http://sportwitness.co.uk/watford-s...ansfer-change-heart-feel-earn-much-elsewhere/ So basically they think they're not getting paid enough. Don't think they'll have a leg to stand on if they try to break the pre-contract.
It seems like it's his "familial entourage" that is trying to supper the deal to get more cash for themselves, more than him.
Yep, as I mentioned before it seems similar to what happened with the JP deal, with lawyers being hired to look in to whether there's any way the contract can be broken.
Tough **** for the familial entourage. If there is one thing Gino does pretty well it is to cover his contractual bases. Let's just hope the lad arrives here and focuses on his football rather than sulking about. If in time he proves , as he has the ability to do so to be a top class central midfielder then he will get his pay day anyway. His entourage should know that Watford will not step in the way of a big money move when it comes. Seems ridiculous anyway given how the football bubble will deflate anway certainly in most of Europe and clubs outside the top twenty or so.
New agent having a strop that he isn’t getting a fat pay cheque from his client’s move. Hopefully the lad will see sense and sack him asap. He’s definitely ours and will fit right in with all the other French midfielders when he rocks up.
I’m still not completely convinced that was a 100% Pozzo blunder. The dispute went to FIFA and they decided U23 games in this country are ‘official matches’. It was only when 2 nonsense reserve games played at the training ground were counted that the purchase clause was triggered. Maybe that was an old precedent, in which case it’s a blunder, but I’ve no idea if it was or not.
It’s a blunder because to be referred to FIFA the agreement didn’t sufficiently define “official matches”. Either that or the club didn’t understand FIFA’s established definition of “official matches”.
I can see the other side too. This is us reaping the fruits of our 'model.' Signing young players with ambition, promising them Premier League football and then shipping them out to 2nd and 3rd rate clubs across Europe, where the loanee club needs an instant impact and has no interest in long term player development. One would imagine, when a player signs for a new club, there are a raft of considerations, beyond the bottom line of wages; chances of winning a trophy, of getting international recognition, the location of the club, the culture, the ease of transportation back home to visit roots and family, the reputation of the club with developing players at your stage of career etc. Our reputation as a staging post for players, who could very easily end up playing 4000 miles away at a moment's notice before squads are finalised, cannot make us very attractive to any young player who wants their next move to be stable. If we want a young player, be honest with them. It may work out for a Colombian kid who would probably prefer to play in Spain anyway, but frankly, I can't see why most players would ever choose to sign for us over any other similarly sized club in Europe. We don't pay the most and we treat footballers like assets, not people.
If it's the latter I agree absolutely it's a **** up. I had a look but FIFA have only published decisions on cases up to the end of 2019. The Zuniga one was in early 2020 so if I ever get to see it I'll flag it up on here and we can all see what really happened.
I think we are for the most part (at least from what I've read). This article http://sportwitness.co.uk/player-fe...ned-properly-signed-pre-agreements-two-clubs/ even suggests that the option for a loan was even put into his contract (which is pretty unusual from what I believe)
Presumably if he doesn't want to join us, doesn't he just need to sign a pre-contract now with the club he'd prefer to join and date it a day before ours ? Not sure if these pre-contracts need to be logged anywhere ?
It's almost like we want other teams and setups to develop our players isn't it? The hierarchy must have such little faith in whichever coach we have this month to get the job done that they'd rather put it in the hands of complete strangers. Despite the fact that we've yet to develop one young player, both home grown or purchased, some fans still think it's the players that are the issue. Whether it's a player shipped off to 5 different clubs in 5 different countries cited for not having 'the right attitude' or one that's sold off as soon as possible described as 'not good enough anyway' by the drooling Pozzo fan club before banging in 20 goals and winning a national league title whilst representing a major nation internationally. It's the players that are at fault, not the owners. As usual.
Sounds good. I suppose option C is still on the table “nonsensical border line corrupt FIFA decision”!
I am not sure how well we communicate with these young players from far away. It always seems confused to me, though admittedly that's just my perception. Often we seem to have players with opinions on their future which are at odds with the club's official line.
A lot of clubs have "loan managers" now, whose job it is to go and keep up to date with the progress of loanees and to keep regular contact with them. Would be madness if we didn't have someone doing similar considering our model
I would imagine a loan clause is standard in player contracts across the globe something like ‘from time to time we may wish to loan you... will remain an employee of club... will retain all employee rights and benefits... will be paid by... will have the right to refuse...etc etc’
Success and Peneranda exemplify it for me. Both looked like the next big thing. Both now on the cusp of a career as journeymen with 19 clubs each and no more than 5 goals in a season at any. It could easily be they were just mentally lacking and blew their own chances. Equally they could turn it around (though time appears to be running out for Success) but they seem to be the rule, rather than the exception with our model. I think it's a dangerous enough combination of immaturity, sudden relative wealth and adulation which can wreck the potential of many young players. I've seen it first hand with players who thought their first pro contract meant they were set for life, only to be cast adrift 2 years later with not as much left as they hoped. But adding in the transience of being shipped all over europe at a young age, and having no firm career plan from your parent club and it's easy to see why they go off the rails.
