[Archived] The Telegraph Investigation

[funny-old-game]

I agree. Put the politics aside and go in there with all guns blazing. At this stage we really can't afford to lose such an opportunity.

We will only have a few wndows of opportunity to nail this. Each one missed brings us closer to failure and most likey the end of our club as we know it.

Please WAR unite and move quickly not at the pace you want to go at, its the only way to get the result we all need.

[MCMC1875]

Agents and managers have been running rings around the FA now for years and there appears to have been a reluctance (for whatever reason) to investigate the problems thoroughly. Hopefully now the pressure brought on by the Telegraph articles will see a root and branch investigation not by some titled nobody but a dogged person experienced in investigating corruption. I would be delighted to see everybody who has benefited from this hung out to dry.

The beautiful game my ar$e.

There won't be enough room on the washing line

[Al]

But they didn't sack him, they paid him off (handsomely).

Does that not tell you that actually he was telling the truth? That they don't want this investigated because they are as crooked as Kentaro, Blatter and everyone else up the food chain in football.

They don't want to investigate claims of widespread corruption because they either know about it and have allowed it to happen, or have their fingers in the pie themselves.

If this is entrapment by The Telegraph just to get shut of Big Sam then it's cobblers as they are targeting high-profile figure to make a story. If they are really trying to expose corruption, and are prepared to get the whole system opened up and looked at, then I applaud them. However they need a hell of a lot more that Big Sam saying "third party ownership happens in football" and " Woy" .

Don't applaud the newspapers. They aren't interested in exposing corruption. They are just making a sensation to sell more newspapers and don't care who suffers in the process.

I honestly hope that some agents, if not all, get stung from this, especially Tantric and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could implicate the Raos?

[RevidgeBlue]

But they didn't sack him, they paid him off (handsomely).

Does that not tell you that actually he was telling the truth? That they don't want this investigated because they are as crooked as Kentaro, Blatter and everyone else up the food chain in football.

They don't want to investigate claims of widespread corruption because they either know about it and have allowed it to happen, or have their fingers in the pie themselves.

If this is entrapment by The Telegraph just to get shut of Big Sam then it's cobblers as they are targeting high-profile figure to make a story. If they are really trying to expose corruption, and are prepared to get the whole system opened up and looked at, then I applaud them. However they need a hell of a lot more that Big Sam saying "third party ownership happens in football" and " Woy" .

He didn't just say "3rd party ownership happens in football". He was offering tips on how to get round the regulations. As he works for the organisation that is responsible for policing the game, then if that isn't gross misconduct, nothing is.

[den]

He didn't just say "3rd party ownership happens in football". He was offering tips on how to get round the regulations. As he works for the organisation that is responsible for policing the game, then if that isn't gross misconduct, nothing is.

It isn't gross misconduct, nor is it illegal. He was just stupid putting himself in that position.

[RevidgeBlue]

Of course it's gross misconduct den because of his position as he is supposed to be the figurehead of the Organisation (who make the rules in the first place) and also of the National game.

If he held a position in a job unrelated to football and was caught doing the same thing then that might be embarrassing for the image of his employers and earn him a slap on the wrist but probably wouldn't be gross misconduct as it has no relevance to his employment.

Sam and his advisors must have accepted it was gross misconduct as he left his dream job without so much as a peep.

[1arC]

_{The gross misconduct debate goes on. With the job I do, I am supposed to complete a suspicious activity report, if I suspect anyone of money laundering, or using tax avoidance measures. By the very nature of my job, I know how to give a client the best chance of laundering money without being caught. If I was caught providing advise to a client on how to do that, I would expect to be dismissed. Of course I would not be the one laundering the money, but I do have a duty of care and failing to honour that, is a sacking offence. That said if I knew I was going to get £1million for doing it, bring it on.}

[RevidgeBlue]

On JFH the Telegraph have published way too early imo. He's claiming he saw nothing unusual in being offered payment for a series of public speaking engagements and hasn't or wouldn't sign players from this fictitious agency. The story needed dragging out to its natural conclusion to see if he would or wouldn't have got involved in any wrongdoing.

The problem probably was they didn't have 55k available to give to JFH at any point whereas they managed to scrape together 5k out of petty cash to reel in the Barnsley fella.

[1arC]

Big Sun headline just appeared on Twitter about a £50k Bung paid on the Givet transfer to Rovers.

[AJW]

Big Sun headline just appeared on Twitter about a £50k Bung paid on the Givet transfer to Rovers.

paid to who ?? and who by?

[1arC]

Looks like it is an old story this, but none the less very apt at the minute.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/548149/fa-in-50k-bung-probe/

[ABBEY]

There's nowt on mine ?

[den]

Of course it's gross misconduct den because of his position as he is supposed to be the figurehead of the Organisation (who make the rules in the first place) and also of the National game.

If he held a position in a job unrelated to football and was caught doing the same thing then that might be embarrassing for the image of his employers and earn him a slap on the wrist but probably wouldn't be gross misconduct as it has no relevance to his employment.

Sam and his advisors must have accepted it was gross misconduct as he left his dream job without so much as a peep.

If the FA had sacked him for gross misconduct and Sam had gone to court, the FA would have to show Sams contract and where it stipulates "exactly" what gross misconduct is. For instance, in most companies "fighting" is deemed gross misconduct and its down in writing. Therefore, everyone in that company knows that anyone caught fighting "will" be sacked for misconduct. This way, the company is showing that it treats everyone "fairly" - hence the company can't lose an unfair dismissal case in court. So how anyone on here can say it was gross misconduct, without knowing the details of the FA's disciplinary rules and procedures, is beyond me.

[AJW]

wasnt it Big Sam who signed him :blush:

[1arC]

There's nowt on mine ?

