Re: Allardyces dream job...
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:34 pm
Course he is. Unforunately I work with plenty of moneygrabbing cnuts as well and some of them are even good at their jobs.
The Wanderer, A Bolton Wanderers (BWFC) Forum. This message board is part of the main site.
https://the-wanderer.co.uk/
What on earth are you talking about?BWFC_Insane wrote:Nah, they are a organisation that comes under public and parliamentary pressure when the shit hits the fan. They are run by shits, but doesn't take away from the fact they had very little choice. Had they stood by him the storm would be unrelenting. Also their whole push for integrity in the sport would be ridiculed to high heaven.Prufrock wrote:Of course they had a choice. They'll answer some questions before the select committee. Oh no. That's happened because of the size of the media storm. Utterly irrelevant as to the underlying issues. Sure, it was easier to sack him, but doesn't mean they had to. They picked the easy option. Because they're cowards.BWFC_Insane wrote:And there are still people who will say the FA had a choice....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... l-for-sal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They had no choice in the real world.
In an imaginary one where people can pretend the FA can ignore the media, parliament and their own charter then yes, perhaps they had a choice....
Most likely. It's his connections with Bolton, nothing more, both as player and manager that make anybody care any more than if it were ( fit any of several names here). Sam Allardyce probably wouldn't give me or you) the time of day and I have no desire to be his house guest or even meet him. It's still disappointing that, particularly when the shxt-flinging starts, people remember him as Bolton's ex-manager rather than just another player in the big money league.lovethesmellofnapalm wrote:Sam Allardyce was/is a moneygrabbing cnut. If he had not managed BWFC everyone on here would be calling him as such
It's certainly crossed my mind, Tango, that it's members of the fourth estate - a body of people including members who were recently hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl, doing the mudslinging here.TANGODANCER wrote:Wonder just how many of those throwing the stones are actually without sin? Ver few, I would imagine.....
1) Why are you giving examples of individuals who run organisations without the public funding the FA receives? And therefore aren't publically accountable in the same way, so do not experience the same pressure? Were Sam at a CLUB I don't think he'd have been sacked because a football club doesn't come under the same pressure as an FA that receives large amounts of public funding and is not generally viewed as a publically accountable organisation, certainly not in the wider sensePrufrock wrote:What on earth are you talking about?BWFC_Insane wrote:Nah, they are a organisation that comes under public and parliamentary pressure when the shit hits the fan. They are run by shits, but doesn't take away from the fact they had very little choice. Had they stood by him the storm would be unrelenting. Also their whole push for integrity in the sport would be ridiculed to high heaven.Prufrock wrote:Of course they had a choice. They'll answer some questions before the select committee. Oh no. That's happened because of the size of the media storm. Utterly irrelevant as to the underlying issues. Sure, it was easier to sack him, but doesn't mean they had to. They picked the easy option. Because they're cowards.BWFC_Insane wrote:And there are still people who will say the FA had a choice....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... l-for-sal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They had no choice in the real world.
In an imaginary one where people can pretend the FA can ignore the media, parliament and their own charter then yes, perhaps they had a choice....
1) Parliamentary pressure. Mike Ashley and Philip Green have been before one (sod all happened) it's the nature of a witch hunt. Parliamentary pressure? Behave.
2) nothing you have said goes towards what he actually said or did. Your point seems to be that, by the very fact there was a media fuss, regardless of the rights and wrongs, they had to sack him. Pure cowardice.
To be fair, when I was a nipper Big Sam used to help out with managing my Sunday League team (by virtue of his Son, Craig, also playing for them).TANGODANCER wrote:Most likely. It's his connections with Bolton, nothing more, both as player and manager that make anybody care any more than if it were ( fit any of several names here). Sam Allardyce probably wouldn't give me or you) the time of day and I have no desire to be his house guest or even meet him. It's still disappointing that, particularly when the shxt-flinging starts, people remember him as Bolton's ex-manager rather than just another player in the big money league.lovethesmellofnapalm wrote:Sam Allardyce was/is a moneygrabbing cnut. If he had not managed BWFC everyone on here would be calling him as such
1) because you presented the FA being called before a select committee as an example of the unbearable public positron the FA finds itself in. Well, no. They follow the news. And, as you point out, often question people who run organisations nothing to do with them. That a select committee is looking into this is utterly irrelevant unless you think media pressure in and of itself means he should be sacked. Which is pure cowardice.BWFC_Insane wrote:1) Why are you giving examples of individuals who run organisations without the public funding the FA receives? And therefore aren't publically accountable in the same way, so do not experience the same pressure? Were Sam at a CLUB I don't think he'd have been sacked because a football club doesn't come under the same pressure as an FA that receives large amounts of public funding and is not generally viewed as a publically accountable organisation, certainly not in the wider sensePrufrock wrote:What on earth are you talking about?BWFC_Insane wrote:Nah, they are a organisation that comes under public and parliamentary pressure when the shit hits the fan. They are run by shits, but doesn't take away from the fact they had very little choice. Had they stood by him the storm would be unrelenting. Also their whole push for integrity in the sport would be ridiculed to high heaven.Prufrock wrote:Of course they had a choice. They'll answer some questions before the select committee. Oh no. That's happened because of the size of the media storm. Utterly irrelevant as to the underlying issues. Sure, it was easier to sack him, but doesn't mean they had to. They picked the easy option. Because they're cowards.BWFC_Insane wrote:And there are still people who will say the FA had a choice....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... l-for-sal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They had no choice in the real world.