It's more that most 18-21 year old foreign imports simply aren't ready to play regularly in the PL straight away, so loaning them out until they're experienced enough and we think they're ready is a necessity. I don't know what other method you're suggesting?! The alternatives would be: to regularly use youth players who aren't ready yet in the PL, meaning we get thrashed and relegated; having them here but just saving them for cup games meaning they don't get to play enough; or not signing any young prospects in the first place, meaning that by the time they're ever ready for the PL they'll then be too expensive for us and out of our reach.
You genuinely think that they are loaned out for their 'footballing development', how's that been working out for us?
Not sure that Peneranda and Success are the norm and are more the exception. Both players came here with a very decent reputation but for some reason (might be attitude) neither seem to have kicked on. Success, as you say, is probably in the last chance saloon but Peneranda may still have a chance to turn it round. The players we normally get and loan out are more of the type no sod has ever heard of and they are looking for that gem that can be sold for lots of money like Sanchez or Richarlison. I would very surprised if most of these players are not aware what's going to happen to them but it's worth a risk as if it works out then they will be in the Premier League. It does appear that this model is now beginning to to bring on some decent players but only time will tell with Cucho, Suarez and Estupian
I think they are loaned out for the benefit of them and us. They get to play regular football while knowing that if they do well they are already attached to a Premier League Club. We benefit by allowing these players to play regularly for very little cost (possibly a profit) knowing that if they do turn out to be good enough we already have them on a contract. How is it working out. Lets see what happens with the likes of Pedro, Cucho, Estupian and Suarez who have all received excellent reviews where they've been playing recently. Three of these have been loaned out to benefit them and us and hopefully this will work out very well for us. It does seem you are very anti Watford and Gino Pozzo. Why?
You didn't answer my question of what the alternatives would/should be. PS It worked well for Doucoure at least with Granada.
It's inevitable though that only a small percentage will make it, therefore quantity is required. One just needs to look at England youth international squads over the years to get a sense of that, usually only a few in each squad up to and including U20 level will make it as PL regulars.
I just don't worship at the altar of the owners like many do. It is telling that anyone that doesn't is described as 'very anti Watford and Gino Pozzo' though.
I'll give you Doucoure although it's something of a stretch as he was a somewhat established player already. Alternatives? I don't know - maybe a coherent plan of how these players will make it at our club - doesn't feel like one exists. Loaning the likes of Penaranda to all and sundry only to absolve the people in charge of any responsibility is narrow-minded. We've not had one single youth team player 'make it' in 8 years of ownership. That's a pretty damning statistic on it's own. When combined with the lack of any breakthrough young players that we've purchased, it's pretty awful. I'm hopeful that the four that Knight mentions will come in and be a success. But to loan them immediately when they've had a couple of weeks with the side will again bring these issues to the forefront. I don't know if Gueye's comments about being worried about being loaned is true, but it certainly fits the evidence of the last 8 years. If you don't show to Giraldi in a couple of weeks that you're the next Messi, you're sent packing to some backwater somewhere. Like they tried to do with Doucoure, only for it to fall though at the last minute, thankfully.
The trouble is if we don't loan them out again, they will warm a bench or not even get to the bench like the 2 keepers and Quina.
Continually giving old declining players contract extensions doesn’t help in that regard. If we’re a bit bolder and jettisoned old codgers like Gomes, Britos and Holebas a bit earlier the some of the younger players might get a bit more of an route to first team.
The problem is they clearly think an aged Britos was better than a promising Wilmott. They might have been right.
Our older players being too old doesn't alter the fact that too many of the youngsters we've signed are still too young to be relied on regularly (even if they ever become good enough). It is very (and seemingly increasingly) unusual for a player to establish themselves in a PL team before the age of 21/22, and even then they tend to be pretty up and down for a few years - just look at the erratic form last season of top young talents like Abraham (22), Mount (21) and Rashford (22). Calvert-Lewin has only started to establish himself this season and he's 23. The youngest average age for a PL team last season was 24.0 (Man Utd at home v Brighton). Meanwhile, Quina, Wilmot and Dele-Bashiru for example are still all only 20. The only players that started regularly in the PL last season at the same age were Dwight McNeil and Max Aarons. It's a case of poor squad management by the Pozzos. However, at least with Gueye he seems to be a case of a player being signed at an age and stage of his development where he should actually be ready when a place in his position finally comes up for grabs (Capoue's in a year or two).
