I can't really see why it's a fraud. It's a commonplace in football for a club to pay a fee for a player and let him go on a free. I suppose that structurally, this was a case of moving an employee from one division of Staprix to another.
I agree. The Socios got in touch, asking us if we can help with any info. We replied that the fee was simply described as "undisclosed" and tried to explain why that has become a running joke.
Our friends in Liege seem to be suggesting that it's a big shock for the whole club to learn that Watt came here on a free, but it's hard to believe that only RD knew this. How could the Standard CEO and CFO not know? I thought Venanzi was the CEO, but I could be wrong. We will stay in touch with them, but I doubt this is as scurrilous as they are making out.
They are away at STVV tomorrow, BTW. That could get spiky
Venanzi was the Vice Chairman to RD. I think the CEO may have been another one of RD's minions from Staprix, who has stayed in post.
The story has been picked up in Britain by the Sun and mentioned in the Scotsman. ---
I think this is the original article from which the sources earlier in this thread were derived. It's from the website of the state French-language TV corporation. It's another case of Venanzi using a TV interview to publicise his agenda (vendetta?). The bits marked (...) are their omissions, not mine. The potentially explosive bit, as best I can translate it, is highlighted.
[starts] On the subject of football .. or almost: justice is very interested in Standard . A judicial investigation was opened by the prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . It covers the management of former President Duchâtelet. As a guest on Thursday on the Free Trade show, the new president Bruno Venanzi , true to his reputation, let loose some information.
Bruno Venanzi, president of Standard, is a man known for his shock statements, especially when he talks about his purchase of the Liege club.
"We found some skeletons in the closet after the purchase, " he said on the Free Trade show that will air this Thursday on Channel Three. So to what skeletons is the club President referring?
We have learned that the law was interested in the Standard club. An investigation is underway by the Prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . The starting point of the judicial inquiry would be notably confessions by Bruno Venanzi in the written press: "There was a policy of 'multi-clubs', with Standard as a cash cow. I am thinking, for example, of a player who was purchased for 1.5 million euros a year ago and was sold six months later to another club in Duchâtelet's galaxy (...) . "
The player in question would be Tony Watt. He would have been transferred for free from Standard in Charlton, two clubs that belong to Roland Duchâtelet.
A financial arrangement between Roland Duchâtelet clubs? According to our information, a financial arrangement would have been created to allow two coaches to have double pay or to be paid the same expense several times without the transactions being declared. But on this count, the law has yet to respond.
We contacted the Standard club, but they do not wish to make a statement. In a statement sent to the press, the former president, Roland Duchâtelet, stated: "The Standard indeed gave Charlton Tony Watt for free at the end of 2014. Standard bought this player six months earlier for a fee of 1.5 million euros. But in the month of November, the player was heavily criticized by most sportswriters and even ridiculed by some commentators, which was then taken up by the fans. This player had a good contract for 4 years, but Standard was able to give up that player to Charlton without any further obligation. This happens in all clubs (...). In some cases, giving the player a free transfer is not enough. (...) In the case of Tony Watt, it is indeed a bit challenging because the player has succeeded pretty quickly afterwards, but you can never know that is going to happen in advance".
The Standard saga seems far from over and is now in the hands of justice. [ends]
I can't really see why it's a fraud. It's a commonplace in football for a club to pay a fee for a player and let him go on a free. I suppose that structurally, this was a case of moving an employee from one division of Staprix to another.
I agree. The Socios got in touch, asking us if we can help with any info. We replied that the fee was simply described as "undisclosed" and tried to explain why that has become a running joke.
Our friends in Liege seem to be suggesting that it's a big shock for the whole club to learn that Watt came here on a free, but it's hard to believe that only RD knew this. How could the Standard CEO and CFO not know? I thought Venanzi was the CEO, but I could be wrong. We will stay in touch with them, but I doubt this is as scurrilous as they are making out.
