Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

IF YOU CAN'T SIGN IN, CLEAR COOKIES FROM YOUR BROWSER CACHE

If you aren't sure how to do that, see this thread: whu606.com/discussion/7162/why-am-i-having-trouble-signing-in

If you still can't log in, email whu***@gmail.com (where *** is replaced by numbers I am sure you can work out.) giving the name of the browser and whether you are on PC or mobile device.
Categories +
Table +
PhysioRoom +
«13456711

Comments

  • Big Sam is dodgy, who'd of thought it? ;lol

    #RavsTapes
  • I think it'll blow over. Unless there's more to come.
  • I think he could be in trouble.
  • I think the more interesting aspect is the 10 or so managers who seem to be the target of the same sting who may or may not have accepted bribes to fix transfers - if that is true the the lid is about to be blown off.

    Watch this space.

    For the record, i am sure he will feel he was stitched up, but I think he may be in trouble here
  • IMO he's in real trouble ;doh
  • Depends on how conclusive the footage is I guess, and, of course, the context.

    His dream job could be over before it's even started, though.
  • It's certainly not going to look good, no idea why he would put himself in that kind of position, clearly with his advisors they all got fooled.

    What he said about Roy and Neville was probably spot on, it's just that very few would have the guts to say it.

    The 3rd party comments, perhaps I've missed something but nobody has suggested that Valencia was still part owned when we bought him, it's clear we bought him whole, so I don't really see what has been done wrong there?

    It's the perception around him talking about this kind of stuff as an England manager and supposed ambassador that could hurt him.
  • It looks to me like they'd tried to stiich him up but you know how weak the FA is, so he could be in trouble.
  • Well it says it was an investigation into football and there will be more coming this week, so not targeted at Sam.

    But I think what they have there is pretty weak. Maybe they have more on the others but started with Sam as England manager.
  • Sack him I say.
  • edited September 2016
    When you read the article, there's not much there.

    The headlines certainly sensationalise it.

    He 'gave advice on how to get round 3rd party rules' but the body of the article basically says it is going on in some countries in S. America and Africa, and a few countries in Europe. He offers evidence f this by saying Valencia was under 3rd party ownership when we bought him (although that was terminated when we bought him).

    Also, buried far from the headlines, you see that he apparently also said he would have to get any arrangement for him to give talks to foreign investors cleared by the FA before it could be agreed.


    The GNev quote is, when you look at the full text, taken out from a fuller comment on a single incident - the subbing of Marcus Rashford. It's not referring to his role with the England coaching staff as a whole, as is implied.

    We'll see how much more is to come, trailed in the Telegraph as
    'bungs, betting and bribery.' Maybe be more sexing up of the data and turn out to be a bit of a damp squib. ;hmm
  • Exactly.

    I'm not entirely sure that they've got a lot apart from it may bring the game into disrepute and he was extremely niave to be talking about this stuff.

    Already other papers saying its 50/50 and some of the red tops don't believe he should go.

    Putting his name to this was probably the biggest part of the story, is this it?
  • Why do the press do this?
  • edited September 2016

    he was extremely niave to be talking about this stuff.

    Naive might be being a bit generous. More ;doh imo.

    He'll never get a job with the diplomatic service, that's for sure ;lol


  • edited September 2016
    I think they targeted Sam because they knew that the past 'bung' stories would be brought back up, and create the 'no smoke without fire' reaction.

    If this is an investigation into corruption in football, as they claim, then in what way is a manager being interviewed and agreeing to take on a role subject to clearing it with 'the powers that be' an example of corruption?

    It's not even a conflict of interest story, since if the FA said to Sam 'that's not appropriate' it is clear he would have turned it down.

    They got nothing from him, but didn't let that stop them spinning it to look as bad as possible.

    Disgraceful hack work.

    And it won't matter if the FA totally clear Sam, as there will now be plenty of people who are convinced he did something dodgy.

    So, the Telegraph could effectively end someone's career by setting up a sting that doesn't work and then puffing that nothing into smoke and mirrors?

    Billy Bragg - 'It Says Here' in 1984 (looking very much like Marky Mark's older brother) - 'our free press reflects our democracy..' - not much has changed, I'm afraid, Billy.


  • The investigation has, it would seem, been going on for nearly a year.

    That this comes out now suggests to me that they haven't uncovered too much scandal.

    And by the way....

    'England Manager Sam Allardyce for Sale' - how is that headline not libellous????
  • Yep, it totally is, especially when you look at some of his quotes about having to ask the FA

    Also the Mirror have published the transcript. SA actually calls the agent an idiot, telling him you can't make payments to players, Managers or CEO's, that was 20-30 years ago you can't be doing that now and if they want to talk about that stuff do it when he's not there.
  • If he has a clause in his contract that he is not allowed to accept any other paid work aside from his FA role then he is in breach of contract - if indeed he has accepted the offer from the sting. Although the fact there is no actual job may give him an out of that hole.

    If not he appears to have been guilty of nothing more than indiscretion and poor judgement, something we have all been guilty of I suspect at some point.

    I think they should see how Slav does over the next couple of months before deciding to sack him or not.
  • If he has a clause in his contract that he is not allowed to accept any other paid work aside from his FA role then he is in breach of contract - if indeed he has accepted the offer from the sting. .

    c&b: there are direct quotes of him saying he can't accept the gig until it has been cleared by the FA ;ok
  • and I wonder why no one wants the England job of note
  • Well, he'a offering to advise on how to buy players. So he is on sale. It's an exaggerated headline but it's not wrong. Whether the FA would give it permission or not doesn't change it.

    It's been overhyped but it still doesn't reflect well on Allardyce or football. I'm not sure he's in trouble and there might not technically be anything wrong with what he's done but this is a scummy part of the game that's he willing to be involved in.
  • But did he get paid for offering this advice (if advice it really is)?
  • Outcast

    Are you for sale if you go for a job, or look to pick up some freelance work?

    I definitely wouldn't say so.

    For hire, certainly.

    'For sale' is a deliberately provocative headline, which has clear implications of corruption which are not matched by the content.

    We all know what 'he can be bought' means, and it isn't anything good, or neutral.
  • MrsGrey said:

    But did he get paid for offering this advice (if advice it really is)?

    Doesn't really affect the meaning of the headline. If I put my car up for sale, it's still for sale whether someone buys it or not.

    Grey, it's a stretch but I don't think it's libellous. I don't think what he's involved in here is good though. It is a corrupted part of the game, whether it's within the rule or not.

    And there is a conflict of interest between rules set by the FA, which are fair imo, and their most high-profile employee calling those rules ridiculous.

    Sam was wrong but not criminal. The Telegraph have sensationalised the story - because they're trying to set up newspaper sales after investing in an investigation - but have not been libellous.
  • MrsGrey said:

    But did he get paid for offering this advice (if advice it really is)?

    Doesn't really affect the meaning of the headline. If I put my car up for sale, it's still for sale whether someone buys it or not.
    I disagree with your interpretation, outcast.

    The fact that in addition to his work for the FA, he was considering doing some other work for somebody else on 4 other occasions doesn't mean they 'own' him.

    I think saying someone is 'for sale' has implications that will be clearly be understood.

    As for your example of a car, let's run with it... the deal you are prepared to enter into when it's 'for sale' is that once sold, somebody owns it in its entirity. It is their property.

    Clearly the deal here (which was on the table, although not finalised) was not the same. And the Telegraph are implying that it was. (In my opinion, anyway.)

    Whether that implication is enough to make it fall foul of the libel laws, maybe not (only a court could decide, obviously) but I think Sam would have a reasonable case: they published something that defame someone in a way that causes them loss in their profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him.

    I will, in any case, watch developments with interest. (And read the full transcript when have a chance).
  • For hire or for sale is splitting hairs imo.

    He was prepared to attend the meetings for £100k a pop. He is prepared to sell his knowledge. He can't ask for it back in a months time and tell them they can't use it any longer as in car hire.

    Nothing libellous in the headline at all.
  • stitched up imo.
  • SCHB
    What he said about Roy and Neville was probably spot on, it's just that very few would have the guts to say it.
    Slaven; I would say it to you and you have essentially said it to us. Why is Sam so brave for saying it to a bunch of businessmen in a bar in Asia?

    Well, he's effectively said it to the FA now.
  • Herb

    I disagree that it is splitting hairs; I think the difference is important.

    For me there is a clear distinction in the idea that someone is 'for sale' and someone is 'for hire'.

    'For sale' has clearly negative connotations that I believe the Telegraph wanted to convey, mostly because their story failed to contain the juicy bits I believe they were hoping to find.
Sign In or Register to comment.