Parlaci Gino

Can someone who’s invited please ask how much stock can be placed in the transfer fees reported when Watford sign players? Is it a bit of creative bookkeeping or did we really look at Okoye & Bayo as 7 and 5 million £ players?

 

You're not going to get that at any high level English football club; there will be a lot of business sensitive information kept under wraps.

There will also be things which Pozzo simply won't talk about in public, eg the full nature of his relationship with Bayat.

 

Agree that the framing of the questions will be important. Need to avoid the 'can't you see it's bad to sack managers all the time?' type ones as you'll get general guff about lessons learned.

A few that I would hope get asked:

'Can you explain why someone on our parent company's board (Lorenzo Gallucci) was allowed to hold a financial interest in Mogi Bayat's company whilst a significant chunk of our transfer business went through him?'

Follow up:

'What discussions were there internally about this being a conflict of interest?'

'Why does Bayat act for the club in transfers where the player isn't even his client?'

'In June last year, Duxbury stated that we only had one external loan and were aiming to be debt free in two years. Since that statement we've taken out six new loans. How do you explain this?'

'On the From the Rookery End podcast after our last promotion, Duxbury said that we were never in serious financial difficulty yet in submissions to the Court of Arbitration of Sport in relation to late payments of Sarr transfer instalments we argued that we were in severe financial difficulty and asked for an extension of a year. Both can't be true, so which one was it?'

'Has Gino Pozzo been contacted and/or formally interviewed by the investigating judge in the Spanish tax fraud case pertaining to his time owning Granada?'

And no, I don't expect any of the above to provide a "gotcha" moment but I do think it's important to show that the fanbase is onto them and to watch them squirm a bit. Using their own words and showing how the subsequent behaviour doesn't match up is one way of doing that.

 

I’m pretty sure no one invited is allowed to actually ask questions.

 

Yeah, I don’t dispute that. You’re right. I think there are ways of getting at it without breaching any genuine commercial or contractural interests though. And the difficulty of course is when that reason is invoked - as it surely will be - trust is so low we’ll not know if it’s legitimate or just a convenient thing to hide behind.

 

Use your noggin - it was probably set up like that intentionally by Pozzo for Gallucci and Bayat to assist him channeling money out the club. There would have likely been no "conflict", it would have been made in the interest of Pozzo.

I agree it would be good to still try and ask the question, but it's something which they won't give a proper answer to.

 

He's very clearly already aware of that, it's literally what's driven him to ask the question and that is the obvious subtext.

 

So the intention is to try and trick Pozzo in to saying there was no conflict of interest?

Just wondering why the question is phrased that way round.

 

As he said at the bottom of his post:

And no, I don't expect any of the above to provide a "gotcha" moment but I do think it's important to show that the fanbase is onto them and to watch them squirm a bit. Using their own words and showing how the subsequent behaviour doesn't match up is one way of doing that.

It's not supposed to be a magic trick designed to get Gino to relinquish control of the club unawares; any heavyweight journalist would ask exactly that kind of question given the opportunity to speak to him.

 

It does seem to be a bit of a "gotcha" way of phrasing the question though then.

But anyway, I'll accept that my initial reply to @Steve Leo Beleck was excessively harsh.

 

Just saw this post before I was about to press send on a response to you telling you to use your own noggin but will respond in kind now!

The sequencing of questions is important in demonstrating whether people really are being open and honest. Maybe Pozzo will answer the first question fully, discuss how they either didn't consider it to be a conflict of interest or that they did and give reasons as to why it was fine. He should be afforded that opportunity to give a full answer.

However, I suspect that his response will be a non-answer, very similarly worded to the one given to the Guardian which I'm sure he and his lawyers will have signed off:

A Watford spokesperson said: “It is Watford FC’s understanding that Mr Gallucci is not a person of significant control at MB Foot and has not been since 2019. MB Foot is paid strictly as an intermediary in transfers and through the appropriate FA channels.”

This answers a question that isn't being asked, it's not about whether Gallucci controlled Bayat's company, it's why did he retain any financial interest in it whilst sitting on our parent company's board, were the club comfortable with that and if so what was the rationale?

