Football League misconduct hearing into Watford FC and Laurence Bassini begins today

Watford Observer: Picture: Pippa Douglas Picture: Pippa Douglas

The Football League hearing into Watford FC and former owner Laurence Bassini's misconduct charge started today.

The hearing is held in private and we understand there is no guarantee that a decision will either be made or revealed this week.

Watford and Bassini were charged following alleged breaches of the Football League's regulations relating to two separate transactions between the Hornets and LNOC, a finance company.

One of the allegations relates to two installments following Danny Graham's sale to Swansea City and the other transaction is for two promissory notes worth £1.8m.

In November, solicitors acting for Bassini said: "We are not instructed by Mr Bassini in relation to the proceedings commenced by the Football League however we understand from our client these matters are currently the subject of legal action and are being defended vigorously and he is therefore unable to comment further".

At the time, Watford would not comment on the matter publicly and the Football League has continually remained silent on the matter.

The Hornets again refused to comment this morning but speaking at the AGM of the club's parent company in December, chief executive Scott Duxbury said he was "extremely confident of a successful outcome".

"There is a wide range of sanctions that can be imposed, however, we continue to cooperate with the Football League so we remain extremely confident of a successful outcome," Duxbury said at the time.

When asked about the possibility of Watford receiving a points deduction, director Stuart Timperley replied: "There is the possibility of a whole series of sanctions and I think I will leave it at that."

He later added: "For a number of years I chaired Football League tribunals so that is why I am a little circumspect about commenting.

"Scott has been extremely thorough in preparing for this so we are hopeful."

Click here to read about the details of the misconduct charge.

Comments (97)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:54am Mon 28 Jan 13

Bush Hornet says...

Bas is going down. Watford are going up. It's the only fair outcome
Bas is going down. Watford are going up. It's the only fair outcome Bush Hornet
  • Score: 0

11:54am Mon 28 Jan 13

jasonwatford says...

in mr duxberry we trust #theend
in mr duxberry we trust #theend jasonwatford
  • Score: 0

11:59am Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

It weren't me, 'onest guv
It weren't me, 'onest guv Bringe
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Mon 28 Jan 13

PeteBogHorrorHornet says...

I suppose if we do get a 10-point deduction we will still only be 3 points away from a play-off position. Ho-hum!
I suppose if we do get a 10-point deduction we will still only be 3 points away from a play-off position. Ho-hum! PeteBogHorrorHornet
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Play-Off Pete says...

The quicker this is sorted the better.
Who wants to finish in the top two, then either be in - or miss - the playoffs due to a points deduction???
The quicker this is sorted the better. Who wants to finish in the top two, then either be in - or miss - the playoffs due to a points deduction??? Play-Off Pete
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bush Hornet says...

PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote:
I suppose if we do get a 10-point deduction we will still only be 3 points away from a play-off position. Ho-hum!
Clubs that go into administration, who have consistently and irresponsibly over spent get 10 point deductions or more. This is different. I'm hopeful.
[quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I suppose if we do get a 10-point deduction we will still only be 3 points away from a play-off position. Ho-hum![/p][/quote]Clubs that go into administration, who have consistently and irresponsibly over spent get 10 point deductions or more. This is different. I'm hopeful. Bush Hornet
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote:
I suppose if we do get a 10-point deduction we will still only be 3 points away from a play-off position. Ho-hum!
Was thinking the same and we'd probably be favourites to win them.
Still I want top spot, we have never managed that before in this league.
[quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I suppose if we do get a 10-point deduction we will still only be 3 points away from a play-off position. Ho-hum![/p][/quote]Was thinking the same and we'd probably be favourites to win them. Still I want top spot, we have never managed that before in this league. Bringe
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Mon 28 Jan 13

mooneysmagic says...

Play-Off Pete wrote:
The quicker this is sorted the better.
Who wants to finish in the top two, then either be in - or miss - the playoffs due to a points deduction???
I have a feeling that any decision as to the amount of points deducted will be deferred until the last week of the season. This would enable the league to see the club's likely finishing position in the league and ensure that the club has no time to submit an appeal.
[quote][p][bold]Play-Off Pete[/bold] wrote: The quicker this is sorted the better. Who wants to finish in the top two, then either be in - or miss - the playoffs due to a points deduction???[/p][/quote]I have a feeling that any decision as to the amount of points deducted will be deferred until the last week of the season. This would enable the league to see the club's likely finishing position in the league and ensure that the club has no time to submit an appeal. mooneysmagic
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

I am presuming a fine and a lot of vitriol by fans of our promotion rivals, none of whom's clubs have ground for complaint.
I am presuming a fine and a lot of vitriol by fans of our promotion rivals, none of whom's clubs have ground for complaint. Bringe
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Colin West's mullet says...

Witness #1: the guy who refused to let Bas have the keys to the safe.
Witness #1: the guy who refused to let Bas have the keys to the safe. Colin West's mullet
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Mon 28 Jan 13

buckler says...

Is Hanging little Laurence an option to them?
Is Hanging little Laurence an option to them? buckler
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Mon 28 Jan 13

llloydwithathirdl says...

Please be nice to us, and please ban Baz from ever being allowed anywhere near a football club again.

It was so obvious from the beginning he was up to no good.
Please be nice to us, and please ban Baz from ever being allowed anywhere near a football club again. It was so obvious from the beginning he was up to no good. llloydwithathirdl
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Harry's Bar says...

mattymashup wrote:
Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.
The problem is that to the Football League Bassini was the club. They wouldn't differentiate between the owner and the club.
[quote][p][bold]mattymashup[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.[/p][/quote]The problem is that to the Football League Bassini was the club. They wouldn't differentiate between the owner and the club. Harry's Bar
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Mon 28 Jan 13

laddie hornets says...

I fear the League need to be seen to 'act tough', and the fact that Bassini is no longer involved will not be relevant.

The club broke the rules, full stop.

How previous owners ever allowed Bassini to be involved defies belief.
I fear the League need to be seen to 'act tough', and the fact that Bassini is no longer involved will not be relevant. The club broke the rules, full stop. How previous owners ever allowed Bassini to be involved defies belief. laddie hornets
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Only 2 Ross Jenkins says...

I wonder if Sir GT will be asked to give evidence or be involved in some way? He was the Chairman during this whole process - which may actually be in our favour as he is rightly regarded as a man of integrity.
I wonder if Sir GT will be asked to give evidence or be involved in some way? He was the Chairman during this whole process - which may actually be in our favour as he is rightly regarded as a man of integrity. Only 2 Ross Jenkins
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Colin West's mullet says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
mattymashup wrote:
Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.
The problem is that to the Football League Bassini was the club. They wouldn't differentiate between the owner and the club.
and quite right too.

As much as I hope/expect we only get a fine, the sooner all clubs & the league put strict corporate governance processes into place, that cannot be opted out of by any regime, the better.

That way any time an owner acts in a dodgy way, there is an obligation on other senior club management to advise of these regulations, and to escalate if this advice is ignored. This would hopefully lead to personal liability rather than the club facing punishment.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mattymashup[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.[/p][/quote]The problem is that to the Football League Bassini was the club. They wouldn't differentiate between the owner and the club.[/p][/quote]and quite right too. As much as I hope/expect we only get a fine, the sooner all clubs & the league put strict corporate governance processes into place, that cannot be opted out of by any regime, the better. That way any time an owner acts in a dodgy way, there is an obligation on other senior club management to advise of these regulations, and to escalate if this advice is ignored. This would hopefully lead to personal liability rather than the club facing punishment. Colin West's mullet
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Mon 28 Jan 13

PeteBogHorrorHornet says...

I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...
I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us... PeteBogHorrorHornet
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

laddie hornets wrote:
I fear the League need to be seen to 'act tough', and the fact that Bassini is no longer involved will not be relevant.

The club broke the rules, full stop.

How previous owners ever allowed Bassini to be involved defies belief.
To be fair the initial murmurs suggest the FL are going to ban Bassini from any future football club involvement, a good sign they know exactly where the guilt is and it should be a mitigating factor for the club as a whole.
[quote][p][bold]laddie hornets[/bold] wrote: I fear the League need to be seen to 'act tough', and the fact that Bassini is no longer involved will not be relevant. The club broke the rules, full stop. How previous owners ever allowed Bassini to be involved defies belief.[/p][/quote]To be fair the initial murmurs suggest the FL are going to ban Bassini from any future football club involvement, a good sign they know exactly where the guilt is and it should be a mitigating factor for the club as a whole. Bringe
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Mon 28 Jan 13

akureyri says...

In Luton Town's case their problems started with previous owners and look at their position now. I think the FL should have disbanded that club but that is for another article.

In our case we have never done well with FA/FL tribunals, specially where money is involved. Paul Atkinson and Danny Graham's transfers to Watford are good examples.
In Luton Town's case their problems started with previous owners and look at their position now. I think the FL should have disbanded that club but that is for another article. In our case we have never done well with FA/FL tribunals, specially where money is involved. Paul Atkinson and Danny Graham's transfers to Watford are good examples. akureyri
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Alex McDonald says...

Colin West's mullet wrote:
Witness #1: the guy who refused to let Bas have the keys to the safe.
Witness #2: A funny red hard hat
[quote][p][bold]Colin West's mullet[/bold] wrote: Witness #1: the guy who refused to let Bas have the keys to the safe.[/p][/quote]Witness #2: A funny red hard hat Alex McDonald
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Mon 28 Jan 13

DuffmanWFC says...

Agree it seems wrong to punish the good people associated to WFC when the bad person in all of this now has nothing to do with us!
Agree it seems wrong to punish the good people associated to WFC when the bad person in all of this now has nothing to do with us! DuffmanWFC
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Mon 28 Jan 13

a1derek says...

A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone?

Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure.

However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed.

Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.
A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone? Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure. However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed. Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either. a1derek
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

It is likely we will not learn of our fate until much later because if we are by then a premier club they have more scope when imposing fines.
It is likely we will not learn of our fate until much later because if we are by then a premier club they have more scope when imposing fines. Bringe
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Mon 28 Jan 13

onion8837 says...

PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote:
I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...
Hah ! 2 hopes
[quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...[/p][/quote]Hah ! 2 hopes onion8837
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Mon 28 Jan 13

gloryhornet4 says...

mattymashup wrote:
Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.
The charge is that following the breach WFC had an unfair advantage in that the club should have had a transfer embargo on purchases, although goodness knows what we bought cost anything.
[quote][p][bold]mattymashup[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.[/p][/quote]The charge is that following the breach WFC had an unfair advantage in that the club should have had a transfer embargo on purchases, although goodness knows what we bought cost anything. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Mon 28 Jan 13

overhere says...