They are away at STVV tomorrow, BTW. That could get spiky
Venanzi was the Vice Chairman to RD. I think the CEO may have been another one of RD's minions from Staprix, who has stayed in post.
The story has been picked up in Britain by the Sun and mentioned in the Scotsman. ---
I think this is the original article from which the sources earlier in this thread were derived. It's from the website of the state French-language TV corporation. It's another case of Venanzi using a TV interview to publicise his agenda (vendetta?). The bits marked (...) are their omissions, not mine. The potentially explosive bit, as best I can translate it, is highlighted.
[starts] On the subject of football .. or almost: justice is very interested in Standard . A judicial investigation was opened by the prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . It covers the management of former President Duchâtelet. As a guest on Thursday on the Free Trade show, the new president Bruno Venanzi , true to his reputation, let loose some information.
Bruno Venanzi, president of Standard, is a man known for his shock statements, especially when he talks about his purchase of the Liege club.
"We found some skeletons in the closet after the purchase, " he said on the Free Trade show that will air this Thursday on Channel Three. So to what skeletons is the club President referring?
We have learned that the law was interested in the Standard club. An investigation is underway by the Prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . The starting point of the judicial inquiry would be notably confessions by Bruno Venanzi in the written press: "There was a policy of 'multi-clubs', with Standard as a cash cow. I am thinking, for example, of a player who was purchased for 1.5 million euros a year ago and was sold six months later to another club in Duchâtelet's galaxy (...) . "
The player in question would be Tony Watt. He would have been transferred for free from Standard in Charlton, two clubs that belong to Roland Duchâtelet.
A financial arrangement between Roland Duchâtelet clubs? According to our information, a financial arrangement would have been created to allow two coaches to have double pay or to be paid the same expense several times without the transactions being declared. But on this count, the law has yet to respond.
We contacted the Standard club, but they do not wish to make a statement. In a statement sent to the press, the former president, Roland Duchâtelet, stated: "The Standard indeed gave Charlton Tony Watt for free at the end of 2014. Standard bought this player six months earlier for a fee of 1.5 million euros. But in the month of November, the player was heavily criticized by most sportswriters and even ridiculed by some commentators, which was then taken up by the fans. This player had a good contract for 4 years, but Standard was able to give up that player to Charlton without any further obligation. This happens in all clubs (...). In some cases, giving the player a free transfer is not enough. (...) In the case of Tony Watt, it is indeed a bit challenging because the player has succeeded pretty quickly afterwards, but you can never know that is going to happen in advance".
The Standard saga seems far from over and is now in the hands of justice. [ends]
I can't really see why it's a fraud. It's a commonplace in football for a club to pay a fee for a player and let him go on a free. I suppose that structurally, this was a case of moving an employee from one division of Staprix to another.
I agree. The Socios got in touch, asking us if we can help with any info. We replied that the fee was simply described as "undisclosed" and tried to explain why that has become a running joke.
Our friends in Liege seem to be suggesting that it's a big shock for the whole club to learn that Watt came here on a free, but it's hard to believe that only RD knew this. How could the Standard CEO and CFO not know? I thought Venanzi was the CEO, but I could be wrong. We will stay in touch with them, but I doubt this is as scurrilous as they are making out.
They are away at STVV tomorrow, BTW. That could get spiky
Venanzi was the Vice Chairman to RD. I think the CEO may have been another one of RD's minions from Staprix, who has stayed in post.
The story has been picked up in Britain by the Sun and mentioned in the Scotsman. ---
I think this is the original article from which the sources earlier in this thread were derived. It's from the website of the state French-language TV corporation. It's another case of Venanzi using a TV interview to publicise his agenda (vendetta?). The bits marked (...) are their omissions, not mine. The potentially explosive bit, as best I can translate it, is highlighted.
[starts] On the subject of football .. or almost: justice is very interested in Standard . A judicial investigation was opened by the prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . It covers the management of former President Duchâtelet. As a guest on Thursday on the Free Trade show, the new president Bruno Venanzi , true to his reputation, let loose some information.
