The HSBC Letter

The Telegraph have updated their original article with an image of the mysterious Mr X

He spoke on condition of anonymity

 

racist

 

I've seen that hat somewhere before, if I could just remember where.

 

Observer reporting that a preliminary report has been handed to the EFL and that a more complete one will be sent shortly.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/14841608.EFL_receive_interim_report_from_Watford_over_allegations/?ref=mr&lp=1

 

preliminary report = We didn't do it

complete report = We definitely didn't do it

 

[video=youtube;CtVteemLin4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtVteemLin4[/video]

 

Deeney had fallen out with Riva and planted the letter to oust him

 

Is this still a thing?

 

Did Deeney ever meet Riva? Mazza didn't.

And now the Invisible Man has disappeared.

 

It's all gone quiet. Too quiet.

 

The Football League asked Liverpool to punish us.

 

Turns out the report was forged as well.


* note the above was posted in jest and in no way suggests that the letter was forged, anyone forged it or there's a cover up in the investigation.

 

Yes. The EFL have the preliminary report, until they have the full report and been through it nothing will happen.

 

Cheer up everyone. After this morning's news from across the pond, any points deduction is only likely to make a difference for a couple of years in the future.

 

You do realise The Telegraph are going to blame WWIII on us...

 

Yep. We are all that is wrong with modern global politics.

 

Anyone know the latest on this? Things have gone very quiet.

 

The EFL have probably now received the more in depth report from the club. The fact that we're being co-operative means this is likely to be kept in-house, however I'd guess that as the letter also highlights failings within the EFL the issue will likely get resolved quietly between the two parties and if they feel there ought to be a fine then it may be modest in order to (a) keep the fuss down and (b) be able to say that the matter has been resolved.

 

Not related specifically to the HSBC letter but in the same ball park of financial irregularities - we're back page of The Guardian tomorrow for some sort of irregularity with the way we conducted Capoue's transfer and the way we recorded the role of his agent Mino Raiola. Seems like it can have an affect on the amount of tax paid and we also should have signed some sort of conflict of interest form to say that Raiola was acting on behalf of the club as well as the player but we didn't do so.

Chelsea also accused of doing the same thing but didn't read which transfer that referred to.

 

Looks like the press are out to get us.

 

Looks like the club are behaving in an underhand, immoral way and the press are rightfully calling us out for it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/14/chelsea-watford-face-questions-over-agent-links

I think this is much more worrying than than the HSBC letter garbage. Breaches of agent regulations often result in points deductions. Some of those reported as agents for the club are clearly the player agents.

 

I was reading this last night. From what's been written it looks cut and dry. A bit worrying to say the least.

 

Having read the full article rather than just the screenshot I saw on Twitter last night, this seems pretty indefensible. The only thing that might help us out is that Chelsea appear to be in the same boat, and the authorities are always more reluctant to punish a big team.

UEA - I know L*ton got a 10 point deduction in 2008 for agent irregularities but are there more recent examples you can think of?

 

It's what happens when rules and regulations get so complicated. Loopholes emerge. Whilst you're a media darling you're left alone. When people don't like you they'll dig up anything possible.

Players may choose to transfer without paid for advice from their agent. All it takes is an agreement to do so. If the reason for doing so is to legally avoid tax then it's a fault of the tax system for having that loophole.

If we've not conformed to FA rules about declaring representation correctly then so be it but to be honest what has whether a player has an agent or not got to do with the FA? As long as they are eligible to transfer and play that should be it. The FA should be concerned about running Football not controlling business. It would appear that they can do neither successfully.

 

I've got a nasty feeling these two things are intertwined. Any legal proceedings can be based on "contempt for the rules".

 

I can't and, to be fair, I was wrong. It's not often at all. A bit of simple research shows it's mainly fines doled out. Big fines mind you and those seem to just be for single instances so if this represents multiple breaches I can't see beyond a points deduction if the FA go for a charge in this case. I suppose the biggest factor mitigating against the likelihood of any action is that the FA have had this data for months and havent done anything. Plus if they go for the club they have to go for the agent too and there's some big names implicated there too.

 

:notimpress:

 

I must admit, if I didn't support Watford and was an unformed outsider looking in the last 4 years or so, I'd be none too impressed by our dealings! This is the trouble, the average Joe won't be arsed to look into this in any detail, so will just assume we're a dodgy club, with dodgy owners. Holloway surely has something to say about all this? Where's his quote?

 

Hollowhead was roight all along!

 

Vile post

 

Bwahahahahaha!!

 

Chovanec talked to the press plenty when he was angling for Vydra to get a move from Watford to a Prem club.

 

Dual representation is quite wrong - a clear conflict of interest. Players' agents should work for the player alone, and if that means that the poor player loses out through having to pay his agent and pay tax, then it's up to the agent to screw that money back from the club - that's what the player is paying him for.

 

Where's your Horn gone, Meister?

Changing your name to evade the taxman, or what?