The fact that Stuart Timperley has overseen previous tribunals for the FL will give us a slight advantage as he would know how to prepare and approach it; it also appears that we raised it with the FL after the takeover and we have bee cooperating during the run up to the hearing and Duxbury is clearly well prepared. Finally as the FL took to unprecedented step of formally charging Baz as an individual suggests they are well aware of where the blame resides.

I don't know why people keep bringing up the fit and proper person test, the test simply tries to ascertain whether the person has been disqualified as a company director or has any previous fraud convictions, Baz didn't have either so he passed that test.
The fact that Stuart Timperley has overseen previous tribunals for the FL will give us a slight advantage as he would know how to prepare and approach it; it also appears that we raised it with the FL after the takeover and we have bee cooperating during the run up to the hearing and Duxbury is clearly well prepared. Finally as the FL took to unprecedented step of formally charging Baz as an individual suggests they are well aware of where the blame resides. I don't know why people keep bringing up the fit and proper person test, the test simply tries to ascertain whether the person has been disqualified as a company director or has any previous fraud convictions, Baz didn't have either so he passed that test. overhere
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Mon 28 Jan 13

OneStevePalmer says...

Luton were docked 20 points for matters relating to a CVA, and coming out of administration. Also docked 10 points for dodgy payments to agents. Wonder where that leaves Watford??
Luton were docked 20 points for matters relating to a CVA, and coming out of administration. Also docked 10 points for dodgy payments to agents. Wonder where that leaves Watford?? OneStevePalmer
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 28 Jan 13

jasonwatford says...

Cheer up lads....
Sky Sports understands Watford are close to sealing the signing of loan star Matej Vydra on a permanent basis.
Cheer up lads.... Sky Sports understands Watford are close to sealing the signing of loan star Matej Vydra on a permanent basis. jasonwatford
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 28 Jan 13

gloryhornet4 says...

a1derek wrote:
A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone?

Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure.

However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed.

Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.
The fit and proper is only that someone is not a disq director and satisfies AML due diligence. It is not for the FA to tell the club if someone has money etc.

The 30 points deduction for LTFC was 20 for breaches and the other 10 related to going in to admin. The cases are not the same in the backgrounds as LTFC's were far more serious.
[quote][p][bold]a1derek[/bold] wrote: A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone? Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure. However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed. Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.[/p][/quote]The fit and proper is only that someone is not a disq director and satisfies AML due diligence. It is not for the FA to tell the club if someone has money etc. The 30 points deduction for LTFC was 20 for breaches and the other 10 related to going in to admin. The cases are not the same in the backgrounds as LTFC's were far more serious. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

a1derek wrote:
A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone?

Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure.

However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed.

Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.
the F&PP test won't be a factor because he satisfied the conditions set out, how he managed it is not their concern.

This is very minor compared to both L*t*n and Pompey, there the whole administration were wilfully lying to the FL while continuing to sign several players knowing full well they had not the funds to do so and knowing that their administration was imminent. That among other forms of deceit.
[quote][p][bold]a1derek[/bold] wrote: A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone? Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure. However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed. Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.[/p][/quote]the F&PP test won't be a factor because he satisfied the conditions set out, how he managed it is not their concern. This is very minor compared to both L*t*n and Pompey, there the whole administration were wilfully lying to the FL while continuing to sign several players knowing full well they had not the funds to do so and knowing that their administration was imminent. That among other forms of deceit. Bringe
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Mon 28 Jan 13

PeteBogHorrorHornet says...

Here is some encouraging news:
http://www1.skysport
s.com/football/news/
11686/8448250/Transf
er-News-Watford-clos
e-to-signing-Matej-V
ydra-on-permanent-ba
sis
Here is some encouraging news: http://www1.skysport s.com/football/news/ 11686/8448250/Transf er-News-Watford-clos e-to-signing-Matej-V ydra-on-permanent-ba sis PeteBogHorrorHornet
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Mon 28 Jan 13

gloryhornet4 says...

PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote:
I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...
The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.
[quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...[/p][/quote]The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Mon 28 Jan 13

McHornet says...

If we get a points deduction this season and stay down, it will be frustrating to say the very very least, but hey, runaway title winners next season! I am firmly of the belief that, minus our rocky first 2-3 months of this season, we would have won this league comfortably!

#everycloud...
If we get a points deduction this season and stay down, it will be frustrating to say the very very least, but hey, runaway title winners next season! I am firmly of the belief that, minus our rocky first 2-3 months of this season, we would have won this league comfortably! #everycloud... McHornet
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Harry's Bar says...

Only 2 Ross Jenkins wrote:
I wonder if Sir GT will be asked to give evidence or be involved in some way? He was the Chairman during this whole process - which may actually be in our favour as he is rightly regarded as a man of integrity.
There is no doubt GT is a decent, honest man. Unfortunately he and the others involved made a serious error of judgement. Compounded by other mistakes, including failing to identify the backer, we could now be in a far bigger mess than this.
[quote][p][bold]Only 2 Ross Jenkins[/bold] wrote: I wonder if Sir GT will be asked to give evidence or be involved in some way? He was the Chairman during this whole process - which may actually be in our favour as he is rightly regarded as a man of integrity.[/p][/quote]There is no doubt GT is a decent, honest man. Unfortunately he and the others involved made a serious error of judgement. Compounded by other mistakes, including failing to identify the backer, we could now be in a far bigger mess than this. Harry's Bar
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Bringe says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
mattymashup wrote:
Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.
The charge is that following the breach WFC had an unfair advantage in that the club should have had a transfer embargo on purchases, although goodness knows what we bought cost anything.
As far as I know it's only the loan of Kacaniklic that is suspect and even then I'm pretty certain it was a wages only deal.
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mattymashup[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time, be typical of bas to f u c k us over once more. I hope his actions were not known about by the club and we escape punishment.[/p][/quote]The charge is that following the breach WFC had an unfair advantage in that the club should have had a transfer embargo on purchases, although goodness knows what we bought cost anything.[/p][/quote]As far as I know it's only the loan of Kacaniklic that is suspect and even then I'm pretty certain it was a wages only deal. Bringe
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Mohandas says...

DuffmanWFC wrote:
Well if its a points deduction that is unfair on the current owners that have nothing to do with this situation!
As the club is being open and working with the football league I can't see a point deduction happening!
The club has started its own proceedings towards Baz the crook and all I see happening is a fine!
Then we will sue Baz for the fine and his miss-doings!
There is a lot worse happening in football then this so I hope the football league see seance!
Quite agree as WFC are playing with a straight bat. Let's hope other 'big clubs' don't start any rubbish.

WFC have got be careful who they rub shoulders with because you can be infected with the fleas of dishonesty.
[quote][p][bold]DuffmanWFC[/bold] wrote: Well if its a points deduction that is unfair on the current owners that have nothing to do with this situation! As the club is being open and working with the football league I can't see a point deduction happening! The club has started its own proceedings towards Baz the crook and all I see happening is a fine! Then we will sue Baz for the fine and his miss-doings! There is a lot worse happening in football then this so I hope the football league see seance![/p][/quote]Quite agree as WFC are playing with a straight bat. Let's hope other 'big clubs' don't start any rubbish. WFC have got be careful who they rub shoulders with because you can be infected with the fleas of dishonesty. Mohandas
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Mon 28 Jan 13

DouglasRinaldi the better Brazilian says...

To be honest, I don't know why Bassini was in any kind of discussions with the Lesotho National Olympic Committee, just seems inappropriate.
To be honest, I don't know why Bassini was in any kind of discussions with the Lesotho National Olympic Committee, just seems inappropriate. DouglasRinaldi the better Brazilian
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Mon 28 Jan 13

WessexLad says...

If Bassini hadn't got involved, wouldn't we have gone into administration anyway?
If Bassini hadn't got involved, wouldn't we have gone into administration anyway? WessexLad
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Mon 28 Jan 13

lutondown says...

I understand those who wanted to give Bas a chance, but there were those who were big fans of his. Where are they now? as we really need someone to take this out on.
I think QPR and West Ham were guilty of similar offence and they got fined. Precedents should prevail. Me hopes!
Now where's ilovbas? Because I want to strangle him
I understand those who wanted to give Bas a chance, but there were those who were big fans of his. Where are they now? as we really need someone to take this out on. I think QPR and West Ham were guilty of similar offence and they got fined. Precedents should prevail. Me hopes! Now where's ilovbas? Because I want to strangle him lutondown
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Mon 28 Jan 13

lutondown says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
a1derek wrote:
A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone?

Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure.

However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed.

Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.
The fit and proper is only that someone is not a disq director and satisfies AML due diligence. It is not for the FA to tell the club if someone has money etc.

The 30 points deduction for LTFC was 20 for breaches and the other 10 related to going in to admin. The cases are not the same in the backgrounds as LTFC's were far more serious.
Wrong precedent your following Derek
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]a1derek[/bold] wrote: A few issues here. Baz did pass the fit and proper persons test so the FA/FL passed him fit to run a football club! Contributory negligence anyone? Secondly, it would be hugely unfair on Pozzos if a points deduction were made as they have rescued the club and the situation would be a darned site worse for us, the FA and the FL without Pozzos. We would be doing a Portsmouth for sure. However, there is precedent from that bunch up the road. When they got their 30 point deduction it was under new ownership that had nothing to do with the previous mis-management. They also cooperated fully with their enquiry! I hate to draw parallels with them, but that is where the clear precedent lies. It is the club, (ownership will be irrelevant) that will be punished if the commission deems punishment is needed. Duxbury has said he thinks we should be O.K and has appeared to have prepared in detail. Let's hope he is right as it would be a tragedy to punish the club given what has happened on the field this season. Sadly though, that will have no bearing on the outcome either.[/p][/quote]The fit and proper is only that someone is not a disq director and satisfies AML due diligence. It is not for the FA to tell the club if someone has money etc. The 30 points deduction for LTFC was 20 for breaches and the other 10 related to going in to admin. The cases are not the same in the backgrounds as LTFC's were far more serious.[/p][/quote]Wrong precedent your following Derek lutondown
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 28 Jan 13

In GT We Trust says...

gloryhornet4 wrote:
PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...
The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.
Didn't the board refuse to recommend Baz's takeover (on the basis that they didn't trust him), but the majority shareholder chose to sell anyway as he wanted out?

If so, they had no control over it and are therefore not to blame.
[quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...[/p][/quote]The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.[/p][/quote]Didn't the board refuse to recommend Baz's takeover (on the basis that they didn't trust him), but the majority shareholder chose to sell anyway as he wanted out? If so, they had no control over it and are therefore not to blame. In GT We Trust
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Mon 28 Jan 13

JohnnyHornet says...

"There is a wide range of sanctions that can be imposed, however, we continue to cooperate with the Football League so we remain extremely confident of a successful outcome," Duxbury said at the time.

Don't rely on the shisters from the FL, biggest load of half baked to55ers around.
"There is a wide range of sanctions that can be imposed, however, we continue to cooperate with the Football League so we remain extremely confident of a successful outcome," Duxbury said at the time. Don't rely on the shisters from the FL, biggest load of half baked to55ers around. JohnnyHornet
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 28 Jan 13

JohnnyHornet says...

