Palace or Watford - who do you want up?

[Reykjavik Canary 0]

For me I want Palace. Losing their best player in the summer isn''t a recipe for success.

Watford is really an unkown quantity. We have no idea what player they get over the summer. Also that family which owns them and Granada has a good record in keeping clubs in the top league.

[QHcanary 0]

Palace. The way Watford have gotten where they are is disgusting IMO.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

[quote user="QHcanary"]Palace. The way Watford have gotten where they are is disgusting IMO.[/quote]

 

Agree with your sentiments QH - and it is for that reason that I am hoping for Watford - they would have to start out with a virtually new team - only 2 loans allowed - so they would not have the team spirit, camaraderie etc of a more established team. Therefore, from a purely selfish perspective, one of the favourites for relegation

[Asdfghjkl;# 0]

Watford, Palace are a bogey team for us!

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="ABC A Basingstoke Canary"]

[quote user="QHcanary"]Palace. The way Watford have gotten where they are is disgusting IMO.[/quote]

 

Agree with your sentiments QH - and it is for that reason that I am hoping for Watford - they would have to start out with a virtually new team - only 2 loans allowed - so they would not have the team spirit, camaraderie etc of a more established team. Therefore, from a purely selfish perspective, one of the favourites for relegation

[/quote]

Foreign loans don''t count as loans, they count as temporary transfers, and therefore they could loan 100 from Udinese and still be well within the rules.

[QHcanary 0]

"Foreign loans don''t count as loans, they count as temporary transfers, and therefore they could loan 100 from Udinese and still be well within the rules."

Doesn''t make it right.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="QHcanary"]"Foreign loans don''t count as loans, they count as temporary transfers, and therefore they could loan 100 from Udinese and still be well within the rules."

Doesn''t make it right.[/quote]

Agreed 100%, but wanting Watford to come up as they''d be dismantled doesn''t work out was my point, as the 2 loan rule doesnt apply to anyone they''ve loaned (except Chalobah, dunno if his age means he wouldn''t count though). I totally agree with your sentiment though, the way they''ve come up is essentially cheating imo, even if it is within the rules.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

[quote user="QHcanary"]"Foreign loans don''t count as loans, they count as temporary transfers, and therefore they could loan 100 from Udinese and still be well within the rules." Doesn''t make it right.[/quote]

 

Atrocious if that is the case!

 

However, given that a player can''t be registered to more than 2 clubs in a season, and that 25 man squads still have to be registered, all this does is enable Watford to chose from a pool of players - still doesn''t give them a close knit cohesive team. I don''t believe a group of mercenaries with no ties can effectively compete with a well drilled committed squad - "whether on the playing fields of Eton or the battlefieds of a far off country" (to misquote the Duke of Wellington) .

 

I still believe that by their very make up, they will be favourites for relegation - if they gain promotion

[pete 318]

Who cares both teams only ever stay up for one season.

[GenerationA47 750]

Watford, for selfish purposes:

It''s the right side of the Thames for me
Apparently they have replaced several stands since I last went to Vicarage Rd
Like many I find Selhurst Park drab and depressing, and
I''m curious to see what the PL does about the loan scenario and how that could work out.

 

For NCFC purposes: related to that last reason, it could be a guaranteed relegation spot filled if the PL clamps down.

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

I always thought Crystal Palace as the poor man''s QPR who in turn are the poor man''s Chelsea.

And Chelsea as the rich man''s plaything.

[FastAsHuck 0]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="ABC A Basingstoke Canary"]

[quote user="QHcanary"]Palace. The way Watford have gotten where they are is disgusting IMO.[/quote]

 

Agree with your sentiments QH - and it is for that reason that I am hoping for Watford - they would have to start out with a virtually new team - only 2 loans allowed - so they would not have the team spirit, camaraderie etc of a more established team. Therefore, from a purely selfish perspective, one of the favourites for relegation

[/quote]

Foreign loans don''t count as loans, they count as temporary transfers, and therefore they could loan 100 from Udinese and still be well within the rules.

[/quote]

I''d want Watford, if I was sure how the rules work. Although foreign loans count as temporary transfers, how can a club complete temporary or any transfers when under a transfer embargo until the 31st August 2013?

The rules of the embargo does state Watford can still sign players with prior permission from league officials, but who are these officials and what critera needs to be met?

If anyone can enlighten me it would be most helpful.

[Row D Seat 7 0]

Haven''t read above posts but Watford purely because they can''t sign players until January 1014 and I think they will struggle. One extra team struggling is good news for us.

I like Holloway so would like to see him back up.

[Yobocop 1,096]

1012 lol

[Yobocop 1,096]

HAHA 1014 even

[Stowmarket Canary (not Delia) 0]

Watford, I hate going to Selhurst park! Last time we went Doreen the game had been postponed and we hadn''t heard till we got down there! Can''t remember us getting many points there either