Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

Managerial vacancy here in Seattle. COME TO THE EMERALD CITY SAM

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Prufrock wrote:Bigger issue. It's football ffs.

There's no rule breaking involved. He's told them how it works and told them to run it past the FA. As for the transcript, what do you think will be on there. I'm willing to bet nothing interesting our they'd have published it. The stuff they are holding back it's other people so they can get another "public service" scoop.

And he's been sacked. "Offering to resign" is negotiating about pay offs.

He said he'd have to run his 'keynote speech' appearances past the FA, the advice he gave about how to structure 3rd party ownership deals (the bit against the rules) was certainly not something he offered to run past the FA.

Don't let the fact it is Allardyce blind you. He greedily chased the cash. He has been caught offering advice on breaking his employers rules.

The FA may be c*nts, but they had very little choice here. If all he had done was offer to do some talks for money, that might be ok. But it isn't. And the FA couldn't ignore that. Even though I wish they could.

Rubbish. Have you actually seen the (heavily edited) footage? He talks about the reality of international transfer dealings, and is absolutely clear that bungs are out of the question. No rule breaking. Unlike West Ham with Tevez - and just ask Sheffield United fans about how well justice was served in that case.

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Prufrock wrote:Bigger issue. It's football ffs.

There's no rule breaking involved. He's told them how it works and told them to run it past the FA. As for the transcript, what do you think will be on there. I'm willing to bet nothing interesting our they'd have published it. The stuff they are holding back it's other people so they can get another "public service" scoop.

And he's been sacked. "Offering to resign" is negotiating about pay offs.

He said he'd have to run his 'keynote speech' appearances past the FA, the advice he gave about how to structure 3rd party ownership deals (the bit against the rules) was certainly not something he offered to run past the FA.

Don't let the fact it is Allardyce blind you. He greedily chased the cash. He has been caught offering advice on breaking his employers rules.

The FA may be c*nts, but they had very little choice here. If all he had done was offer to do some talks for money, that might be ok. But it isn't. And the FA couldn't ignore that. Even though I wish they could.

I don't accept the premise. You just repeating "they had no choice" doesn't convince. They had a choice: don't sack him. He didn't break any rules. I couldn't give a feck about how it looks. No wrongdoing is no wrongdoing. It's cowards in suits worried about how it will look at the golf club. And now we get Gareth Southgate, who's a nice boy, to be fair. Losers.

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Prufrock wrote:Bigger issue. It's football ffs.

There's no rule breaking involved. He's told them how it works and told them to run it past the FA. As for the transcript, what do you think will be on there. I'm willing to bet nothing interesting our they'd have published it. The stuff they are holding back it's other people so they can get another "public service" scoop.

And he's been sacked. "Offering to resign" is negotiating about pay offs.

He said he'd have to run his 'keynote speech' appearances past the FA, the advice he gave about how to structure 3rd party ownership deals (the bit against the rules) was certainly not something he offered to run past the FA.

Don't let the fact it is Allardyce blind you. He greedily chased the cash. He has been caught offering advice on breaking his employers rules.

The FA may be c*nts, but they had very little choice here. If all he had done was offer to do some talks for money, that might be ok. But it isn't. And the FA couldn't ignore that. Even though I wish they could.

Rubbish. Have you actually seen the (heavily edited) footage? He talks about the reality of international transfer dealings, and is absolutely clear that bungs are out of the question. No rule breaking. Unlike West Ham with Tevez - and just ask Sheffield United fans about how well justice was served in that case.

He tells them how to structure a third party deal. Did you miss that bit? And tells them which agents do those deals.

FA banned third party deals in 2008.

He's advising them how to break FA rules.

BWFC_Insane wrote:

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Prufrock wrote:Bigger issue. It's football ffs.

There's no rule breaking involved. He's told them how it works and told them to run it past the FA. As for the transcript, what do you think will be on there. I'm willing to bet nothing interesting our they'd have published it. The stuff they are holding back it's other people so they can get another "public service" scoop.

And he's been sacked. "Offering to resign" is negotiating about pay offs.

He said he'd have to run his 'keynote speech' appearances past the FA, the advice he gave about how to structure 3rd party ownership deals (the bit against the rules) was certainly not something he offered to run past the FA.