DuffmanWFC wrote:
Well if its a points deduction that is unfair on the current owners that have nothing to do with this situation!
As the club is being open and working with the football league I can't see a point deduction happening!
The club has started its own proceedings towards Baz the crook and all I see happening is a fine!
Then we will sue Baz for the fine and his miss-doings!
There is a lot worse happening in football then this so I hope the football league see seance!
Fairness has never bother the FL
[quote][p][bold]DuffmanWFC[/bold] wrote: Well if its a points deduction that is unfair on the current owners that have nothing to do with this situation! As the club is being open and working with the football league I can't see a point deduction happening! The club has started its own proceedings towards Baz the crook and all I see happening is a fine! Then we will sue Baz for the fine and his miss-doings! There is a lot worse happening in football then this so I hope the football league see seance![/p][/quote]Fairness has never bother the FL JohnnyHornet
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Mangoputney says...

I understand the FL's central investigation hinges on whether Bassini was actually mad. Bassini is bringing evidence to the table to verify his madness and using this as his defence - the papers sanctioning the signing of Big Chris should prove this.
I understand the FL's central investigation hinges on whether Bassini was actually mad. Bassini is bringing evidence to the table to verify his madness and using this as his defence - the papers sanctioning the signing of Big Chris should prove this. Mangoputney
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roger68 says...

If Bas is called as a witness, would he actually turn up? He has a record of "no show". And if he did not turn up would it help or hinder our case? If he did not turn up he could not be cross-examined, and Duxbury could put his case in full. The FL would be free to draw their own conclusions from a no show, and that might help us. If he did turn up and came over as an unreliable witness, that might help us too--but if he just muddied the waters with a rambling account, the FL might just say "they are all involved, punish the lot".This week could be a big one in the history of Watford F.C--key matches, big transfer decisions, FL hearing...
If Bas is called as a witness, would he actually turn up? He has a record of "no show". And if he did not turn up would it help or hinder our case? If he did not turn up he could not be cross-examined, and Duxbury could put his case in full. The FL would be free to draw their own conclusions from a no show, and that might help us. If he did turn up and came over as an unreliable witness, that might help us too--but if he just muddied the waters with a rambling account, the FL might just say "they are all involved, punish the lot".This week could be a big one in the history of Watford F.C--key matches, big transfer decisions, FL hearing... Roger68
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Mon 28 Jan 13

lutondown says...

Anyway que sera sera. Thry can hold us back but not keep us down. WE ARE GOING UP
Anyway que sera sera. Thry can hold us back but not keep us down. WE ARE GOING UP lutondown
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Only 2 Ross Jenkins says...

In GT We Trust wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...
The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.
Didn't the board refuse to recommend Baz's takeover (on the basis that they didn't trust him), but the majority shareholder chose to sell anyway as he wanted out? If so, they had no control over it and are therefore not to blame.
I seem to remember that the board did not recommend the business man formerly known as Bazini - I think you are right. The only person with anything to answer should be Bazini and as MangoPutney says his sanctioning of Big Chris's signing (and can I add to that Joe Garner), should seal it in our favour.
[quote][p][bold]In GT We Trust[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...[/p][/quote]The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.[/p][/quote]Didn't the board refuse to recommend Baz's takeover (on the basis that they didn't trust him), but the majority shareholder chose to sell anyway as he wanted out? If so, they had no control over it and are therefore not to blame.[/p][/quote]I seem to remember that the board did not recommend the business man formerly known as Bazini - I think you are right. The only person with anything to answer should be Bazini and as MangoPutney says his sanctioning of Big Chris's signing (and can I add to that Joe Garner), should seal it in our favour. Only 2 Ross Jenkins
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

>I don't know why people keep bringing up the fit and proper person test, the test simply tries to ascertain whether the person has been disqualified as a company director or has any previous fraud convictions, Baz didn't have either so he passed that test.<

What astonishingly short memories football fans have! It is not yet two years when it was revealed in February 2011 that Bassini had changed his name from Bazini in order to disguise the fact that he had been made bankrupt over a hotel business in Buckinghamshire in 2007. I revealed at the same time that shortly before that, his stepmother had also been made bankrupt over another pub in Northamptonshire.

I and others questioned at the time how he could have gone from being bankrupt to being able to take over a Championship football club within four years. And yet there were some on this forum who tried desperately to defend him, being the naive and gullible no-hopers some fans are!

It looks as if having been a bankrupt does not prevent someone from passing the Football League's "fit and proper person" test, but if it doesn't, surely it ought to?

I understand the anxiety and concern, given Watford's current standing in the Championship, but I think the realistic view must be, as others have stated, that any punishment will reflect on the club as an entity, not on the individual who owned it at the time. That may seem unfair to some but, hey, life often isn't fair, is it?
>I don't know why people keep bringing up the fit and proper person test, the test simply tries to ascertain whether the person has been disqualified as a company director or has any previous fraud convictions, Baz didn't have either so he passed that test.< What astonishingly short memories football fans have! It is not yet two years when it was revealed in February 2011 that Bassini had changed his name from Bazini in order to disguise the fact that he had been made bankrupt over a hotel business in Buckinghamshire in 2007. I revealed at the same time that shortly before that, his stepmother had also been made bankrupt over another pub in Northamptonshire. I and others questioned at the time how he could have gone from being bankrupt to being able to take over a Championship football club within four years. And yet there were some on this forum who tried desperately to defend him, being the naive and gullible no-hopers some fans are! It looks as if having been a bankrupt does not prevent someone from passing the Football League's "fit and proper person" test, but if it doesn't, surely it ought to? I understand the anxiety and concern, given Watford's current standing in the Championship, but I think the realistic view must be, as others have stated, that any punishment will reflect on the club as an entity, not on the individual who owned it at the time. That may seem unfair to some but, hey, life often isn't fair, is it? Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Mon 28 Jan 13

DougRinaldi the better Brazilian says...

lutondown wrote:
Mangoputney wrote:
lutondown wrote:
Mangoputney wrote:
I understand the FL's central investigation hinges on whether Bassini was actually mad. Bassini is bringing evidence to the table to verify his madness and using this as his defence - the papers sanctioning the signing of Big Chris should prove this.
No not mad just bad, will not accept insanity! Hang the F***er for trying to stiff our club.
The rather dodgy picture of Baz above - was he attempting to do the YMCA at the time? 'Young man young man you can have a good meal you can do whatever you feel' Rather appropriate lyrics i feel should he end up in prison
Where he's going it'll be...hey fat boy pick up that bar of soap......

Que Vialli.....
Insert in bottom but not Chris Bottom
Both me and Vialli have been blocked by the Watford Observer. I understand Vialli as he made some rather offensive comments, but I did literally nothing wrong. I've started a new account with a similar name so I hope they don't also block this one. When I went to sign in a message appeared that said:
'DouglasRinaldi the better Brazilian: You have been banned from leaving comments on this website for a serious breach of our site terms and ignoring previous warnings. Do not attempt to log back into this website.'

I assume Gianluca is also creating a new account, the Watford Observer will never drag us down.
[quote][p][bold]lutondown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mangoputney[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lutondown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mangoputney[/bold] wrote: I understand the FL's central investigation hinges on whether Bassini was actually mad. Bassini is bringing evidence to the table to verify his madness and using this as his defence - the papers sanctioning the signing of Big Chris should prove this.[/p][/quote]No not mad just bad, will not accept insanity! Hang the F***er for trying to stiff our club.[/p][/quote]The rather dodgy picture of Baz above - was he attempting to do the YMCA at the time? 'Young man young man you can have a good meal you can do whatever you feel' Rather appropriate lyrics i feel should he end up in prison[/p][/quote]Where he's going it'll be...hey fat boy pick up that bar of soap...... Que Vialli..... Insert in bottom but not Chris Bottom[/p][/quote]Both me and Vialli have been blocked by the Watford Observer. I understand Vialli as he made some rather offensive comments, but I did literally nothing wrong. I've started a new account with a similar name so I hope they don't also block this one. When I went to sign in a message appeared that said: 'DouglasRinaldi the better Brazilian: You have been banned from leaving comments on this website for a serious breach of our site terms and ignoring previous warnings. Do not attempt to log back into this website.' I assume Gianluca is also creating a new account, the Watford Observer will never drag us down. DougRinaldi the better Brazilian
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Back from Hammerau says...

In GT We Trust wrote:
gloryhornet4 wrote:
PeteBogHorrorHornet wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their &quot;fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...
The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.
Didn't the board refuse to recommend Baz's takeover (on the basis that they didn't trust him), but the majority shareholder chose to sell anyway as he wanted out? If so, they had no control over it and are therefore not to blame.
The board may not have recommended the takeover, but GT's covering letter on the documentation said that LB's finances had been investigated by the board and that they were satisfied that he had the necessary funds.
[quote][p][bold]In GT We Trust[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gloryhornet4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteBogHorrorHornet[/bold] wrote: I guess we can hope the FL blame themsleves for allowing dirty Baz to pass their "fit and proper persons" test and will therefore go easy on us...[/p][/quote]The fit and proper is narrow in scope and it was up to the retiring board to vet Bas.[/p][/quote]Didn't the board refuse to recommend Baz's takeover (on the basis that they didn't trust him), but the majority shareholder chose to sell anyway as he wanted out? If so, they had no control over it and are therefore not to blame.[/p][/quote]The board may not have recommended the takeover, but GT's covering letter on the documentation said that LB's finances had been investigated by the board and that they were satisfied that he had the necessary funds. Back from Hammerau
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

>I've started a new account with a similar name so I hope they don't also block this one.<

But you've just told them about it, so they probably will! Not terribly clever, really.

This is why 1) I always use my real name; and 2) I keep warning that people really ought to be careful about what they post on websites, since the unpoliced free-for-all that you imagine the Internet to be is not necessarily the case. You can be traced, so it behoves people to make their comments sensible, literate and legally sound.
>I've started a new account with a similar name so I hope they don't also block this one.< But you've just told them about it, so they probably will! Not terribly clever, really. This is why 1) I always use my real name; and 2) I keep warning that people really ought to be careful about what they post on websites, since the unpoliced free-for-all that you imagine the Internet to be is not necessarily the case. You can be traced, so it behoves people to make their comments sensible, literate and legally sound. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Mon 28 Jan 13

PurpleRalph says...

The Scooby Doo kids will pull off Bassinis mask and discover it was Mark Ashton all the time.
The Scooby Doo kids will pull off Bassinis mask and discover it was Mark Ashton all the time. PurpleRalph
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

I wrote earlier in this thread.....>I understand the anxiety and concern, given Watford's current standing in the Championship, but I think the realistic view must be, as others have stated, that any punishment will reflect on the club as an entity, not on the individual who owned it at the time. That may seem unfair to some but, hey, life often isn't fair, is it?<

Let's take a virtually identical situation in the "real" world (and, let's face, it much of football exists in some sort of parallel universe of naivety and unreality for much of the time).....