In an imaginary one where people can pretend the FA can ignore the media, parliament and their own charter then yes, perhaps they had a choice....
1) Parliamentary pressure. Mike Ashley and Philip Green have been before one (sod all happened) it's the nature of a witch hunt. Parliamentary pressure? Behave.
2) nothing you have said goes towards what he actually said or did. Your point seems to be that, by the very fact there was a media fuss, regardless of the rights and wrongs, they had to sack him. Pure cowardice.
2) And as I keep saying he worked for an organisation that is publically accountable and said things that embarrassed said organisation along with openly sharing information regarding the bending of that organisation's own rules. Additionally had the FA kept him, they'd have been breaking one of the major points within their own charter on conduct and behaviour that they expect clubs to sign up to.
The FA doesn't have anything LIKE the luxury of free decision making you think it does.
Lovely climate??? It's always bloody raining in Seattle, H.P. Raining hard too.H. Pedersen wrote:Mr. Allardyce, if you're reading this, let me tell you about the lovely mild climate and fine restaurants Seattle has to offer . . .
Ah, but where your argument falls down, Prufrock, is you didn't type any words in CAPITAL letters. That always carries gravitas.Prufrock wrote:1) because you presented the FA being called before a select committee as an example of the unbearable public positron the FA finds itself in. Well, no. They follow the news. And, as you point out, often question people who run organisations nothing to do with them. That a select committee is looking into this is utterly irrelevant unless you think media pressure in and of itself means he should be sacked. Which is pure cowardice.BWFC_Insane wrote:1) Why are you giving examples of individuals who run organisations without the public funding the FA receives? And therefore aren't publically accountable in the same way, so do not experience the same pressure? Were Sam at a CLUB I don't think he'd have been sacked because a football club doesn't come under the same pressure as an FA that receives large amounts of public funding and is not generally viewed as a publically accountable organisation, certainly not in the wider sensePrufrock wrote:What on earth are you talking about?
1) Parliamentary pressure. Mike Ashley and Philip Green have been before one (sod all happened) it's the nature of a witch hunt. Parliamentary pressure? Behave.
2) nothing you have said goes towards what he actually said or did. Your point seems to be that, by the very fact there was a media fuss, regardless of the rights and wrongs, they had to sack him. Pure cowardice.
2) And as I keep saying he worked for an organisation that is publically accountable and said things that embarrassed said organisation along with openly sharing information regarding the bending of that organisation's own rules. Additionally had the FA kept him, they'd have been breaking one of the major points within their own charter on conduct and behaviour that they expect clubs to sign up to.
The FA doesn't have anything LIKE the luxury of free decision making you think it does.
2) absolute waffle. That's just platitudes. I've explained on more than one occasion how what he said is fine. You've got nothing. This isn't tax avoidance. It isn't technically legal but morally suspect. The point of those rules was to prevent third party ownership. What he was talking about was buying players outright (literally the aim of the rules) and including various sell on clauses which fallen all the time and are perfectly legal. The only thing that makes this a scandal is the press banging on about "getting around" rules. A leading phrase introduced by the journalist and which didn't actually describe what happened.
Sam will always 'get a job done' and actually Tango I would love to spend an evening and a pint with him chewing things over (as long as he was paying ).TANGODANCER wrote:See Allardyce has signed his oppo, Sammy Lee as Sam's little helper...
A pint of wine?Hoboh wrote:Sam will always 'get a job done' and actually Tango I would love to spend an evening and a pint with him chewing things over (as long as he was paying ).TANGODANCER wrote:See Allardyce has signed his oppo, Sammy Lee as Sam's little helper...
Not knocking him Hobes, just passing on info....Hoboh wrote:Sam will always 'get a job done' and actually Tango I would love to spend an evening and a pint with him chewing things over (as long as he was paying ).TANGODANCER wrote:See Allardyce has signed his oppo, Sammy Lee as Sam's little helper...