Bruno Venanzi, president of Standard, is a man known for his shock statements, especially when he talks about his purchase of the Liege club.
"We found some skeletons in the closet after the purchase, " he said on the Free Trade show that will air this Thursday on Channel Three. So to what skeletons is the club President referring?
We have learned that the law was interested in the Standard club. An investigation is underway by the Prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . The starting point of the judicial inquiry would be notably confessions by Bruno Venanzi in the written press: "There was a policy of 'multi-clubs', with Standard as a cash cow. I am thinking, for example, of a player who was purchased for 1.5 million euros a year ago and was sold six months later to another club in Duchâtelet's galaxy (...) . "
The player in question would be Tony Watt. He would have been transferred for free from Standard in Charlton, two clubs that belong to Roland Duchâtelet.
A financial arrangement between Roland Duchâtelet clubs? According to our information, a financial arrangement would have been created to allow two coaches to have double pay or to be paid the same expense several times without the transactions being declared. But on this count, the law has yet to respond.
We contacted the Standard club, but they do not wish to make a statement. In a statement sent to the press, the former president, Roland Duchâtelet, stated: "The Standard indeed gave Charlton Tony Watt for free at the end of 2014. Standard bought this player six months earlier for a fee of 1.5 million euros. But in the month of November, the player was heavily criticized by most sportswriters and even ridiculed by some commentators, which was then taken up by the fans. This player had a good contract for 4 years, but Standard was able to give up that player to Charlton without any further obligation. This happens in all clubs (...). In some cases, giving the player a free transfer is not enough. (...) In the case of Tony Watt, it is indeed a bit challenging because the player has succeeded pretty quickly afterwards, but you can never know that is going to happen in advance".
The Standard saga seems far from over and is now in the hands of justice. [ends]
KM said at the VIP meeting that by selling Yann it allowed us to buy Tony Watt. Now this of course is nonsense since there was 12 months between the deals (Tucadean had also come inbetween)
Perhaps it was from money that we received when AFCB won promotion.
KM said at the VIP meeting that by selling Yann it allowed us to buy Tony Watt. Now this of course is nonsense since there was 12 months between the deals (Tucadean had also come inbetween)
Perhaps it was from money that we received when AFCB won promotion.
KM said at the VIP meeting that by selling Yann it allowed us to buy Tony Watt. Now this of course is nonsense since there was 12 months between the deals (Tucadean had also come inbetween)
If any one can be bothered have a look have a look on YouTube as the meeting is on there. No way I will watch it, being there was worse than a lot of nightmares I have had!
My recollection is that she said we'd replaced Yann with Watt. Which we hadn't as our head of recruitment felt Watt would be ideal for Liege and Tucadean would be good for us.
Yes the same head of recruitment who felt we could do better than Yann and that Polish Pete was the man to replace him.
KM said at the VIP meeting that by selling Yann it allowed us to buy Tony Watt. Now this of course is nonsense since there was 12 months between the deals (Tucadean had also come inbetween)
Perhaps it was from money that we received when AFCB won promotion.
Bournemouth weren't promoted in January.
I mean there was a clause in the transfer to say we would receive extra money should they win promotion.
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
Or it could be scratching the surface.
If nothing else there may be tax implications for moving an 'asset' (player) around the network without regulatory care.
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
Or it could be scratching the surface.
If nothing else there may be tax implications for moving an 'asset' (player) around the network without regulatory care.
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
I'm starting to wonder whether Staprix NV has an "active" P&L. I mean, that we know the clubs are reporting their books as separate entities. So the assumption has been that Staprix is just a holding where the consolidated profits are sent. But suppose it is more active than that? If it has employees, including players. Or at least coaches, such as Luzon. That seems to be what the article is suggesting.
We didn't sever our contacts with the Socios and the journalist, BTW.(we mentioned this at the meet on Thurs , @stonemuse ) The Socios have been in touch about Tony Watt, but of course we had nothing concrete we could tell them, beyond the joke about "undisclosed" fees. Definitely need to keep ourselves informed about what's going on there, and what info emerges.