Don't let the fact it is Allardyce blind you. He greedily chased the cash. He has been caught offering advice on breaking his employers rules.

The FA may be c*nts, but they had very little choice here. If all he had done was offer to do some talks for money, that might be ok. But it isn't. And the FA couldn't ignore that. Even though I wish they could.

Rubbish. Have you actually seen the (heavily edited) footage? He talks about the reality of international transfer dealings, and is absolutely clear that bungs are out of the question. No rule breaking. Unlike West Ham with Tevez - and just ask Sheffield United fans about how well justice was served in that case.

He tells them how to structure a third party deal. Did you miss that bit? And tells them which agents do those deals.

FA banned third party deals in 2008.

He's advising them how to break FA rules.

No, he's telling them what the reality of international transfer dealing is, and outlining what alternatives there are to the banned system. All via some heavily spliced footage, with gaps so big you could drive a bus through them - it reminds me of an old Smith and Jones sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOy_oP3ESQY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just realised that the Telegraph actually employ Harry Redknapp as a columnist! Thought he told the court he couldn't read or write....

3 of the pundits on SSN have said their preferred choice for replacing Sam was Glenn Hoddle

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Prufrock wrote:Bigger issue. It's football ffs.

There's no rule breaking involved. He's told them how it works and told them to run it past the FA. As for the transcript, what do you think will be on there. I'm willing to bet nothing interesting our they'd have published it. The stuff they are holding back it's other people so they can get another "public service" scoop.

And he's been sacked. "Offering to resign" is negotiating about pay offs.

He said he'd have to run his 'keynote speech' appearances past the FA, the advice he gave about how to structure 3rd party ownership deals (the bit against the rules) was certainly not something he offered to run past the FA.

Don't let the fact it is Allardyce blind you. He greedily chased the cash. He has been caught offering advice on breaking his employers rules.

The FA may be c*nts, but they had very little choice here. If all he had done was offer to do some talks for money, that might be ok. But it isn't. And the FA couldn't ignore that. Even though I wish they could.

Rubbish. Have you actually seen the (heavily edited) footage? He talks about the reality of international transfer dealings, and is absolutely clear that bungs are out of the question. No rule breaking. Unlike West Ham with Tevez - and just ask Sheffield United fans about how well justice was served in that case.

He tells them how to structure a third party deal. Did you miss that bit? And tells them which agents do those deals.

FA banned third party deals in 2008.

He's advising them how to break FA rules.

No, he's telling them what the reality of international transfer dealing is, and outlining what alternatives there are to the banned system. All via some heavily spliced footage, with gaps so big you could drive a bus through them - it reminds me of an old Smith and Jones sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOy_oP3ESQY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No he's not. He's saying there are ways to bend the rules.

He's a representative of the FA whilst doing that.

Bottom line is he's represented himself in a way his employer was bound to be unhappy with. He didn't say 'you can't do that' about 3rd party representation. He didn't act how the FA would have wished. And just like any other job if you do that you probably lose it.

BWFC_Insane wrote:

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

midlands exile wrote:
Rubbish. Have you actually seen the (heavily edited) footage? He talks about the reality of international transfer dealings, and is absolutely clear that bungs are out of the question. No rule breaking. Unlike West Ham with Tevez - and just ask Sheffield United fans about how well justice was served in that case.

He tells them how to structure a third party deal. Did you miss that bit? And tells them which agents do those deals.

FA banned third party deals in 2008.

He's advising them how to break FA rules.

No, he's telling them what the reality of international transfer dealing is, and outlining what alternatives there are to the banned system. All via some heavily spliced footage, with gaps so big you could drive a bus through them - it reminds me of an old Smith and Jones sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOy_oP3ESQY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No he's not. He's saying there are ways to bend the rules.

He's a representative of the FA whilst doing that.

Bottom line is he's represented himself in a way his employer was bound to be unhappy with. He didn't say 'you can't do that' about 3rd party representation. He didn't act how the FA would have wished. And just like any other job if you do that you probably lose it.

Hang on. You were clear he was advising them on "breaking the rules" a minute ago. Now you've downgraded to "he's saying there are ways to bend the rules". Maybe by morning you will be saying something like "he's describing a financially attractive recruitment arrangement that is not unlawful".