A company is on the edge of bankruptcy and on the verge of going out of business. Then along comes a knight in shining armour who wants to save it; he calls a shareholders' meeting, they kick out the Board of Directors and appoint the new man and his own Board. A year or two goes by and then the knight in shining armour has to admit he's failed and can't save the company, after all.

Do you think the Registrar in bankruptcy will say: "Well, OK, it wasn't your fault, it was the fault of the previous owners, so we won't put you into administration and make you bankrupt." Like heck he will!

Harry Redknapp will probably get the boot at QPR if they get relegated because he failed to save them, even if the blame lies with the Board and previous managers. As I said, it's often an unfair world.
I wrote earlier in this thread.....>I understand the anxiety and concern, given Watford's current standing in the Championship, but I think the realistic view must be, as others have stated, that any punishment will reflect on the club as an entity, not on the individual who owned it at the time. That may seem unfair to some but, hey, life often isn't fair, is it?< Let's take a virtually identical situation in the "real" world (and, let's face, it much of football exists in some sort of parallel universe of naivety and unreality for much of the time)..... A company is on the edge of bankruptcy and on the verge of going out of business. Then along comes a knight in shining armour who wants to save it; he calls a shareholders' meeting, they kick out the Board of Directors and appoint the new man and his own Board. A year or two goes by and then the knight in shining armour has to admit he's failed and can't save the company, after all. Do you think the Registrar in bankruptcy will say: "Well, OK, it wasn't your fault, it was the fault of the previous owners, so we won't put you into administration and make you bankrupt." Like heck he will! Harry Redknapp will probably get the boot at QPR if they get relegated because he failed to save them, even if the blame lies with the Board and previous managers. As I said, it's often an unfair world. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Poppet Bear says...

Anything other than a small fine or a slap on the wrist would be totally inappropriate. Agreed we should involve our previous Chairman (GT) as there is no way in the world he would ever let us down. We're in his blood !
Do whatever you like with Bazzzz, he would let us down and not even think about it
Anything other than a small fine or a slap on the wrist would be totally inappropriate. Agreed we should involve our previous Chairman (GT) as there is no way in the world he would ever let us down. We're in his blood ! Do whatever you like with Bazzzz, he would let us down and not even think about it Poppet Bear
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Mon 28 Jan 13

tiger bay says...

Slightly leftfield but i wonder if the FL may use this as a stick to beat us with as its a poorly kept secret that the powers that be aren't over-impressed with WFC's use/abuse of the loan system...It appears we havn't actually broke any rules with our loans/1 year signings whatever you want to call them, but mutterings in the press suggest that the FL will close the loopholes that WFC have exploited..Maybe not directly connected to the main issue but would anyone be surprised if these greysuits sought to make an example of us if they thought we'd embarrassed their rulebook??
Slightly leftfield but i wonder if the FL may use this as a stick to beat us with as its a poorly kept secret that the powers that be aren't over-impressed with WFC's use/abuse of the loan system...It appears we havn't actually broke any rules with our loans/1 year signings whatever you want to call them, but mutterings in the press suggest that the FL will close the loopholes that WFC have exploited..Maybe not directly connected to the main issue but would anyone be surprised if these greysuits sought to make an example of us if they thought we'd embarrassed their rulebook?? tiger bay
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Mon 28 Jan 13

gloryhornet4 says...

Mohandas wrote:
DuffmanWFC wrote:
Well if its a points deduction that is unfair on the current owners that have nothing to do with this situation!
As the club is being open and working with the football league I can't see a point deduction happening!
The club has started its own proceedings towards Baz the crook and all I see happening is a fine!
Then we will sue Baz for the fine and his miss-doings!
There is a lot worse happening in football then this so I hope the football league see seance!
Quite agree as WFC are playing with a straight bat. Let's hope other 'big clubs' don't start any rubbish.

WFC have got be careful who they rub shoulders with because you can be infected with the fleas of dishonesty.
You cannot sue someone else for your fine unfortunately.
[quote][p][bold]Mohandas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DuffmanWFC[/bold] wrote: Well if its a points deduction that is unfair on the current owners that have nothing to do with this situation! As the club is being open and working with the football league I can't see a point deduction happening! The club has started its own proceedings towards Baz the crook and all I see happening is a fine! Then we will sue Baz for the fine and his miss-doings! There is a lot worse happening in football then this so I hope the football league see seance![/p][/quote]Quite agree as WFC are playing with a straight bat. Let's hope other 'big clubs' don't start any rubbish. WFC have got be careful who they rub shoulders with because you can be infected with the fleas of dishonesty.[/p][/quote]You cannot sue someone else for your fine unfortunately. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

Surely the loan system is widely used throughout football and I don't pretend to understand its intricacies.

But in general terms, isn't it regarded as a good thing on two grounds: 1) It enables lower league clubs to act as an academy for the bigger clubs; 2) It enables the lower league clubs to enhance their own status by having players on loan from the bigger clubs and possibly helping them to win promotion.

Or am I being naive?
Surely the loan system is widely used throughout football and I don't pretend to understand its intricacies. But in general terms, isn't it regarded as a good thing on two grounds: 1) It enables lower league clubs to act as an academy for the bigger clubs; 2) It enables the lower league clubs to enhance their own status by having players on loan from the bigger clubs and possibly helping them to win promotion. Or am I being naive? Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Mon 28 Jan 13

stevyweavy says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Surely the loan system is widely used throughout football and I don't pretend to understand its intricacies.

But in general terms, isn't it regarded as a good thing on two grounds: 1) It enables lower league clubs to act as an academy for the bigger clubs; 2) It enables the lower league clubs to enhance their own status by having players on loan from the bigger clubs and possibly helping them to win promotion.

Or am I being naive?
It is not the loan system per se that is being called into question but specifically how foreign loans are dealt with in that they are treated as permanent signings. So whilst we look at all our loan signings, at present the football league only see one loan signing i.e. Chalobah. This is where the complaints from outside the club are being aimed at. We are not doing anything wrong within league rules but clubs that are unable to use this to their advantage are moaning that we have an unfair advantage over them. Don't know how long this system will last as it does give us an advantage but it may be due to certain European free movement of labour laws but can't see why foreign loan players should have an advantage over UK loan players - but hey we better make the most of it whilst we can.
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: Surely the loan system is widely used throughout football and I don't pretend to understand its intricacies. But in general terms, isn't it regarded as a good thing on two grounds: 1) It enables lower league clubs to act as an academy for the bigger clubs; 2) It enables the lower league clubs to enhance their own status by having players on loan from the bigger clubs and possibly helping them to win promotion. Or am I being naive?[/p][/quote]It is not the loan system per se that is being called into question but specifically how foreign loans are dealt with in that they are treated as permanent signings. So whilst we look at all our loan signings, at present the football league only see one loan signing i.e. Chalobah. This is where the complaints from outside the club are being aimed at. We are not doing anything wrong within league rules but clubs that are unable to use this to their advantage are moaning that we have an unfair advantage over them. Don't know how long this system will last as it does give us an advantage but it may be due to certain European free movement of labour laws but can't see why foreign loan players should have an advantage over UK loan players - but hey we better make the most of it whilst we can. stevyweavy
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13

@ChrisBottom16 says...

Dear Fan's. It is with a heavy heart that i have to inform you that my very good friend - LutonDown has been banned from this site for life.

He posted a comment/joke which other's got involved in and unfortunatly and wrongly it has been taken out of context.

He would just like to say, that he has enjoyed meeting a few of us and has enjoyed talkin to everyone, good and bad.

Let's all raise a drink to a lifelong, dedicated and pasionate fan of Watford FC.

God Bless.
Dear Fan's. It is with a heavy heart that i have to inform you that my very good friend - LutonDown has been banned from this site for life. He posted a comment/joke which other's got involved in and unfortunatly and wrongly it has been taken out of context. He would just like to say, that he has enjoyed meeting a few of us and has enjoyed talkin to everyone, good and bad. Let's all raise a drink to a lifelong, dedicated and pasionate fan of Watford FC. God Bless. @ChrisBottom16
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

Tend to agree with you, stevyweavy, but I feel bound to ask in all honesty, how does this make Watford a genuinely English club?

Could some of you obsessive Watford fans actually tell me how many of the Watford FC squad are home-grown British players and how many are foreign mercenaries only here for the money and because they can't get into the Udinese first (or even second) team?

Doesn't this rather expose the hypocrisy of the whole system?

I still preferred British football when it was composed of 95 per cent British players.Today the game is run by foreign owners, foreign managers and foreign players only here for the cash, mercenaries who have no regard, loyalty or whatsoever to British clubs.

Parasites in my book!
Tend to agree with you, stevyweavy, but I feel bound to ask in all honesty, how does this make Watford a genuinely English club? Could some of you obsessive Watford fans actually tell me how many of the Watford FC squad are home-grown British players and how many are foreign mercenaries only here for the money and because they can't get into the Udinese first (or even second) team? Doesn't this rather expose the hypocrisy of the whole system? I still preferred British football when it was composed of 95 per cent British players.Today the game is run by foreign owners, foreign managers and foreign players only here for the cash, mercenaries who have no regard, loyalty or whatsoever to British clubs. Parasites in my book! Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:03pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

>@ChrisBottom16 says...
7:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Dear Fan's. It is with a heavy heart that i have to inform you that my very good friend - LutonDown has been banned from this site for life.

He posted a comment/joke which other's got involved in and unfortunatly and wrongly it has been taken out of context.

He would just like to say, that he has enjoyed meeting a few of us and has enjoyed talkin to everyone, good and bad.

Let's all raise a drink to a lifelong, dedicated and pasionate fan of Watford FC.<

Actually I agree with you/ Much as I often clashed here with LutonDown, I enjoyed his contributions. He is obviously a passionate fan and probably more intelligent than I sometimes gave him credit for. I would call upon the WO to reinstate him immediately.
>@ChrisBottom16 says... 7:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13 Dear Fan's. It is with a heavy heart that i have to inform you that my very good friend - LutonDown has been banned from this site for life. He posted a comment/joke which other's got involved in and unfortunatly and wrongly it has been taken out of context. He would just like to say, that he has enjoyed meeting a few of us and has enjoyed talkin to everyone, good and bad. Let's all raise a drink to a lifelong, dedicated and pasionate fan of Watford FC.< Actually I agree with you/ Much as I often clashed here with LutonDown, I enjoyed his contributions. He is obviously a passionate fan and probably more intelligent than I sometimes gave him credit for. I would call upon the WO to reinstate him immediately. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Mon 28 Jan 13

@ChrisBottom16 says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
&gt;@ChrisBottom16 says...
7:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Dear Fan's. It is with a heavy heart that i have to inform you that my very good friend - LutonDown has been banned from this site for life.