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
Or it could be scratching the surface.
If nothing else there may be tax implications for moving an 'asset' (player) around the network without regulatory care.
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
I'm starting to wonder whether Staprix NV has an "active" P&L. I mean, that we know the clubs are reporting their books as separate entities. So the assumption has been that Staprix is just a holding where the consolidated profits are sent. But suppose it is more active than that? If it has employees, including players. Or at least coaches, such as Luzon. That seems to be what the article is suggesting.
We didn't sever our contacts with the Socios and the journalist, BTW.(we mentioned this at the meet on Thurs , @stonemuse ) The Socios have been in touch about Tony Watt, but of course we had nothing concrete we could tell them, beyond the joke about "undisclosed" fees. Definitely need to keep ourselves informed about what's going on there, and what info emerges.
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
Or it could be scratching the surface.
If nothing else there may be tax implications for moving an 'asset' (player) around the network without regulatory care.
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
I'm starting to wonder whether Staprix NV has an "active" P&L. I mean, that we know the clubs are reporting their books as separate entities. So the assumption has been that Staprix is just a holding where the consolidated profits are sent. But suppose it is more active than that? If it has employees, including players. Or at least coaches, such as Luzon. That seems to be what the article is suggesting.
We didn't sever our contacts with the Socios and the journalist, BTW.(we mentioned this at the meet on Thurs , @stonemuse ) The Socios have been in touch about Tony Watt, but of course we had nothing concrete we could tell them, beyond the joke about "undisclosed" fees. Definitely need to keep ourselves informed about what's going on there, and what info emerges.
In theory a player could go from one club to a central company for free then be bought by another club?
Non story, RD at the time owned both clubs, so if he negotiates a transfer between his clubs which allows the player to transfer for free that's his prerogative. If he wanted he could have had Charlton 'pay' a paltry sum of 100€ or something, but that would probably come under more scrutiny. Not much different to Lampard signing for NYCFC and then signing on loan for Man City, or Udinese, Granada and Watford's seemingly interchangeable squads.
Directors of companies have a duty to act in the best interests of that company.
Giving away an asset that you paid 1.5e for only a few months before might not be in the best interest of a Co.
It might just be a case of moving on a flop or sour grapes from the new owner.
Or it could be an example of some strange transfers. I wonder what we paid and received for Tucedean, Nego, Le Point etc and where the fees went?
But as the legend reminds us once you've open Pandora's box you can't close it again.
True, but the argument could be that the "company" is actually Staprix and that moving under performers from one subsidiary to another, could benefit the whole.
In this case we got a player who can, occasionally, turn a game. In SL's case, Venanzi got that club given to him (I believe), for no fee.
Non story, RD at the time owned both clubs, so if he negotiates a transfer between his clubs which allows the player to transfer for free that's his prerogative. If he wanted he could have had Charlton 'pay' a paltry sum of 100€ or something, but that would probably come under more scrutiny. Not much different to Lampard signing for NYCFC and then signing on loan for Man City, or Udinese, Granada and Watford's seemingly interchangeable squads.
Not necessarily, if Watt is bought for e1.5m then he will be given a book value of presumably that figure on Standards accounts. If he is then moved to Charlton for nothing they have taken a loss of e1.5m (minus depreciation) and as we know, you don't pay tax on losses which I assume is the thrust of the issue.
So Watt goes from Celtic to Standard Liege for E1.5M. Then a few months later he moves to Charlton for free.
Watt joined us for 2mill .... they have to disclose the figure for insurance purposes
So why did Duchatelet say otherwise?:
In a statement sent to the press, the former president, Roland Duchâtelet, stated: "The Standard indeed gave Charlton Tony Watt for free at the end of 2014..."
Non story, RD at the time owned both clubs, so if he negotiates a transfer between his clubs which allows the player to transfer for free that's his prerogative. If he wanted he could have had Charlton 'pay' a paltry sum of 100€ or something, but that would probably come under more scrutiny. Not much different to Lampard signing for NYCFC and then signing on loan for Man City, or Udinese, Granada and Watford's seemingly interchangeable squads.