Bottom line is he rather naively shared some honest opinions to a journalist who went in there with one single agenda. I'm sure all of us have shared some candid comments that our employers wouldn't approve of at some point in our careers. The big difference is if someone covertly recorded you talking about it, and then shared it with intention of ruining your career, they would be the ones ending up in court.

I think it's naive to suggest Big Sam has been squeaky clean throughout his career, but this is nothing more than pub talk packaged as corruption.

It's been reported in a way that people who take a casual glance see a grainy camera, '400k deal' and vague talk of rule breaking and assume something much worse has gone on than actually has.

Not all rules are equal. If he'd been discussing match-fixing he wouldn't have lasted til lunchtime, but these third party rules get bypassed all the time to zero column inches or outrage. Now, because it suits, they're being held up as a moral conerstone of the sport.

But there you go. Gareth Southgate will win these next four games, and the FA will get the manager they deserve.

Listening to Sam explaining how many millions can be made via agents and 3rd party deals "for just a couple of hours work" was enough to nearly make me puke. No sympathy for him the stupid greedy ba5tard

fecking depressing night of football.

He's been stupid. Big head, talking billy big bollocks, and wow. But, our gutter press (no offence dsb ) running a sting on our own manager? What c#nts. Henry fecking winter (times i know) can do one.

As an aside - Saw a tweet from a journo type - Alan Greem been loving it on the radio - apparantley allardyce rang up the bbc to sack him when at our gaff? True story?

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

midlands exile wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

midlands exile wrote:
Rubbish. Have you actually seen the (heavily edited) footage? He talks about the reality of international transfer dealings, and is absolutely clear that bungs are out of the question. No rule breaking. Unlike West Ham with Tevez - and just ask Sheffield United fans about how well justice was served in that case.

He tells them how to structure a third party deal. Did you miss that bit? And tells them which agents do those deals.

FA banned third party deals in 2008.

He's advising them how to break FA rules.

No, he's telling them what the reality of international transfer dealing is, and outlining what alternatives there are to the banned system. All via some heavily spliced footage, with gaps so big you could drive a bus through them - it reminds me of an old Smith and Jones sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOy_oP3ESQY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No he's not. He's saying there are ways to bend the rules.

He's a representative of the FA whilst doing that.

Bottom line is he's represented himself in a way his employer was bound to be unhappy with. He didn't say 'you can't do that' about 3rd party representation. He didn't act how the FA would have wished. And just like any other job if you do that you probably lose it.

Hang on. You were clear he was advising them on "breaking the rules" a minute ago. Now you've downgraded to "he's saying there are ways to bend the rules". Maybe by morning you will be saying something like "he's describing a financially attractive recruitment arrangement that is not unlawful".

Bottom line is he rather naively shared some honest opinions to a journalist who went in there with one single agenda. I'm sure all of us have shared some candid comments that our employers wouldn't approve of at some point in our careers. The big difference is if someone covertly recorded you talking about it, and then shared it with intention of ruining your career, they would be the ones ending up in court.

I think you don't get it. Whether he's talking about breaking rules, bending rules or simply manipulating then it amounts to the same thing. It may happen and there may be 'technicalities' that allow it to happen, there may not be, but it is the England manager telling people who he believes want to pay him, how to, bend, get around the rules, break, (I dont care) of his employer.

It would be like the chancellor being caught on camera giving a lecture on tax avoidance or evasion or (whatever).

Simply he shouldn't have done it and you know any employer would have done the same in those circumstances.

Lord Kangana wrote:

midlands exile wrote:Pathetic entrapment, FA wrong to get rid. Bitter London media couldn't wait to torpedo things. And who would they have instead? Harry "Rosie" Redknapp!

A story of much greater public interest would be the tax arrangements of the Daily Telegraph's owners, the Barclay brothers.

Everyone seems to have missed the only post of any value on this thread.

If Sam was, for example, HSBC, The Telegraph would have suppressed the damning evidence for the sake of advertising revenue. No better than a Murdoch paper these days. Shitrag.

This, to be fair.


Gutted for him. Goes without saying, he'll be feeling pretty down atm.

He's been an exceptionally silly boy (probably finished in English football too) but f*ck those gutter-merchants who stitched him up. Let's seem them do some journalism on their own doorstep...

Tombwfc wrote:I think it's naive to suggest Big Sam has been squeaky clean throughout his career, but this is nothing more than pub talk packaged as corruption.

It's been reported in a way that people who take a casual glance see a grainy camera, '400k deal' and vague talk of rule breaking and assume something much worse has gone on than actually has.

Not all rules are equal. If he'd been discussing match-fixing he wouldn't have lasted til lunchtime, but these third party rules get bypassed all the time to zero column inches or outrage. Now, because it suits, they're being held up as a moral conerstone of the sport.

But there you go. Gareth Southgate will win these next four games, and the FA will get the manager they deserve.

Yup. There's a leading question about "getting around things", he then mentions two agents whose names are "protected for legal reasons" (which shows you the strength of their case) and then describes how he signed a player who had been 3rd party owned somewhere it was legal, bought outright in the UK with a % sell on to make sure the ex -3rd party got an eventual cut to compensate. That's not a "tax avoidance" scam, that's just working with the new rules. There's nothing in that that goes against the purpose of the rules. To use this hackneyed HMRC analogy, it's like catching the head of HMRC telling people how to use ISAs.

Saw an interview with the head of the FA who seemed more annoyed by the speaking tour.

BWFC_Insane wrote: I think you don't get it. Whether he's talking about breaking rules, bending rules or simply manipulating then it amounts to the same thing. It may happen and there may be 'technicalities' that allow it to happen, there may not be, but it is the England manager telling people who he believes want to pay him, how to, bend, get around the rules, break, (I dont care) of his employer.

It would be like the chancellor being caught on camera giving a lecture on tax avoidance or evasion or (whatever).

Simply he shouldn't have done it and you know any employer would have done the same in those circumstances.

One person in this conversation doesn't get it. Just read your second sentence again - it is nonsense!

Should he have met with the journos? Depends on the story they gave him, according to Sky Sports they were a bit more than persistent when trying it on with other big name managers.

Should he have said what he said. Not really, but then again, I don't see it as a showstopper anyway.

Should he have been forced out of his job? Never in a million years.

1. Shouldn't have lost his job because the FA think they are the moral custodians of everything.
2. no sympathy for the greedy c*nt

CrazyHorse wrote:100% record, making him England's most successful manager ever.

A record that can never been surpassed and likely won't be tied.

Prufrock wrote:

Tombwfc wrote:I think it's naive to suggest Big Sam has been squeaky clean throughout his career, but this is nothing more than pub talk packaged as corruption.

It's been reported in a way that people who take a casual glance see a grainy camera, '400k deal' and vague talk of rule breaking and assume something much worse has gone on than actually has.

Not all rules are equal. If he'd been discussing match-fixing he wouldn't have lasted til lunchtime, but these third party rules get bypassed all the time to zero column inches or outrage. Now, because it suits, they're being held up as a moral conerstone of the sport.

But there you go. Gareth Southgate will win these next four games, and the FA will get the manager they deserve.

Yup. There's a leading question about "getting around things", he then mentions two agents whose names are "protected for legal reasons" (which shows you the strength of their case) and then describes how he signed a player who had been 3rd party owned somewhere it was legal, bought outright in the UK with a % sell on to make sure the ex -3rd party got an eventual cut to compensate. That's not a "tax avoidance" scam, that's just working with the new rules. There's nothing in that that goes against the purpose of the rules. To use this hackneyed HMRC analogy, it's like catching the head of HMRC telling people how to use ISAs.

Saw an interview with the head of the FA who seemed more annoyed by the speaking tour.

No it isn't. Would Sam have said what he did were there someone from the FA in the room with him? Of course he wouldn't.

Whereas someone from HMRC could happily tell their mate down the pub how to use an ISA even if their boss was in the room with them.

LeverEnd wrote:1. Shouldn't have lost his job because the FA think they are the moral custodians of everything.
2. no sympathy for the greedy c*nt

This, but whilst I wouldn't dismiss the greed part, I think this is more about his ego and his need to be Mr Billy Big Bollocks.