Pozzo's initial response dictates whether the second question is necessary or not.

Like I say, they're not going to be tripped up, if there are difficult questions I'm sure they will sidestep them. But the only power we have is to ask them and reflect on the fullness of their responses.

 

It's just that this implies that you are feigning ignorance, in which case it kind of is a "gotcha" question in that you're wanting to try and catch out whether Pozzo will tell the truth or not.

As per my first reply though - I think the answer to this question is already pretty obvious.

Ultimately - in line with the posts I already made in this thread, I very much doubt that Pozzo will give an open and honest answer to any questions on this issue, and although you can still try and get one from him it will likely be entirely futile. It'll likely be a very legally sensitive subject involving arrangements which for various reasons will have by necessity been kept secret.

Also, even if he doesn't give an open and honest answer, I don't think that you having figured that out via your first question can be used to generalise that they won't be being honest with any other questions during the event and that they're not approaching the event in a spirit of trying to be helpful - because this is likely one of the most, if not the most, sensitive and legally contentious topic that could come up.

Again, I don't mean to massively criticise you, and I've taken back the initially harsh tone of my first reply, but I'm just pointing out that I think that any lines of questioning on this topic will be running down a dead end, because I think most of us have an idea of the true answer, and it's one which they won't, and perhaps can't, talk about in public.

 

Rob Edwards promoted and Troost-Ekong scoring a 96th minute winner against Udinese today. As far as Saturday’s go, that’s got to hurt!

 

Come on Gino, parlaci to us about the scum’s promotion you ****.

 

Gino, why did you sack Rob?

 

“So Gino, how special was it to see Rob Edwards celebrating promotion at the end of the season, as we all dreamt he would do when he was hired?”

 

And so on

 

He definitely isn’t turning up now.

 

Yeah it is damning and 100% true. Very obvious Gino doesn’t care about the club. Giaretta getting a 3 year deal proves that, on top of the massive failure he is as an owner for the past 4 years. He’s a failure and I hope that on 15th June he is told that to his face.

I would rather see the meeting get abandoned because Watford fans give him absolute pelters than Watford fans listen to his BS. There are no words that can save him, only action. The problem is, the action needed can’t happen because of our crippling debt, so we can’t afford the players. The smart frees are there but we don’t do smart.

 

I'm impressed Martin Rowe managed to detach sole from tongue long enough to address his screen and type those four words. Bravo, sir.

 

Well, as if any more evidence was required, what happened yesterday further proves it’s not the head coaches to blame, it’s down to Pozzo, Dux and Giaretta, for creating the rotten culture, plus the players for taking advantage of that and not putting the effort in …. Only a change of ownership and leadership will change our course and save our club …. Gino you are an embarrassment and incompetent, Dux you are merely here for a pay cheque and have no backbone and Giaratta you offer nothing other than to carry out Pozzos wishes, like a puppet. Get out, get gone, it’s over, don’t make this more painful than it already is - sell up before we end up in league 1 and there is nothing to sell …. After all Pozzo you are only in this for the money

 

I reckon Andrew French is leaving the Watford Observer. Knows how arrogant and petty Pozzo is, and that criticising him like that is likely to result in access being withdrawn. Think he said on the recent Do Not Scratch Your Eyes 'if I continue...'.

Ah well, back to some journalist straight out of college regurgitating stories they've picked up from Twitter.

 

In my experience people in positions of authority rarely like it when they are told the truth.

French will be on his way almost certainly.

This is his last hurrah or the WO are really showing some mettle.

 

I swear just the other day French said he was 'Pozzo change' rather than 'Pozzo out'...

 

Someone post JJ Cale please and cheer me up!

 

I think the ties explain it all here. Gino clearly is actually a west ham supporter whereas Giampaolo is genuinely watford.

 

And also a possible death knell for the club.

 

Could try Van Der Graaf Generator’s ‘House With No Door’.
Won’t somebody help me?

 

About time they both learnt the Windsor knot.