Give me your Twitter name and I will Tweet it to you.

wasnt it Big Sam who signed him :blush:

Yes it was which is why this resurfacing now, is probably appropriate. If nothing else, it gets Rovers and agents issue back in the news and who knows what that could lead to?

[Norbert Rassragr]

So far, Rovers are not at all implicated in this sting operation. I guess the FA and their associates have been paying hush money and flinging super injunctions so it looks like Sam was a rogue element. The authorities are desperate for a cover up of the goings on at Coventry, Blackburn, Leeds, Bolton, QPR (lots of money and transfers there a few years ago), Birmingham City....................

I bet a few managers and coaches will be ruined, but the FA, Premier League and the Football League will let agents and spivs carry on as before.

[booth]

Looks like it is an old story this, but none the less very apt at the minute.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/548149/fa-in-50k-bung-probe/

The Sun are basically recycling the story saying "we told you so."

If I remember correctly it was originally from 2009 and it was Givet himself who kicked up a stink about it.

[RevidgeBlue]

If the FA had sacked him for gross misconduct and Sam had gone to court, the FA would have to show Sams contract and where it stipulates "exactly" what gross misconduct is. For instance, in most companies "fighting" is deemed gross misconduct and its down in writing. Therefore, everyone in that company knows that anyone caught fighting "will" be sacked for misconduct. This way, the company is showing that it treats everyone "fairly" - hence the company can't lose an unfair dismissal case in court. So how anyone on here can say it was gross misconduct, without knowing the details of the FA's disciplinary rules and procedures, is beyond me.

Give over den, you're just being pedantic for the sake of it now. Some examples of what might be automatically deemed gross misconduct might be listed in a contract but you can't possibly cover every possible eventuality. Some things are so extreme it goes without saying they're gross misconduct. So the wording of a contract will usually say something like Examples of gross misconduct include "but are not limited to" X,Y,Z etc. You're really not seriously telling me the FA needed to put a clause in his contract saying "Though shalt not accept payment from 3rd parties whilst advising them how to breach our own regulations" are you? No-one could possibly have anticipated he would do something that stupid.

If he did a few laps stark naked round Trafalgar Square at 3.a.m. in the morning after a few too many bottles of red then that would also make it impossible for him to continue as England manager but you wouldn't expect the FA to have to expressly forbid it in his contract

[Hasta]

If he did a few laps stark naked round Trafalgar Square at 3.a.m. in the morning after a few too many bottles of red then that would also make it impossible for him to continue as England manager but you wouldn't expect the FA to have to expressly forbid it in his contract

If he did that, do you reckon they would end his contract with a 7 figure pay off ???

[RevidgeBlue]

If he did that, do you reckon they would end his contract with a 7 figure pay off ???

No. He shouldn't have received any payment whatsoever.

[den]

Give over den, you're just being pedantic for the sake of it now. Some examples of what might be automatically deemed gross misconduct might be listed in a contract but you can't possibly cover every possible eventuality. Some things are so extreme it goes without saying they're gross misconduct. So the wording of a contract will usually say something like Examples of gross misconduct include "but are not limited to" X,Y,Z etc. You're really not seriously telling me the FA needed to put a clause in his contract saying "Though shalt not accept payment from 3rd parties whilst advising them how to breach our own regulations" are you? No-one could possibly have anticipated he would do something that stupid.

If he did a few laps stark naked round Trafalgar Square at 3.a.m. in the morning after a few too many bottles of red then that would also make it impossible for him to continue as England manager but you wouldn't expect the FA to have to expressly forbid it in his contract

youre adamant that he was sacked for gross misconduct and say it's "obvious" and you really don't know whether that's true, - that's my point.

Paying him up well short of his contract value without risking losing an unfair dismissal court case appealed to the FA. Allardyce accepting the pay off knowing that his job was untenable, appealed to him.

That's what I reckon.

[yoda]

If the FA had sacked him for gross misconduct and Sam had gone to court, the FA would have to show Sams contract and where it stipulates "exactly" what gross misconduct is. For instance, in most companies "fighting" is deemed gross misconduct and its down in writing. Therefore, everyone in that company knows that anyone caught fighting "will" be sacked for misconduct. This way, the company is showing that it treats everyone "fairly" - hence the company can't lose an unfair dismissal case in court. So how anyone on here can say it was gross misconduct, without knowing the details of the FA's disciplinary rules and procedures, is beyond me.

What he has been sacked for is a minor detail, the real story is why the FA gave him £1 million and made him sign an NDA, what do they not want him to talk about, for example

"your'e sacking me for that! when you know what happened at Blackburn"

"OK Sam that's in the past here is a £1 million and sign this as we don't want anymore crap in the papers, why not go to Spain for a while while it dies down"

[Al]

Give over den, you're just being pedantic for the sake of it now. Some examples of what might be automatically deemed gross misconduct might be listed in a contract but you can't possibly cover every possible eventuality. Some things are so extreme it goes without saying they're gross misconduct. So the wording of a contract will usually say something like Examples of gross misconduct include "but are not limited to" X,Y,Z etc. You're really not seriously telling me the FA needed to put a clause in his contract saying "Though shalt not accept payment from 3rd parties whilst advising them how to breach our own regulations" are you? No-one could possibly have anticipated he would do something that stupid.

If he did a few laps stark naked round Trafalgar Square at 3.a.m. in the morning after a few too many bottles of red then that would also make it impossible for him to continue as England manager but you wouldn't expect the FA to have to expressly forbid it in his contract

It wouldn't be gross misconduct either.

[1arC]

It wouldn't be gross misconduct either.

It would be gross though.

[yoda]

It would be gross though.

Is it £1 million gross or £1 million net, I am sure HMRC would love to know