.
