Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

Even Sam himself has said he made a 'huge misjudgement'.

Papers reporting he walked yesterday with no pay off.

BWFC_Insane wrote:Even Sam himself has said he made a 'huge misjudgement'.

Papers reporting he walked yesterday with no pay off.

Good job he's got that £400k speaking gig to fall back on!

Bottom line, it just shows how the once noble sport of football has become a snake pit of financial corruption ruled by greed and personal gain. Foreign investment, dodgy agents, investors prepared to buy football clubs to keep their personal fortunes away from the tax man..etc, etc. Sam has not been very clever about guarding himself and his job from the media vipers who make a living from raking (and making) up shit. It all stinks.

They reckon they have 7 managers (5 Prem and 2 Championship) and 1 Prem Assistant Manager too.

They're only releasing the details of the assistant manager (apparently he may even be a 'former' assistant). So they're saying they're doing this for the sake of football and for transparency. But yet have only named the 1 bloke, who according to reports, was the LEAST guilty of all of them

It was a witch hunt and the Telegraph are either bullshitting about the others, or face a huge legal battle, because what they've said about the others, will become a matter for the police

boltonboris wrote:They reckon they have 7 managers (5 Prem and 2 Championship) and 1 Prem Assistant Manager too.

They're only releasing the details of the assistant manager (apparently he may even be a 'former' assistant). So they're saying they're doing this for the sake of football and for transparency. But yet have only named the 1 bloke, who according to reports, was the LEAST guilty of all of them

The other 8 are alleged by agents. That is the difference.

They had Allardyce on film. The other 8 are only allegations so they won't publish names.

In the court of human justice (no such thing, but the premise is what our society's based on) had the police laid such a scam in place to bring somebody to justice it would be called entrapment and inadmissable as evidence. Seems the media suffer no such restrictions or rules.

a PINT. of wine

I love him

Most intelligent article I have seen on this matter:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-f ... 83590d9cfa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It doesn't take much common sense to know that as a senior highly paid representative of an organisation, if you start openly criticising that organisation and explaining how to "circumvent" its rules and you get caught, you're for the sack.

Sam knew it, which is why he walked yesterday.

I'd be fascinated to know if those who think the FA could, conceivably have kept Sam, feel they should have kept Hoddle?

When you are a public figure you have to be squeaky clean. That is the world we live in. One may hate the media, I do, but again, we can't get rid of the press, they exist and they weren't going to let this go. Again, the FA can only live in this world, not an imaginary one that we'd all like to. They cannot make the headlines stop, the pressure stop, nor can they be allowed to be seen as endorsing the messages Sam was giving out.

Of course what the Telegraph did was absolutely shitty. And yes it may be thrown out in a legal sense, but an employer in any other circumstance would use it against their employee. People are sacked (and many agree on here) in public life, for far less than Sam Allardyce was. I said when he got the job he'd have to be squeaky clean, even an idiot knew that. Sam knew that. He fecked up.

midlands exile wrote:Most intelligent article I have seen on this matter:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-f ... 83590d9cfa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A piece by our very own DSB

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/allard ... 24044.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BWFC_Insane wrote: When you are a public figure you have to be squeaky clean.

Shame our politicians aren't held to these squeaky clean standards and forced to resign from Parliament.

BWFC_Insane wrote:It doesn't take much common sense to know that as a senior highly paid representative of an organisation, if you start openly criticising that organisation and explaining how to "circumvent" its rules and you get caught, you're for the sack.

Sam knew it, which is why he walked yesterday.

I'd be fascinated to know if those who think the FA could, conceivably have kept Sam, feel they should have kept Hoddle?

When you are a public figure you have to be squeaky clean. That is the world we live in. One may hate the media, I do, but again, we can't get rid of the press, they exist and they weren't going to let this go. Again, the FA can only live in this world, not an imaginary one that we'd all like to. They cannot make the headlines stop, the pressure stop, nor can they be allowed to be seen as endorsing the messages Sam was giving out.

Of course what the Telegraph did was absolutely shitty. And yes it may be thrown out in a legal sense, but an employer in any other circumstance would use it against their employee. People are sacked (and many agree on here) in public life, for far less than Sam Allardyce was. I said when he got the job he'd have to be squeaky clean, even an idiot knew that. Sam knew that. He fecked up.

Hoddle stated his religious beliefs, which most people may disagree with, but the last time I looked we have freedom of religious beliefs in this country. Do you think that Buddhists should be banned from public life due to their views on karma and reincarnation?