He posted a comment/joke which other's got involved in and unfortunatly and wrongly it has been taken out of context.

He would just like to say, that he has enjoyed meeting a few of us and has enjoyed talkin to everyone, good and bad.

Let's all raise a drink to a lifelong, dedicated and pasionate fan of Watford FC.&lt;

Actually I agree with you/ Much as I often clashed here with LutonDown, I enjoyed his contributions. He is obviously a passionate fan and probably more intelligent than I sometimes gave him credit for. I would call upon the WO to reinstate him immediately.
Roy. He has been to every home game this season bar 1 as he was on holiday. He has done, huddersfield, blackpool, sheff wednesday, forest and more as well away games already. He is doing bristol city tomorrow night, we have booked tickets to wolves and peterbrough away.

He has been goin since he was a lad and was there all through the 80's, 90's, 00's and on and on.

He is involved in the club as much as he can be.

he posted a blatent joke on here that was taken out of context by 2 other poster's and has been baned!

GET LD BACK ON HERE!!
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: >@ChrisBottom16 says... 7:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13 Dear Fan's. It is with a heavy heart that i have to inform you that my very good friend - LutonDown has been banned from this site for life. He posted a comment/joke which other's got involved in and unfortunatly and wrongly it has been taken out of context. He would just like to say, that he has enjoyed meeting a few of us and has enjoyed talkin to everyone, good and bad. Let's all raise a drink to a lifelong, dedicated and pasionate fan of Watford FC.< Actually I agree with you/ Much as I often clashed here with LutonDown, I enjoyed his contributions. He is obviously a passionate fan and probably more intelligent than I sometimes gave him credit for. I would call upon the WO to reinstate him immediately.[/p][/quote]Roy. He has been to every home game this season bar 1 as he was on holiday. He has done, huddersfield, blackpool, sheff wednesday, forest and more as well away games already. He is doing bristol city tomorrow night, we have booked tickets to wolves and peterbrough away. He has been goin since he was a lad and was there all through the 80's, 90's, 00's and on and on. He is involved in the club as much as he can be. he posted a blatent joke on here that was taken out of context by 2 other poster's and has been baned! GET LD BACK ON HERE!! @ChrisBottom16
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

There is something wrong here! The major problem, to my mind, seems to be that no-one knows what goes on in the minds of the people who claim to legislate this website, nor indeed do we even know who they are. I suspect they are little people with little minds.

Personally, I've never had the slightest problem with LutonDown, even though most of the time we didn't agree. I respect people who can take me on in a verbal challenge, which LutonDown often did. I abhor censorship which is what seems to have happened here. Let's all demand LutonDown be reinstated.
There is something wrong here! The major problem, to my mind, seems to be that no-one knows what goes on in the minds of the people who claim to legislate this website, nor indeed do we even know who they are. I suspect they are little people with little minds. Personally, I've never had the slightest problem with LutonDown, even though most of the time we didn't agree. I respect people who can take me on in a verbal challenge, which LutonDown often did. I abhor censorship which is what seems to have happened here. Let's all demand LutonDown be reinstated. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Hampshire hornet says...

LutonDown RIP .. I suggest a boycott of this site.. BAS Hope you go down for a long time...
I will send a new bar of SOAP to the Prison weekly
Chris BOTTOM .. You legend always a keen supporter of the truth..
Touch your toes Bas.... Incoming!!
LutonDown RIP .. I suggest a boycott of this site.. BAS Hope you go down for a long time... I will send a new bar of SOAP to the Prison weekly Chris BOTTOM .. You legend always a keen supporter of the truth.. Touch your toes Bas.... Incoming!! Hampshire hornet
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Mon 28 Jan 13

N Joydegame says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
&gt;I don't know why people keep bringing up the fit and proper person test, the test simply tries to ascertain whether the person has been disqualified as a company director or has any previous fraud convictions, Baz didn't have either so he passed that test.&lt;

What astonishingly short memories football fans have! It is not yet two years when it was revealed in February 2011 that Bassini had changed his name from Bazini in order to disguise the fact that he had been made bankrupt over a hotel business in Buckinghamshire in 2007. I revealed at the same time that shortly before that, his stepmother had also been made bankrupt over another pub in Northamptonshire.

I and others questioned at the time how he could have gone from being bankrupt to being able to take over a Championship football club within four years. And yet there were some on this forum who tried desperately to defend him, being the naive and gullible no-hopers some fans are!

It looks as if having been a bankrupt does not prevent someone from passing the Football League's &quot;fit and proper person" test, but if it doesn't, surely it ought to?

I understand the anxiety and concern, given Watford's current standing in the Championship, but I think the realistic view must be, as others have stated, that any punishment will reflect on the club as an entity, not on the individual who owned it at the time. That may seem unfair to some but, hey, life often isn't fair, is it?
Roy
When I rang the football league complaining about Bassini not being a fit and proper person to take over a football league club, I was given the following response by the FA. "Has he followed due process in the purchase of the club's shares? If so, then there is nothing we can do to interfere with the club sale" End of enquiry. Mr Bazzini was therefore considered a fit and proper person regardless whether he was a known bankrupt. Absolutely toothless and useless. Meanwhile I like many hundreds of small shareholders lost our shares for nothing, and nobody cared a jot, least of all the FA, the custodians of the game.
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: >I don't know why people keep bringing up the fit and proper person test, the test simply tries to ascertain whether the person has been disqualified as a company director or has any previous fraud convictions, Baz didn't have either so he passed that test.< What astonishingly short memories football fans have! It is not yet two years when it was revealed in February 2011 that Bassini had changed his name from Bazini in order to disguise the fact that he had been made bankrupt over a hotel business in Buckinghamshire in 2007. I revealed at the same time that shortly before that, his stepmother had also been made bankrupt over another pub in Northamptonshire. I and others questioned at the time how he could have gone from being bankrupt to being able to take over a Championship football club within four years. And yet there were some on this forum who tried desperately to defend him, being the naive and gullible no-hopers some fans are! It looks as if having been a bankrupt does not prevent someone from passing the Football League's "fit and proper person" test, but if it doesn't, surely it ought to? I understand the anxiety and concern, given Watford's current standing in the Championship, but I think the realistic view must be, as others have stated, that any punishment will reflect on the club as an entity, not on the individual who owned it at the time. That may seem unfair to some but, hey, life often isn't fair, is it?[/p][/quote]Roy When I rang the football league complaining about Bassini not being a fit and proper person to take over a football league club, I was given the following response by the FA. "Has he followed due process in the purchase of the club's shares? If so, then there is nothing we can do to interfere with the club sale" End of enquiry. Mr Bazzini was therefore considered a fit and proper person regardless whether he was a known bankrupt. Absolutely toothless and useless. Meanwhile I like many hundreds of small shareholders lost our shares for nothing, and nobody cared a jot, least of all the FA, the custodians of the game. N Joydegame
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Boosey says...

So that's why LD hasn't been on here tonight.
This site will die a slow death without him.
W.O. sort your life out, whatever was said, I am sure was said in jest so please re instate LD NOW! See you half 12 buddy.
So that's why LD hasn't been on here tonight. This site will die a slow death without him. W.O. sort your life out, whatever was said, I am sure was said in jest so please re instate LD NOW! See you half 12 buddy. Boosey
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

I should further point out that the WO website is administered and monitored in a moral vacuum by some anonymous little people in a box, or whatever, somewhere, who seem to think they have some kind of divine right to tell people what to do, what to think and what to write. They do not!!! But they are nothing to do with the WO, they are part and parcel of a larger organisation who seem to think they control the Internet.

Frankly, I am appalled by this decision on the part of some totally anonymous little nobody and I am prepared to take it up myself with my personal contacts on the WO. Let's reinstate LutonDown!!!
I should further point out that the WO website is administered and monitored in a moral vacuum by some anonymous little people in a box, or whatever, somewhere, who seem to think they have some kind of divine right to tell people what to do, what to think and what to write. They do not!!! But they are nothing to do with the WO, they are part and parcel of a larger organisation who seem to think they control the Internet. Frankly, I am appalled by this decision on the part of some totally anonymous little nobody and I am prepared to take it up myself with my personal contacts on the WO. Let's reinstate LutonDown!!! Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Hampshire hornet says...

Get him back, get him back get him back.... Get him back , get him back get him baaaaaaack, get him back get him back get him back... Get ... Himmmm... Backkkk get him back...
There's only one LD .....
Get him back, get him back get him back.... Get him back , get him back get him baaaaaaack, get him back get him back get him back... Get ... Himmmm... Backkkk get him back... There's only one LD ..... Hampshire hornet
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Mon 28 Jan 13

D.unstable says...

Looks as though the Wobby have been having a purge today, the good, the bad and the ugly not necessarily in the correct order.

Please do feel free to continue to discuss all on Twitter where you will find many using the same or similar names.
Looks as though the Wobby have been having a purge today, the good, the bad and the ugly not necessarily in the correct order. Please do feel free to continue to discuss all on Twitter where you will find many using the same or similar names. D.unstable
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Hampshire hornet says...

Sign the petition here...
WWW.freelutonDown.co
m

We cannot let them win...
Sign the petition here... WWW.freelutonDown.co m We cannot let them win... Hampshire hornet
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

>When I rang the football league complaining about Bassini not being a fit and proper person to take over a football league club, I was given the following response by the FA. "Has he followed due process in the purchase of the club's shares? If so, then there is nothing we can do to interfere with the club sale" End of enquiry. Mr Bazzini was therefore considered a fit and proper person regardless whether he was a known bankrupt. Absolutely toothless and useless. Meanwhile I like many hundreds of small shareholders lost our shares for nothing, and nobody cared a jot, least of all the FA, the custodians of the game.<

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I myself lost a fairly substantial sum of money - more fool me, I hear you cry - in Leeds United when it looked as if they were going to become a very mega club in Europe in the 1990s and that fellow Peter Ridsale was in charge, another crook. I have never forgiven myself because I thought I knew better but Yorkshire loyalty and a desire to make money got the better of me. Well, we live and learn.....!
>When I rang the football league complaining about Bassini not being a fit and proper person to take over a football league club, I was given the following response by the FA. "Has he followed due process in the purchase of the club's shares? If so, then there is nothing we can do to interfere with the club sale" End of enquiry. Mr Bazzini was therefore considered a fit and proper person regardless whether he was a known bankrupt. Absolutely toothless and useless. Meanwhile I like many hundreds of small shareholders lost our shares for nothing, and nobody cared a jot, least of all the FA, the custodians of the game.< Yes, I couldn't agree more. I myself lost a fairly substantial sum of money - more fool me, I hear you cry - in Leeds United when it looked as if they were going to become a very mega club in Europe in the 1990s and that fellow Peter Ridsale was in charge, another crook. I have never forgiven myself because I thought I knew better but Yorkshire loyalty and a desire to make money got the better of me. Well, we live and learn.....! Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Dr,Oftaw says...

