Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

BWFC_Insane wrote:

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?

Prufrock wrote: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.

boltonboris wrote:

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

Bruce Rioja wrote:Can't see it at work Bozz. I'm just wondering why anyone would draw attention to someone drinking a pint of wine - as though it's out of the ordinary, or summat.

TANGODANCER wrote:Still finding all this hard to believe. Either Sam's been given an ultimatum for his silliness or he's been well and truly set up, witch hunted and made a victim of a situation that shouldn't even exist in sport. Why is he not kicking and screaming in his usual fashion and just tamely giving up his dream job? Doesn't ring right at all............

BWFC_Insane wrote:

TANGODANCER wrote:Still finding all this hard to believe. Either Sam's been given an ultimatum for his silliness or he's been well and truly set up, witch hunted and made a victim of a situation that shouldn't even exist in sport. Why is he not kicking and screaming in his usual fashion and just tamely giving up his dream job? Doesn't ring right at all............

Cos he knows there isn't a way out? Even if he believes he's done nothing wrong, public opinion is against him and he's embarrassed his employers publically.

Of course he's been set up, but he took the bait. He didn't have to. Greedy fish are more likely to take the bait I guess.

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

TANGODANCER wrote:Still finding all this hard to believe. Either Sam's been given an ultimatum for his silliness or he's been well and truly set up, witch hunted and made a victim of a situation that shouldn't even exist in sport. Why is he not kicking and screaming in his usual fashion and just tamely giving up his dream job? Doesn't ring right at all............

Cos he knows there isn't a way out? Even if he believes he's done nothing wrong, public opinion is against him and he's embarrassed his employers publically.

Of course he's been set up, but he took the bait. He didn't have to. Greedy fish are more likely to take the bait I guess.

My employers paid a large sum to get me to retire (can't imagine why ). Part of the deal was that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not talk about the terms and the amount. Perhaps Sam got some similar package and is required to keep quiet. Presumably he had a contract and would have to be bought out.

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

TANGODANCER wrote:Still finding all this hard to believe. Either Sam's been given an ultimatum for his silliness or he's been well and truly set up, witch hunted and made a victim of a situation that shouldn't even exist in sport. Why is he not kicking and screaming in his usual fashion and just tamely giving up his dream job? Doesn't ring right at all............

Cos he knows there isn't a way out? Even if he believes he's done nothing wrong, public opinion is against him and he's embarrassed his employers publically.

Of course he's been set up, but he took the bait. He didn't have to. Greedy fish are more likely to take the bait I guess.

My employers paid a large sum to get me to retire (can't imagine why ). Part of the deal was that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not talk about the terms and the amount. Perhaps Sam got some similar package and is required to keep quiet. Presumably he had a contract and would have to be bought out.

Some reports say he had a pay off others say he walked for nothing.

I mean if he was sacked for breach of contract, he'd not get a pay off. Don't think anyone thinks he had his full contract paid off, whatever happened.

Montreal Wanderer wrote: My employers paid a large sum to get me to retire (can't imagine why ). Part of the deal was that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not talk about the terms and the amount. Perhaps Sam got some similar package and is required to keep quiet. Presumably he had a contract and would have to be bought out.

Bruce Rioja wrote:

Montreal Wanderer wrote: My employers paid a large sum to get me to retire (can't imagine why ). Part of the deal was that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not talk about the terms and the amount. Perhaps Sam got some similar package and is required to keep quiet. Presumably he had a contract and would have to be bought out.

He said that there's an NDA in place in the 'interview' he gave outside his house. Still, there's no stopping the BWFCI opinion-express when it's off at full tilt!

Worthy4England wrote:

Bruce Rioja wrote:

Montreal Wanderer wrote: My employers paid a large sum to get me to retire (can't imagine why ). Part of the deal was that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not talk about the terms and the amount. Perhaps Sam got some similar package and is required to keep quiet. Presumably he had a contract and would have to be bought out.

He said that there's an NDA in place in the 'interview' he gave outside his house. Still, there's no stopping the BWFCI opinion-express when it's off at full tilt!

I guess his ability to keep his trap shut regarding the amount of payoff will be commensurate with the size of said pay-off. He seems to struggle to keep his trap shut about owt else.

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

TANGODANCER wrote:Still finding all this hard to believe. Either Sam's been given an ultimatum for his silliness or he's been well and truly set up, witch hunted and made a victim of a situation that shouldn't even exist in sport. Why is he not kicking and screaming in his usual fashion and just tamely giving up his dream job? Doesn't ring right at all............

Cos he knows there isn't a way out? Even if he believes he's done nothing wrong, public opinion is against him and he's embarrassed his employers publically.

Of course he's been set up, but he took the bait. He didn't have to. Greedy fish are more likely to take the bait I guess.

My employers paid a large sum to get me to retire (can't imagine why ). Part of the deal was that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and could not talk about the terms and the amount. Perhaps Sam got some similar package and is required to keep quiet. Presumably he had a contract and would have to be bought out.

Some reports say he had a pay off others say he walked for nothing.

I mean if he was sacked for breach of contract, he'd not get a pay off. Don't think anyone thinks he had his full contract paid off, whatever happened.

You don't buy out long-term contracts at 100% and I didn't suggest that. Was his offence of such severity as to justify an employer terminating the contract with no severance? I doubt if any court would find that and mutual agreement usually means some sort of quid pro quo to avoid testing matters in court. We don't know the terms of his contract, do we? So how can you assert he was in breach? Naturally he cannot confirm or deny any buyout if he signed a non-disclosure.

“I don’t know whether he has broken any rules or not because the FA disciplinary department will investigate.”

boltonboris wrote:Would the RFU have to go through all this bollocks?