Not necessarily, if Watt is bought for e1.5m then he will be given a book value of presumably that figure on Standards accounts. If he is then moved to Charlton for nothing they have taken a loss of e1.5m (minus depreciation) and as we know, you don't pay tax on losses which I assume is the thrust of the issue.
Let's face it, at worst rules and/or regulations have been breached and at best it's a really shitty way to run a football club. It's getting to the stage where he should be looking to get himself tested for dementia.
Comments
The story has been picked up in Britain by the Sun and mentioned in the Scotsman.
---
I think this is the original article from which the sources earlier in this thread were derived. It's from the website of the state French-language TV corporation. It's another case of Venanzi using a TV interview to publicise his agenda (vendetta?). The bits marked (...) are their omissions, not mine. The potentially explosive bit, as best I can translate it, is highlighted.
[starts] On the subject of football .. or almost: justice is very interested in Standard . A judicial investigation was opened by the prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . It covers the management of former President Duchâtelet. As a guest on Thursday on the Free Trade show, the new president Bruno Venanzi , true to his reputation, let loose some information.
Bruno Venanzi, president of Standard, is a man known for his shock statements, especially when he talks about his purchase of the Liege club.
"We found some skeletons in the closet after the purchase, " he said on the Free Trade show that will air this Thursday on Channel Three. So to what skeletons is the club President referring?
We have learned that the law was interested in the Standard club. An investigation is underway by the Prosecutor of Liège for fraud and misuse of company property . The starting point of the judicial inquiry would be notably confessions by Bruno Venanzi in the written press: "There was a policy of 'multi-clubs', with Standard as a cash cow. I am thinking, for example, of a player who was purchased for 1.5 million euros a year ago and was sold six months later to another club in Duchâtelet's galaxy (...) . "
The player in question would be Tony Watt. He would have been transferred for free from Standard in Charlton, two clubs that belong to Roland Duchâtelet.
A financial arrangement between Roland Duchâtelet clubs?
According to our information, a financial arrangement would have been created to allow two coaches to have double pay or to be paid the same expense several times without the transactions being declared. But on this count, the law has yet to respond.
We contacted the Standard club, but they do not wish to make a statement. In a statement sent to the press, the former president, Roland Duchâtelet, stated: "The Standard indeed gave Charlton Tony Watt for free at the end of 2014. Standard bought this player six months earlier for a fee of 1.5 million euros. But in the month of November, the player was heavily criticized by most sportswriters and even ridiculed by some commentators, which was then taken up by the fans. This player had a good contract for 4 years, but Standard was able to give up that player to Charlton without any further obligation. This happens in all clubs (...). In some cases, giving the player a free transfer is not enough. (...) In the case of Tony Watt, it is indeed a bit challenging because the player has succeeded pretty quickly afterwards, but you can never know that is going to happen in advance".
The Standard saga seems far from over and is now in the hands of justice. [ends]
rtbf.be/info/regions/liege/detail_la-justice-s-interesse-au-transfert-d-un-joueur-du-standard?id=9121449
He'll have trouble proving that in a court of law
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
We didn't sever our contacts with the Socios and the journalist, BTW.(we mentioned this at the meet on Thurs , @stonemuse ) The Socios have been in touch about Tony Watt, but of course we had nothing concrete we could tell them, beyond the joke about "undisclosed" fees. Definitely need to keep ourselves informed about what's going on there, and what info emerges.
In this case we got a player who can, occasionally, turn a game. In SL's case, Venanzi got that club given to him (I believe), for no fee.
Agree totally about Tucudean, Nego, Lepoint.
In a statement sent to the press, the former president, Roland Duchâtelet, stated: "The Standard indeed gave Charlton Tony Watt for free at the end of 2014..."
It's getting to the stage where he should be looking to get himself tested for dementia.