They only ban the email address,use another.
They only ban the email address,use another. Dr,Oftaw
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Mon 28 Jan 13

@ChrisBottom16 says...

For anyone wanting to speak to LutonDown on a sensible level you can contact him on the following email address:

Lutondown@me.com or on twitter @Lutondown.

But keep it civil.

Roy, Boosey, Hampshire, LD say's thanks for the support!
For anyone wanting to speak to LutonDown on a sensible level you can contact him on the following email address: Lutondown@me.com or on twitter @Lutondown. But keep it civil. Roy, Boosey, Hampshire, LD say's thanks for the support! @ChrisBottom16
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Mon 28 Jan 13

lutonup says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
&gt;When I rang the football league complaining about Bassini not being a fit and proper person to take over a football league club, I was given the following response by the FA. &quot;Has he followed due process in the purchase of the club's shares? If so, then there is nothing we can do to interfere with the club sale" End of enquiry. Mr Bazzini was therefore considered a fit and proper person regardless whether he was a known bankrupt. Absolutely toothless and useless. Meanwhile I like many hundreds of small shareholders lost our shares for nothing, and nobody cared a jot, least of all the FA, the custodians of the game.&lt;

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I myself lost a fairly substantial sum of money - more fool me, I hear you cry - in Leeds United when it looked as if they were going to become a very mega club in Europe in the 1990s and that fellow Peter Ridsale was in charge, another crook. I have never forgiven myself because I thought I knew better but Yorkshire loyalty and a desire to make money got the better of me. Well, we live and learn.....!
what a story! now no one will ever guess it's ilovbas/baz/can't remember............
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: >When I rang the football league complaining about Bassini not being a fit and proper person to take over a football league club, I was given the following response by the FA. "Has he followed due process in the purchase of the club's shares? If so, then there is nothing we can do to interfere with the club sale" End of enquiry. Mr Bazzini was therefore considered a fit and proper person regardless whether he was a known bankrupt. Absolutely toothless and useless. Meanwhile I like many hundreds of small shareholders lost our shares for nothing, and nobody cared a jot, least of all the FA, the custodians of the game.< Yes, I couldn't agree more. I myself lost a fairly substantial sum of money - more fool me, I hear you cry - in Leeds United when it looked as if they were going to become a very mega club in Europe in the 1990s and that fellow Peter Ridsale was in charge, another crook. I have never forgiven myself because I thought I knew better but Yorkshire loyalty and a desire to make money got the better of me. Well, we live and learn.....![/p][/quote]what a story! now no one will ever guess it's ilovbas/baz/can't remember............ lutonup
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Mon 28 Jan 13

stevyweavy says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Tend to agree with you, stevyweavy, but I feel bound to ask in all honesty, how does this make Watford a genuinely English club?

Could some of you obsessive Watford fans actually tell me how many of the Watford FC squad are home-grown British players and how many are foreign mercenaries only here for the money and because they can't get into the Udinese first (or even second) team?

Doesn't this rather expose the hypocrisy of the whole system?

I still preferred British football when it was composed of 95 per cent British players.Today the game is run by foreign owners, foreign managers and foreign players only here for the cash, mercenaries who have no regard, loyalty or whatsoever to British clubs.

Parasites in my book!
Sorry Roy but maybe I am one of the "shallow" fans that are really just interested in the football. I am not interested in the politics of football I just go to support my team and hopefully watch good football and I have to say that I have had the pleasure of watching some trully pleasing football from Watford this season so I am a very happy fan at the moment. Unfortunately our country being so entwined with the EU means that most clubs seem to have more foreign players than UK players but the fact that we have given our young home grown talent long contracts suggests that the owners are keen to bring on homegrown talent where possible and despite us not having a Cat 1 Academy I feel confident that the Academy is still very much at the heart of Watford FC and will continue to bring on future home grown talent. I think if you look at the stats I think Watford still fairs well against all other clubs as regards percentage of home grown talent currently playing for the club so I am not to worried about us using the rules to add to our own talent.
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: Tend to agree with you, stevyweavy, but I feel bound to ask in all honesty, how does this make Watford a genuinely English club? Could some of you obsessive Watford fans actually tell me how many of the Watford FC squad are home-grown British players and how many are foreign mercenaries only here for the money and because they can't get into the Udinese first (or even second) team? Doesn't this rather expose the hypocrisy of the whole system? I still preferred British football when it was composed of 95 per cent British players.Today the game is run by foreign owners, foreign managers and foreign players only here for the cash, mercenaries who have no regard, loyalty or whatsoever to British clubs. Parasites in my book![/p][/quote]Sorry Roy but maybe I am one of the "shallow" fans that are really just interested in the football. I am not interested in the politics of football I just go to support my team and hopefully watch good football and I have to say that I have had the pleasure of watching some trully pleasing football from Watford this season so I am a very happy fan at the moment. Unfortunately our country being so entwined with the EU means that most clubs seem to have more foreign players than UK players but the fact that we have given our young home grown talent long contracts suggests that the owners are keen to bring on homegrown talent where possible and despite us not having a Cat 1 Academy I feel confident that the Academy is still very much at the heart of Watford FC and will continue to bring on future home grown talent. I think if you look at the stats I think Watford still fairs well against all other clubs as regards percentage of home grown talent currently playing for the club so I am not to worried about us using the rules to add to our own talent. stevyweavy
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Mon 28 Jan 13

anonymous75 says...

If I were to create a conspiracy theory, it would be along the following lines:

1) During the end of Ashcroft's time, Watford was the last half decent club available for purchase near to the North or West of London, other than for silly money. Arsenal, Spurs, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR and Chelsea were all owned by billionaires, the super rich and or well run companies. Watford was therefore ripe for a takeover as Ashcroft was clearly a disinterested owner.

2) Ashcroft however would not have sold Watford for a song, to the Pozzos who clearly have money, but not enough to be close to the billionaire status such as Abramovich and others.

3) The Pozzos would therefore do far better to enable someone else to buy Watford first, from Ashcroft, thereby saving them millions on the purchase price.

4) The purchase from Ashcroft by Bassini was therefore convenient to the Pozzos.

5) No one still knows quite where Bassini got his money from (other than that from the club). Might he have been a stalking horse??

6) Of course Bassini then (relatively quickly) finds a miracle buyer who wasn't interested in the club shortly before, who looks at Bassini's books and is not put off.

Of course, this whole conspiracy is a load of rubbish and is merely an entertaining story of fantasy. It should be ignored as a work of fiction and as a flight of fancy.
If I were to create a conspiracy theory, it would be along the following lines: 1) During the end of Ashcroft's time, Watford was the last half decent club available for purchase near to the North or West of London, other than for silly money. Arsenal, Spurs, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR and Chelsea were all owned by billionaires, the super rich and or well run companies. Watford was therefore ripe for a takeover as Ashcroft was clearly a disinterested owner. 2) Ashcroft however would not have sold Watford for a song, to the Pozzos who clearly have money, but not enough to be close to the billionaire status such as Abramovich and others. 3) The Pozzos would therefore do far better to enable someone else to buy Watford first, from Ashcroft, thereby saving them millions on the purchase price. 4) The purchase from Ashcroft by Bassini was therefore convenient to the Pozzos. 5) No one still knows quite where Bassini got his money from (other than that from the club). Might he have been a stalking horse?? 6) Of course Bassini then (relatively quickly) finds a miracle buyer who wasn't interested in the club shortly before, who looks at Bassini's books and is not put off. Of course, this whole conspiracy is a load of rubbish and is merely an entertaining story of fantasy. It should be ignored as a work of fiction and as a flight of fancy. anonymous75
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

I have e-mailed Lutondown direct saying that however much we may disagree, I believe he should be reinstated here and I will support that. I do not believe in censorship, which seems to me yet another of the problems affecting the Internet and its policing thereof. Who is to police the Internet police? What right do the little people who have banned Lutondown have to impose their views and attitudes onto anyone else?
I have e-mailed Lutondown direct saying that however much we may disagree, I believe he should be reinstated here and I will support that. I do not believe in censorship, which seems to me yet another of the problems affecting the Internet and its policing thereof. Who is to police the Internet police? What right do the little people who have banned Lutondown have to impose their views and attitudes onto anyone else? Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Mon 28 Jan 13

KeithMercer says...

Welcome back LD dont know what we would have done without you ! you would have been sorely missed as you bring a little sparkle and not a small amount of good sense and humour to the table.
Hope to see you in Red Lion soon !
cheers
Welcome back LD dont know what we would have done without you ! you would have been sorely missed as you bring a little sparkle and not a small amount of good sense and humour to the table. Hope to see you in Red Lion soon ! cheers KeithMercer
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Mon 28 Jan 13

stevyweavy says...

anonymous75 wrote:
If I were to create a conspiracy theory, it would be along the following lines:

1) During the end of Ashcroft's time, Watford was the last half decent club available for purchase near to the North or West of London, other than for silly money. Arsenal, Spurs, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR and Chelsea were all owned by billionaires, the super rich and or well run companies. Watford was therefore ripe for a takeover as Ashcroft was clearly a disinterested owner.

2) Ashcroft however would not have sold Watford for a song, to the Pozzos who clearly have money, but not enough to be close to the billionaire status such as Abramovich and others.

3) The Pozzos would therefore do far better to enable someone else to buy Watford first, from Ashcroft, thereby saving them millions on the purchase price.

4) The purchase from Ashcroft by Bassini was therefore convenient to the Pozzos.

5) No one still knows quite where Bassini got his money from (other than that from the club). Might he have been a stalking horse??

6) Of course Bassini then (relatively quickly) finds a miracle buyer who wasn't interested in the club shortly before, who looks at Bassini's books and is not put off.

