Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.9K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 51 General Chatter
- 9 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 560 Fun & Games
- 176 BA Predictor Threads
- 6 Fantasy Football
- 52 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 360 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 143 Current West Ham
- 214 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 36 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 32 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 468 Match Threads
- 138 MOTM
- 12 West Ham Nostalgia
- 37 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 43 Transfers
- 51 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 59 Internationals
- 52 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 141 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 289 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
If it was discussed with her, perhaps she wanted nothing more to do with him...
I know his background wasn't in the most honourable kinds of money making that we've all know about, but these new allegations are on a totally different level.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzwy055xdo
It's as if they were looked at as no more than opportunities for his sexual gratification.
A truly disgusting individual with no sense of self respect or shame.
TIME TO GO
Brady's career began as a trainee at the advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi[14][15] having been rejected for a place on a journalism course at Harlow College. Despite the course rejection, Brady said in a 2018 interview that she made a conscious decision not to go to university, as she was keen to get out in the world and make her mark.[16] A year later, on joining the London Broadcasting Company [15] (LBC) as an advertising account executive, she targeted the advertising business of one of her father's largest clients, publisher David Sullivan, owner of the Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport.[17][18] Sullivan spent more than £2,000,000 on advertising in six months and was so impressed with Brady that he gave her a job.[19]
Sullivan offered her a job with Sport Newspapers,[20] and she became one of his directors at the age of 20. While in Sullivan's employ, Brady spotted an advert in the Financial Times for the sale of Birmingham City F.C. when the club was in receivership[21][22] and persuaded Sullivan to buy it and let her run it. When Sullivan commented that she would have to be twice as good as a man to do that, Brady replied "Well that's not difficult."[23] Sullivan later commented that he agreed to the deal because such a young, female director would attract publicity to the club and also because Brady was a "sacker".[24] Brady was 23 when she started work as managing director of Birmingham City F.C. in March 1993.
Of course is there are unanswered/unresolved issues (which the old unproven allegations are) modern safeguarding practices would mean that his contact with the youth/women's team should be stopped. Quite right.
But to take that safeguarding measure as some kind of additional evidence (beyond what has already been put in the public domain) is just illogical, imo.
We have an owner who we now know (we didn't have this information before) who is banned from contact with parts of the company he owns. How can this be anything other than an untenable position?
---
In those years he has not been bothered to challenge the ban. fify
Saying he hasn't been able to refute ... implies he tried but was unsuccessful. Which leads to the inference that he's guilty of something heinous. I see too much of the current reporting using this technique. I think he's sleazy, I'm not defending him.
But there's so much tabloid-isation of the media and it's pernicious.
And it is used to further far more harmful agendas than just influencing opinions about a bloke who owns a football club.
They don't care about going into the kitchen/baling shed/classroom/typing pool (showing my age there)/building site...
The inference that he is guilty of something heinous is that for 3 years he has been banned from contact with the womens and youth teams and as this is still in place has just accepted that that's okay.
Not sure about others but if I was accused of something which had me banned from contact women and children within the company I owned and I knew I was innocent, I'd be doing whatever I could to prove the accusations false and have the ban removed asap.
The champion of women, hmmmmm
For example, the 'sleazy' tag. Some attach that to him because of the nature of the business he was involved in - he sold a product. But people bought it - are they sleazy too? People helped him make the product (including the photographic models) - are they sleazy too?
Is there a financial threshold - almost all the media coverage I've seen harps on about 'billionaire'.
My own view is that there's a prurient, moralistic, faux-outrage, hypocritical, click-bait bandwagon that is being jumped on.
So what power did he have? To give them work/a job. True.
But it's not like he had the power to stop them getting other work if they didn't go along with his wishes. Is that really 'power'? It's not the same as someone who has the power to take away a job you already have.
Within a broader conversation it really is about incentivisation and most things are incentivised. Employment itself is incentivised through salary. So human beings incentivise other human beings to do things for them, the question is when does it become abusive, criminal etc. Returning to the above I have no doubt that the 16 year old girls were not forced but considered it a reasonable exchange for exposure they may have hoped would lead to a career. But the person incentivising them to do that is sleazy in my book.