The Hateful/Dodgy Eight

[jexykrodic]

How would it be possible to identify them using those vague descriptions?

You can't.

It's like Allardyce's situation, it's chat and rumour and the age old 2+2=5 scenario. It's powerful because people love to think the worst of others. Speculation's great for newspaper sales and for governing bodies to avoid scrutiny.Unless and until an offence is identified then names shouldn't be uttered.

Allardyce is the fall guy, even though he appears to have done nothing illegal, he's being used in a sting. The implication is - stop what you're doing and shut up and this scrutiny will go away.

I'd be surprised if the FA had the balls to collect information about corruption and present to law.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Rafa? I'd be surprised. Houllier had a dodgy relationship with certain agents, but again I'd be saddened if he'd crossed the line. Of course, the one issue that has been overlooked thus far is just how reliable a witness is Pino Pagliara. My guess is: not very.

Two of the agents also questioned mentioned three of the same names though, which considering they were recorded separately is unlikely to be a coincidence.

Harry Redknapp is fucking nailed on. Pardew has to be there (I'm fairly sure one if his ex players made some vague allegations in the past but cat remember who).

 

[manwithnoname]

You can't.

It's like Allardyce's situation, it's chat and rumour and the age old 2+2=5 scenario. It's powerful because people love to think the worst of others. Speculation's great for newspaper sales and for governing bodies to avoid scrutiny.Unless and until an offence is identified then names shouldn't be uttered.

Allardyce is the fall guy, even though he appears to have done nothing illegal, he's being used in a sting. The implication is - stop what you're doing and shut up and this scrutiny will go away.

I'd be surprised if the FA had the balls to collect information about corruption and present to law.

They don't have to collect anything, the Telegraph have sent all the transcripts to them already. And the police.

 

[Oncy]

Love to see Slur Alex dragged into this and his rep ruined.

I think we can safely assume Kenny is clean; other than him I'm not too bothered if any of our other exes are implicated

Why could we assume that?

 

[Glen C]

I'll be very surprised if Warnock isn't number 8.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Why could we assume that?

They were certainly always rumours, but then there were rumours about every manager in the country taking bungs in the late eighties/early nineties, & Everton taxi drivers love a good rumour about Liverpool managers & players.

 

[Oncy]

I just think we are as likely to be involved as any other club.

 

[leftpeg]

Apropos managers and unnecessary, paid for extra curricular activities, I wonder how much Klopp got for his MNF appearance?

My point being, they're all after whatever they can get...although clearly some have higher moral standards than others.

 

[gkmacca]

As I said before, I wouldn't react strongly at all to those who took bungs back in the era of Clough and others. Just as players really needed the proceeds from testimonials in those days, most managers were paid remarkably poorly compared to what clubs were making, so if they looked to 'top up' their income, I would neither condone nor condemn it.

The managers in the Premier League era whom, I suspect, would have been most susceptible to continuing to embrace that in spite of the huge sums they were now earning legitimately would be those older ones who were stamped with the old culture. So Redknapp, Ginsoak, Allardyce, Joe Kinnear, Jim Smith, George Burley, Venables, Graham, Jim Gregory, Ron Atkinson, Ray Wilkins, Neil Warnock, etc etc. I'd add Avram Grant to the list simply because he's always looked dodgy!

More recently, Ian Holloway was on about £5 a week and a free pie at Blackpool, so the poor sod might have been tempted. Alan Pardew is a full time whopper. Neil Pearson seems close to be named. Stuart Pearce? Wouldn't surprise me. Sven was open to anything.

 

[HC]

I though regarding dalglish, I thought somebody on here spoke of kick backs from the andy Carroll deal and dodginess surrounding the contract offered to Flanagan with some degree of confidence?

 

[jexykrodic]

They don't have to collect anything, the Telegraph have sent all the transcripts to them already. And the police.

I think it may be wise to see if there are any verifiable facts. Unless you view the Press and a transcript of a chat as an unimpeachable source.

 

[manwithnoname]

I think it may be wise to see if there are any verifiable facts. Unless you view the Press and a transcript of a chat as an unimpeachable source.

I'm unsure about what more you expect the FA to do. They're not a fucking detective agency.

The police have all the information they have.

 

[jexykrodic]

I'm unsure about what more you expect the FA to do. They're not a fucking detective agency.

The police have all the information they have.

They don't have information, they have a transcript of a chat.

In the rarified world of the Press I can imagine that a transcript and facts are interchangeable but if there are to be charges then a few facts need to be discovered.

As for the FA, it's there man that's involved, an involvement that is alleged to go back beyond his employment with them.

If I were them I'd be rapidly checking what was done during their due diligence and what was known and when, they may be called if the law is involved. They have an anti-corruption unit, so they a do have a "fucking detective agency".

Here's a quote from the FA:"I am as confident as I can be that the mechanisms are in place that will ensure the game will be as clean as possible"
Darren BaileyFA's head of governance

 

[manwithnoname]

They don't have information, they have a transcript of a chat.

In the rarified world of the Press I can imagine that a transcript and facts are interchangeable but if there are to be charges then a few facts need to be discovered.

As for the FA, it's there man that's involved, an involvement that is alleged to go back beyond his employment with them.

If I were them I'd be rapidly checking what was done during their due diligence and what was known and when, they may be called if the law is involved. They have an anti-corruption unit, so they a do have a "fucking detective agency".

What are you talking about? He hasn't done or admitted to anything illegal. The FA's governance department can "investigate" the other claims, but their stance is clear on the third-party ownership issue - they banned it in 2008.

As for their investigations record, I think you'll struggle to find ONE successful investigation by the FA since George Graham.

Which is largely because all they investigate is what they have been provided with and if somebody doesn't want to cooperate - like Pini Zahavi for instance - he will just go and tell them to fuck off. Because he can. And did.

 

[jexykrodic]

What are you talking about? He hasn't done or admitted to anything illegal. The FA's governance department can "investigate" the other claims, but their stance is clear on the third-party ownership issue - they banned it in 2008.

As for their investigations record, I think you'll struggle to find ONE successful investigation by the FA since George Graham.

Which is largely because all they investigate is what they have been provided with and if somebody doesn't want to cooperate - like Pini Zahavi for instance - he will just go and tell them to fuck off. Because he can. And did.

Not much point having a governance department if they just sit by the phone with a blank pad waiting for someone to tell them there's a problem in their game.

I can write out some rules, doesn't need a governance department to do that. Governance suggests they police the game in all it's aspects. I expect they know a lot more than merely waiting for the Telegraph to send them a transcript. It's the FA that needs scrutiny, more so than some crummy manager trying to get more money.

 

[manwithnoname]

Not much point having a governance department if they just sit by the phone with a blank pad waiting for someone to tell them there's a problem in their game.

I can write out some rules, doesn't need a governance department to do that. Governance suggests they police the game in all it's aspects. I expect they know a lot more than merely waiting for the Telegraph to send them a transcript. It's the FA that needs scrutiny, more so than some crummy manager trying to get more money.

Well, quite. But that's exactly what happens every time there is a problem raised. Be it via the BBC, The Telegraph or whoever.

What are you suggesting? They hire Magnum PI?

Or that the FA actually know all this stuff is going on, and have all kinds of dirt on Allardyce and whoever, but still gave him the England job and simply choose to ignore all the rest?

You can choose both suggestions if you like. They're both stupid.

What seems more likely is that the FA is, and has been, a fucking joke for years, but tragically, within the artificial bubble of corruption and incompetence that is football as a whole, are actually better than most.

 

[FoxForceFive]

The fact that consultancy fees are allowed in transfers it a kind of tacit agreement that at least grey areas are a given, & invites corruption, giving either party an easy way to channel funds in a seemingly legit manner for illegitimate reasons.

Suggesting the FA knows about individual cases is ludicrous, but there's no way they think transfers are all above board either.

 

[manwithnoname]

The fact that consultancy fees are allowed in transfers it a kind of tacit agreement that at least grey areas are a given, & invites corruption, giving either party an easy way to channel funds in a seemingly legit manner for illegitimate reasons.

Suggesting the FA knows about individual cases is ludicrous, but there's no way they think transfers are all above board either.

It's like that massive fee Pogba's agent wanted for brokering his transfer to United. There was no outcry or querying what exactly this gigantic payment was for exactly (what? He just gets 20% of any sell-on fee? OK that's fine!), just who was actually going to pay it.

I suppose that's part of what Allardyce was going on about. Just swallow up any loss for the owner of third-party contracts by inflating the fee/ payment to the agent, or business that owned the third-party contract.

I don't see how that's a problem, it just makes sense anyway.

 

[jexykrodic]

Suggesting the FA knows about individual cases is ludicrous, but there's no way they think transfers are all above board either.

The Telegraph has shown the way. In other industries it's called 'spot checks'. Here it's called entrapment.

It seems people in the football industry can't resist a pay day even if it means advising how to circumvent the FA's rules, so it should be simple enough to lure them in.

If those tempted thought there might be the possibility of a sting I expect the 'problem' would reduce significantly.