Of course, this whole conspiracy is a load of rubbish and is merely an entertaining story of fantasy. It should be ignored as a work of fiction and as a flight of fancy.
Keep up with the game. The salad boys have put a court order on Bassini to freeze his assets as he supposedly owes them £4m so I think you will find that they were the ones trying to get the club through the back door and unfortunately for them they underestimated Bassini and have got their fingers burned. Nothing to suggest they ever had anything to do with the Pozzos
[quote][p][bold]anonymous75[/bold] wrote: If I were to create a conspiracy theory, it would be along the following lines: 1) During the end of Ashcroft's time, Watford was the last half decent club available for purchase near to the North or West of London, other than for silly money. Arsenal, Spurs, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR and Chelsea were all owned by billionaires, the super rich and or well run companies. Watford was therefore ripe for a takeover as Ashcroft was clearly a disinterested owner. 2) Ashcroft however would not have sold Watford for a song, to the Pozzos who clearly have money, but not enough to be close to the billionaire status such as Abramovich and others. 3) The Pozzos would therefore do far better to enable someone else to buy Watford first, from Ashcroft, thereby saving them millions on the purchase price. 4) The purchase from Ashcroft by Bassini was therefore convenient to the Pozzos. 5) No one still knows quite where Bassini got his money from (other than that from the club). Might he have been a stalking horse?? 6) Of course Bassini then (relatively quickly) finds a miracle buyer who wasn't interested in the club shortly before, who looks at Bassini's books and is not put off. Of course, this whole conspiracy is a load of rubbish and is merely an entertaining story of fantasy. It should be ignored as a work of fiction and as a flight of fancy.[/p][/quote]Keep up with the game. The salad boys have put a court order on Bassini to freeze his assets as he supposedly owes them £4m so I think you will find that they were the ones trying to get the club through the back door and unfortunately for them they underestimated Bassini and have got their fingers burned. Nothing to suggest they ever had anything to do with the Pozzos stevyweavy
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Boosey says...

@ChrisBottom16 wrote:
For anyone wanting to speak to LutonDown on a sensible level you can contact him on the following email address: Lutondown@me.com or on twitter @Lutondown. But keep it civil. Roy, Boosey, Hampshire, LD say's thanks for the support!
Chris, Buckler, Rinaldi, Vialli and LD amongst others. Have just asked my mate about getting a coach for the Leicester game, If the interest is there he will get one.
The cost normally includes refreshments!
[quote][p][bold]@ChrisBottom16[/bold] wrote: For anyone wanting to speak to LutonDown on a sensible level you can contact him on the following email address: Lutondown@me.com or on twitter @Lutondown. But keep it civil. Roy, Boosey, Hampshire, LD say's thanks for the support![/p][/quote]Chris, Buckler, Rinaldi, Vialli and LD amongst others. Have just asked my mate about getting a coach for the Leicester game, If the interest is there he will get one. The cost normally includes refreshments! Boosey
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Boosey says...

Boosey wrote:
@ChrisBottom16 wrote: For anyone wanting to speak to LutonDown on a sensible level you can contact him on the following email address: Lutondown@me.com or on twitter @Lutondown. But keep it civil. Roy, Boosey, Hampshire, LD say's thanks for the support!
Chris, Buckler, Rinaldi, Vialli and LD amongst others. Have just asked my mate about getting a coach for the Leicester game, If the interest is there he will get one. The cost normally includes refreshments!
Just had a chat with LD certainly looks like we will book the coach.
[quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]@ChrisBottom16[/bold] wrote: For anyone wanting to speak to LutonDown on a sensible level you can contact him on the following email address: Lutondown@me.com or on twitter @Lutondown. But keep it civil. Roy, Boosey, Hampshire, LD say's thanks for the support![/p][/quote]Chris, Buckler, Rinaldi, Vialli and LD amongst others. Have just asked my mate about getting a coach for the Leicester game, If the interest is there he will get one. The cost normally includes refreshments![/p][/quote]Just had a chat with LD certainly looks like we will book the coach. Boosey
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

Dare I interrupt this cosy little chat among friends to point out that if Watford, however well they are doing in the Championship, had beaten Bradford City in the League Cup they might now have been at Wembley on February 24?

Come on fellows, give this great little old Yorkshire club a break and your support against Swansea at Wembley! The last time Bradford City won a major trophy was in 1911 when they won the FA Cup in a replay, beating Newcastle Utd at Old Trafford, having drawn in the first match at Crystal Palace's ground.

Bradford City were the first team I ever watched when my grandfather took me to Valley Parade as a kid in the 1940s.
There was another Bradford league club at the time called Bradford Park Avenue, for whom the great Len Shackleton played, but I don't expect many of you have even heard of them!
Dare I interrupt this cosy little chat among friends to point out that if Watford, however well they are doing in the Championship, had beaten Bradford City in the League Cup they might now have been at Wembley on February 24? Come on fellows, give this great little old Yorkshire club a break and your support against Swansea at Wembley! The last time Bradford City won a major trophy was in 1911 when they won the FA Cup in a replay, beating Newcastle Utd at Old Trafford, having drawn in the first match at Crystal Palace's ground. Bradford City were the first team I ever watched when my grandfather took me to Valley Parade as a kid in the 1940s. There was another Bradford league club at the time called Bradford Park Avenue, for whom the great Len Shackleton played, but I don't expect many of you have even heard of them! Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Mon 28 Jan 13

jasonwatford says...

i suggest then we all click report this post..let them get loads of complaints about nothing... ????? if they wanna kill this site let it be
i suggest then we all click report this post..let them get loads of complaints about nothing... ????? if they wanna kill this site let it be jasonwatford
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Boosey says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Dare I interrupt this cosy little chat among friends to point out that if Watford, however well they are doing in the Championship, had beaten Bradford City in the League Cup they might now have been at Wembley on February 24? Come on fellows, give this great little old Yorkshire club a break and your support against Swansea at Wembley! The last time Bradford City won a major trophy was in 1911 when they won the FA Cup in a replay, beating Newcastle Utd at Old Trafford, having drawn in the first match at Crystal Palace's ground. Bradford City were the first team I ever watched when my grandfather took me to Valley Parade as a kid in the 1940s. There was another Bradford league club at the time called Bradford Park Avenue, for whom the great Len Shackleton played, but I don't expect many of you have even heard of them!
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember Bradford Park Avenue.
As for Bradford City, I will always support the underdog, apart from the mob up the road.
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: Dare I interrupt this cosy little chat among friends to point out that if Watford, however well they are doing in the Championship, had beaten Bradford City in the League Cup they might now have been at Wembley on February 24? Come on fellows, give this great little old Yorkshire club a break and your support against Swansea at Wembley! The last time Bradford City won a major trophy was in 1911 when they won the FA Cup in a replay, beating Newcastle Utd at Old Trafford, having drawn in the first match at Crystal Palace's ground. Bradford City were the first team I ever watched when my grandfather took me to Valley Parade as a kid in the 1940s. There was another Bradford league club at the time called Bradford Park Avenue, for whom the great Len Shackleton played, but I don't expect many of you have even heard of them![/p][/quote]Unfortunately I am old enough to remember Bradford Park Avenue. As for Bradford City, I will always support the underdog, apart from the mob up the road. Boosey
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Mon 28 Jan 13

kingofpop says...

There are alot of clubs unhappy about our loans...but nobody is stopping any other club from making lots of overseas loans. Quite frankly it is just because there all jealous!! How dare little old Watford try and do well. Look at the likes of Forest who have spent fortunes on players and wages and are clearly over spending but thats deemed o.k for some reason but get taken over by owners who have other clubs and a fantastic scouting network and were the bad guys all of a sudden
There are alot of clubs unhappy about our loans...but nobody is stopping any other club from making lots of overseas loans. Quite frankly it is just because there all jealous!! How dare little old Watford try and do well. Look at the likes of Forest who have spent fortunes on players and wages and are clearly over spending but thats deemed o.k for some reason but get taken over by owners who have other clubs and a fantastic scouting network and were the bad guys all of a sudden kingofpop
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

Thanks, Boosey! Not too many fans today will recall Bradford Park Avenue.

I had an uncle who used to support Bradford Park Avenue while my grandfather supported Bradford City. But Bradford PA went out of the league in 1970 and into liquidation. A new club was formed and they seem to be on the way back because they are currently in the Conference North.

I wonder how many here have even heard of Len Shackleton? He was one of the great players of the post-war era and played for Bradford PA, Newcastle Utd and Sunderland, also a few games for England. A fabulous footballer but very arrogant and controversial. He was known as the "Clown Prince of Football" and in his autobiography in 1956 he had a chapter headed "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" which consisted of a single blank page!
Thanks, Boosey! Not too many fans today will recall Bradford Park Avenue. I had an uncle who used to support Bradford Park Avenue while my grandfather supported Bradford City. But Bradford PA went out of the league in 1970 and into liquidation. A new club was formed and they seem to be on the way back because they are currently in the Conference North. I wonder how many here have even heard of Len Shackleton? He was one of the great players of the post-war era and played for Bradford PA, Newcastle Utd and Sunderland, also a few games for England. A fabulous footballer but very arrogant and controversial. He was known as the "Clown Prince of Football" and in his autobiography in 1956 he had a chapter headed "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" which consisted of a single blank page! Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Mon 28 Jan 13

londomollari says...

I have always enjoyed little exchanges with LD---even if he did call me (or my opinions) stupid once or twice. (No problem, I've gone through life being called worse!).
Come on, Wobby, re-instate.
I was called stupid a while ago on this site (not by LD!) for my opinion that we will be deducted points. I still believe we will be, as the FL will always look to set an example. Ten points, probably. I really, really hope I am wrong.
I have always enjoyed little exchanges with LD---even if he did call me (or my opinions) stupid once or twice. (No problem, I've gone through life being called worse!). Come on, Wobby, re-instate. I was called stupid a while ago on this site (not by LD!) for my opinion that we will be deducted points. I still believe we will be, as the FL will always look to set an example. Ten points, probably. I really, really hope I am wrong. londomollari
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13

londomollari says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Thanks, Boosey! Not too many fans today will recall Bradford Park Avenue.

I had an uncle who used to support Bradford Park Avenue while my grandfather supported Bradford City. But Bradford PA went out of the league in 1970 and into liquidation. A new club was formed and they seem to be on the way back because they are currently in the Conference North.

I wonder how many here have even heard of Len Shackleton? He was one of the great players of the post-war era and played for Bradford PA, Newcastle Utd and Sunderland, also a few games for England. A fabulous footballer but very arrogant and controversial. He was known as the &quot;Clown Prince of Football" and in his autobiography in 1956 he had a chapter headed "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" which consisted of a single blank page!
Oh, I remember Bradford P.A. I still have, I am sure, a Watford programme or two from games watched against them.
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: Thanks, Boosey! Not too many fans today will recall Bradford Park Avenue. I had an uncle who used to support Bradford Park Avenue while my grandfather supported Bradford City. But Bradford PA went out of the league in 1970 and into liquidation. A new club was formed and they seem to be on the way back because they are currently in the Conference North. I wonder how many here have even heard of Len Shackleton? He was one of the great players of the post-war era and played for Bradford PA, Newcastle Utd and Sunderland, also a few games for England. A fabulous footballer but very arrogant and controversial. He was known as the "Clown Prince of Football" and in his autobiography in 1956 he had a chapter headed "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" which consisted of a single blank page![/p][/quote]Oh, I remember Bradford P.A. I still have, I am sure, a Watford programme or two from games watched against them. londomollari
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Boosey says...