Lord Ashley, the veteran disabled rights campaigner, said the following re: Hoddle, which basically could be copied and pasted into any of today's news stories:

• He was offended by the remarks but the manager was entitled to his opinions.
  An aggressive media, a weak Football Association and his own lack of judgment have finished the manager.
  A sad day for British tolerance and freedom of speech.
  The protests about the remarks amounted to a witch hunt .

Did you read the Matthew Syed article? Or did you just keep repeating the same flawed argument as before?

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:

midlands exile wrote:Most intelligent article I have seen on this matter:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-f ... 83590d9cfa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A piece by our very own DSB

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/allard ... 24044.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hadn't seen that, cheers for the pointer!

TANGODANCER wrote:Bottom line, it just shows how the once noble sport of football has become a snake pit of financial corruption ruled by greed and personal gain. Foreign investment, dodgy agents, investors prepared to buy football clubs to keep their personal fortunes away from the tax man..etc, etc. Sam has not been very clever about guarding himself and his job from the media vipers who make a living from raking (and making) up shit. It all stinks.

It's been like that since the minimum wage was abolished because chairmen were deliberately losing snooker games to their star players and the winnings amounted to way more than their wages!
It does stink, from the very top (FIFA) to non-league. Sometimes think the only honesty is the 22 beer-bellied fatties slugging it out on a Sunday morning pitch; how do we KNOW that the £25 we pay to watch football is bringing us an honest game? I don't mean fixed, just players giving it everything they've got for their shirt/badge/Bentley?
Think that's why I don't go to live football much. Even at Middlebrook (refuse to use the corporate names) the ground is just "sell, sell, sell" not "now you've paid your wad we'll give you something back".
Rant over.

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:It doesn't take much common sense to know that as a senior highly paid representative of an organisation, if you start openly criticising that organisation and explaining how to "circumvent" its rules and you get caught, you're for the sack.

Sam knew it, which is why he walked yesterday.

I'd be fascinated to know if those who think the FA could, conceivably have kept Sam, feel they should have kept Hoddle?

When you are a public figure you have to be squeaky clean. That is the world we live in. One may hate the media, I do, but again, we can't get rid of the press, they exist and they weren't going to let this go. Again, the FA can only live in this world, not an imaginary one that we'd all like to. They cannot make the headlines stop, the pressure stop, nor can they be allowed to be seen as endorsing the messages Sam was giving out.

Of course what the Telegraph did was absolutely shitty. And yes it may be thrown out in a legal sense, but an employer in any other circumstance would use it against their employee. People are sacked (and many agree on here) in public life, for far less than Sam Allardyce was. I said when he got the job he'd have to be squeaky clean, even an idiot knew that. Sam knew that. He fecked up.

Hoddle stated his religious beliefs, which most people may disagree with, but the last time I looked we have freedom of religious beliefs in this country. Do you think that Buddhists should be banned from public life due to their views on karma and reincarnation?

Lord Ashley, the veteran disabled rights campaigner, said the following re: Hoddle, which basically could be copied and pasted into any of today's news stories:

• He was offended by the remarks but the manager was entitled to his opinions.
  An aggressive media, a weak Football Association and his own lack of judgment have finished the manager.
  A sad day for British tolerance and freedom of speech.
  The protests about the remarks amounted to a witch hunt .

Did you read the Matthew Syed article? Or did you just keep repeating the same flawed argument as before?

I read it, but it didn't offer anything, beyond "he only did what lots of others do". Yes, lots of others who aren't England manager.

There are many, many more articles explaining why he had to go. Even from people who backed him for the job.

The FA couldn't be seen to "brush it under the carpet". When they sat with Sam and the full transcript was provided they decided there wasn't a choice. Sam in fact, seems to have come to that conclusion and walked, reportedly without payoff. Does that not tell you that, even Sam himself, knew it?

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote: When you are a public figure you have to be squeaky clean.

Shame our politicians aren't held to these squeaky clean standards and forced to resign from Parliament.

I agree. It stinks. MP's will always call for the sacking of public figures who have done wrong, but then suddenly don't like those rules turned round on them.

boltonboris wrote:a PINT. of wine

I love him

Anyone?

Bruce Rioja wrote:

boltonboris wrote:a PINT. of wine

I love him

Anyone?

On the table in front of him, was a pint of wine - Paddy Power saw it too and knocked this up

He hasn't told anyone how to "circumvent" the rules. The rules were brought in to ban 3rd party ownership because there were situations were players weren't actually owned by their clubs and also where players didn't control where they went (the slavery point). All Allardyce explains how to "get around" is the prevention on signing those players by signing them outright (the point of these rules) and by certain future clauses on the next transfer. Not against the rules, and not against the spirit of the rules. He's talking about how to get a fair advantage.