 

[doctor_mac]

Nobody can tell me that there was not something amiss about the Bebe transfer to Utd (which was basically a bung to the agent/ club) and the David Luiz transfer to PSG and back.

 

[Judge Jules]

As I said before, I wouldn't react strongly at all to those who took bungs back in the era of Clough and others. Just as players really needed the proceeds from testimonials in those days, most managers were paid remarkably poorly compared to what clubs were making, so if they looked to 'top up' their income, I would neither condone nor condemn it.

The managers in the Premier League era whom, I suspect, would have been most susceptible to continuing to embrace that in spite of the huge sums they were now earning legitimately would be those older ones who were stamped with the old culture. So Redknapp, Ginsoak, Allardyce, Joe Kinnear, Jim Smith, George Burley, Venables, Graham, Jim Gregory, Ron Atkinson, Ray Wilkins, Neil Warnock, etc etc. I'd add Avram Grant to the list simply because he's always looked dodgy!

More recently, Ian Holloway was on about £5 a week and a free pie at Blackpool, so the poor sod might have been tempted. Alan Pardew is a full time whopper. Neil Pearson seems close to be named. Stuart Pearce? Wouldn't surprise me. Sven was open to anything.

Can't really see him in the Nigel Pearson role TBH. 😉

 

[FoxForceFive]

The Telegraph has shown the way. In other industries it's called 'spot checks'. Here it's called entrapment.

It seems people in the football industry can't resist a pay day even if it means advising how to circumvent the FA's rules, so it should be simple enough to lure them in.

If those tempted thought there might be the possibility of a sting I expect the 'problem' would reduce significantly.

Except it's not in anyone's interests to do it. It would cost millions to have a team set up to do it & would cost the FA & the Premiership millions in PR terms, every time they caught someone they'd be sticking a knife in their own back.

In any situation with huge contracts there will be corruption of some kind, whether it's construction contracts, share ownership, football transfers, whatever. The NHS pays £15 for paracetamol FFS, so clearly someone somewhere is taking money cos that's not possible in a free market environment otherwise. I don't see anyone suggesting someone pretends to be a pharmaceutical company middle man to run stings.

 

[Comical Aly]

Brodge

No way. He's too cock sure of his own ability to think he needs to resort to this and he's always said a man's teeth are a reflection of his reputation. So they are.

 

[manwithnoname]

Also, while Allardyce has done nothing wrong or illegal on the evidence so far, the other allegations that a number of managers take some kind of financial incentive for helping to orchestrate or facilitate transfers is also impossible for the FA to police. Because they aren't the police.

It would seem unlikely that any such incentives (or bungs) would show up in official documentation or paperwork, so what are the FA going to do?

Demand to see bank statements?

Yeah, good luck with that

 

[Judge Jules]

Illegal, no, Wrong, definitely. Advising people how to get around one of his own employers' regulations, especially with large sums of money at stake, would constitute gross misconduct at any time, whether or not it was caught on camera.

 

[Woland]

Yeah but it wasn't get round as in flout. It was get round as in solve. So not really that bad.

 

[Holle]

Nobody can tell me that there was not something amiss about the Bebe transfer to Utd (which was basically a bung to the agent/ club) and the David Luiz transfer to PSG and back.

Mascherano to us was a bit 'unusual' too.

 

[Judge Jules]

Yeah but it wasn't get round as in flout. It was get round as in solve. So not really that bad.

Fair comment, and TBH if I were the decision-maker at the FA end of things I'd have been thinking in terms of a final warning rather than immediate termination of the contract, but - though I despise the FA - I don't think the decision they took is an unreasonable one.

 

[Woland]

Fair comment, and TBH if I were the decision-maker at the FA end of things I'd have been thinking in terms of a final warning rather than immediate termination of the contract, but - though I despise the FA - I don't think the decision they took is an unreasonable one.

When I read it all yesterday I thought the one thing he'd said that would get him the sack was that the FA had messed up by wasting half a billion more than necessary on the new Wembley. The other stuff you can sort of see why he said it and how he could explain it, but imagine the reaction of the powerful forces at the top of the FA being called out as stupid by this dude. He was right of course, but I reckon that over all the other stuff got in the boot. - unless there's more that we haven't heard yet.

 

[manwithnoname]

Reports are suggesting that he's getting a pay-off, which suggests it was mutually agreed in some ways, and that he hadn't done enough to justify Gross Misconduct or whatever

He's just hugely embarrassed the FA, himself and the post he was in.

I'd suggest he couldn't argue too much with that conclusion