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Thanks, Boosey! Not too many fans today will recall Bradford Park Avenue. I had an uncle who used to support Bradford Park Avenue while my grandfather supported Bradford City. But Bradford PA went out of the league in 1970 and into liquidation. A new club was formed and they seem to be on the way back because they are currently in the Conference North. I wonder how many here have even heard of Len Shackleton? He was one of the great players of the post-war era and played for Bradford PA, Newcastle Utd and Sunderland, also a few games for England. A fabulous footballer but very arrogant and controversial. He was known as the &quot;Clown Prince of Football" and in his autobiography in 1956 he had a chapter headed "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" which consisted of a single blank page!
Roy, you certainly know your football.
I am happy you put a date on of them going out of the league, I was beginning to think I must of read about it somewhere.
Unfortunately i remember the fire at City's ground, not had much luck up there.
On a lighter note I remember sitting in the living room as a 9yr old watching the 66 World cup Final. My attention span was better then!
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: Thanks, Boosey! Not too many fans today will recall Bradford Park Avenue. I had an uncle who used to support Bradford Park Avenue while my grandfather supported Bradford City. But Bradford PA went out of the league in 1970 and into liquidation. A new club was formed and they seem to be on the way back because they are currently in the Conference North. I wonder how many here have even heard of Len Shackleton? He was one of the great players of the post-war era and played for Bradford PA, Newcastle Utd and Sunderland, also a few games for England. A fabulous footballer but very arrogant and controversial. He was known as the "Clown Prince of Football" and in his autobiography in 1956 he had a chapter headed "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" which consisted of a single blank page![/p][/quote]Roy, you certainly know your football. I am happy you put a date on of them going out of the league, I was beginning to think I must of read about it somewhere. Unfortunately i remember the fire at City's ground, not had much luck up there. On a lighter note I remember sitting in the living room as a 9yr old watching the 66 World cup Final. My attention span was better then! Boosey
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Mon 28 Jan 13

ChunkeyMonkey says...

Just conjecture, but maybe the confidence of the Chief Exec and others around the club in the outcome of the FL hearing could be as a result of the matter possibly being drawn to the attention of the FL by the current owners who undertook thorough due diligence.
Let's hope so.
Just conjecture, but maybe the confidence of the Chief Exec and others around the club in the outcome of the FL hearing could be as a result of the matter possibly being drawn to the attention of the FL by the current owners who undertook thorough due diligence. Let's hope so. ChunkeyMonkey
  • Score: 0

8:54am Tue 29 Jan 13

N Joydegame says...

ChunkeyMonkey wrote:
Just conjecture, but maybe the confidence of the Chief Exec and others around the club in the outcome of the FL hearing could be as a result of the matter possibly being drawn to the attention of the FL by the current owners who undertook thorough due diligence.
Let's hope so.
I agree.
GT resigned from the board because the Bankrupt refused to provide accounts in Dec 2011. GT is very well connected with the FA and would almost certainly be telling FA people what was happening.

Timperley was a former FA Councillor and has previous experience in sitting on such committees, so would know exactly how to keep FA abreast of what was happening at WFC.

Duxbery and Co went through exhaustive FA audit over the Teves affair at West Ham, and so would know the ropes over financial irregularities.

The Pozzos, one expects, would have undertaken due dilligence, pre-purchase, and would have had a full report from the WFC board from which the Bankrupt was excluded.

The ground was already being prepared for FA audit with the new owners first audited accounts which clearly show the Bankrupt owing the club at least £1.5m.

The FA have made the extremely unusual personal charge against the Bankrupt for financial irregularities, with the aim of having him struck off as a director of any football club.

Like you, I hope this points to WFC being cleared through its openess and co-operation (and the Bankrupt eventually having full board and lodgings at her majesty's pleasure)
[quote][p][bold]ChunkeyMonkey[/bold] wrote: Just conjecture, but maybe the confidence of the Chief Exec and others around the club in the outcome of the FL hearing could be as a result of the matter possibly being drawn to the attention of the FL by the current owners who undertook thorough due diligence. Let's hope so.[/p][/quote]I agree. GT resigned from the board because the Bankrupt refused to provide accounts in Dec 2011. GT is very well connected with the FA and would almost certainly be telling FA people what was happening. Timperley was a former FA Councillor and has previous experience in sitting on such committees, so would know exactly how to keep FA abreast of what was happening at WFC. Duxbery and Co went through exhaustive FA audit over the Teves affair at West Ham, and so would know the ropes over financial irregularities. The Pozzos, one expects, would have undertaken due dilligence, pre-purchase, and would have had a full report from the WFC board from which the Bankrupt was excluded. The ground was already being prepared for FA audit with the new owners first audited accounts which clearly show the Bankrupt owing the club at least £1.5m. The FA have made the extremely unusual personal charge against the Bankrupt for financial irregularities, with the aim of having him struck off as a director of any football club. Like you, I hope this points to WFC being cleared through its openess and co-operation (and the Bankrupt eventually having full board and lodgings at her majesty's pleasure) N Joydegame
  • Score: 0

9:57am Tue 29 Jan 13

mk6 hornet says...

one positive i can see is if we sign vydra permanantly surely it must that he believes we will be playing pl football next season and on that basis watford must be confident we will avoid a points deduction.
one positive i can see is if we sign vydra permanantly surely it must that he believes we will be playing pl football next season and on that basis watford must be confident we will avoid a points deduction. mk6 hornet
  • Score: 0

10:18am Tue 29 Jan 13

tommy gunn says...

Roy, I saw Len Shackleton at the Vic. many years ago in a benefit game.I can't quite remember for whose benefit it was but someone out there will remember.I do recall his sublime skill and he should have won more caps had it not been for his colourful personality.I read the book you refer to, Shack. wasn't called the 'Clown Prince of Football' for nothing.!
Roy, I saw Len Shackleton at the Vic. many years ago in a benefit game.I can't quite remember for whose benefit it was but someone out there will remember.I do recall his sublime skill and he should have won more caps had it not been for his colourful personality.I read the book you refer to, Shack. wasn't called the 'Clown Prince of Football' for nothing.! tommy gunn
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Tue 29 Jan 13

lutondown says...

londomollari wrote:
I have always enjoyed little exchanges with LD---even if he did call me (or my opinions) stupid once or twice. (No problem, I've gone through life being called worse!).
Come on, Wobby, re-instate.
I was called stupid a while ago on this site (not by LD!) for my opinion that we will be deducted points. I still believe we will be, as the FL will always look to set an example. Ten points, probably. I really, really hope I am wrong.
Never did, did I?
Well you must of asked for it!
Thank you to Boosey, Mango, Bottom, Bush, Hamps, Jason, Mercs Stockdill, LondonMolllari etc I'm now back from outer Siberia. It was cold, it was lonely but your letters of support cheered me greatly.
Now where was I?
[quote][p][bold]londomollari[/bold] wrote: I have always enjoyed little exchanges with LD---even if he did call me (or my opinions) stupid once or twice. (No problem, I've gone through life being called worse!). Come on, Wobby, re-instate. I was called stupid a while ago on this site (not by LD!) for my opinion that we will be deducted points. I still believe we will be, as the FL will always look to set an example. Ten points, probably. I really, really hope I am wrong.[/p][/quote]Never did, did I? Well you must of asked for it! Thank you to Boosey, Mango, Bottom, Bush, Hamps, Jason, Mercs Stockdill, LondonMolllari etc I'm now back from outer Siberia. It was cold, it was lonely but your letters of support cheered me greatly. Now where was I? lutondown
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Roy Stockdill says...

>Roy, I saw Len Shackleton at the Vic. many years ago in a benefit game.I can't quite remember for whose benefit it was but someone out there will remember.I do recall his sublime skill and he should have won more caps had it not been for his colourful personality.I read the book you refer to, Shack. wasn't called the 'Clown Prince of Football' for nothing.!<

I think he won just five caps for England but should have had many more, as you say, had it not been for two things.....

1) He played in the same era as Stanley Matthews, Tom Finney and Wilf Mannion, all equally great players.

2) He was a rebel who often clashed with the powers-that-be then running English football. Shackleton was one of those special players that fans would turn up to see, whoever was playing.
>Roy, I saw Len Shackleton at the Vic. many years ago in a benefit game.I can't quite remember for whose benefit it was but someone out there will remember.I do recall his sublime skill and he should have won more caps had it not been for his colourful personality.I read the book you refer to, Shack. wasn't called the 'Clown Prince of Football' for nothing.!< I think he won just five caps for England but should have had many more, as you say, had it not been for two things..... 1) He played in the same era as Stanley Matthews, Tom Finney and Wilf Mannion, all equally great players. 2) He was a rebel who often clashed with the powers-that-be then running English football. Shackleton was one of those special players that fans would turn up to see, whoever was playing. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Hampshire hornet says...

lutondown wrote:
londomollari wrote:
I have always enjoyed little exchanges with LD---even if he did call me (or my opinions) stupid once or twice. (No problem, I've gone through life being called worse!).
Come on, Wobby, re-instate.
I was called stupid a while ago on this site (not by LD!) for my opinion that we will be deducted points. I still believe we will be, as the FL will always look to set an example. Ten points, probably. I really, really hope I am wrong.
Never did, did I?
Well you must of asked for it!
Thank you to Boosey, Mango, Bottom, Bush, Hamps, Jason, Mercs Stockdill, LondonMolllari etc I'm now back from outer Siberia. It was cold, it was lonely but your letters of support cheered me greatly.
Now where was I?
Don't go making an arse of yourself... The moderators on here are anal about sexual references, I am going to get some soap and wash away the filth in my mind... Maybe in the shower.. Hope Bas gets what he deserves etc etc
[quote][p][bold]lutondown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]londomollari[/bold] wrote: I have always enjoyed little exchanges with LD---even if he did call me (or my opinions) stupid once or twice. (No problem, I've gone through life being called worse!). Come on, Wobby, re-instate. I was called stupid a while ago on this site (not by LD!) for my opinion that we will be deducted points. I still believe we will be, as the FL will always look to set an example. Ten points, probably. I really, really hope I am wrong.[/p][/quote]Never did, did I? Well you must of asked for it! Thank you to Boosey, Mango, Bottom, Bush, Hamps, Jason, Mercs Stockdill, LondonMolllari etc I'm now back from outer Siberia. It was cold, it was lonely but your letters of support cheered me greatly. Now where was I?[/p][/quote]Don't go making an arse of yourself... The moderators on here are anal about sexual references, I am going to get some soap and wash away the filth in my mind... Maybe in the shower.. Hope Bas gets what he deserves etc etc Hampshire hornet
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Tue 29 Jan 13

corbindallas says...

lutondown you naughty boy don't go getting yourself barred it will just not be the same without you here. Re the FL I reckon that a fine will only be applied as we (the new owners) approached them regarding the issue not the other way round in the first instance.
lutondown you naughty boy don't go getting yourself barred it will just not be the same without you here. Re the FL I reckon that a fine will only be applied as we (the new owners) approached them regarding the issue not the other way round in the first instance. corbindallas
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree