Lemon Harpic Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 I'll have to be careful about how this is phrased in case Levein or Davies are the litigious type. Bearing in mind what Mike Newell (someone who has connections with Leicester City) said about bung-taking in the game, which has been backed up by Ian Holloway, Sven Goran Erikkson and Palace chairman Simon Jordan, I find it interesting that Leicester are not exactly transparent when it comes to transfer fees. The transfers into the club of Matty Fryatt, Patrik Gerrbrand, Peter Gilbert, Elvis Hammond and Joe Hamill all go down officially as being 'undisclosed'. The transfers out of the club of Matt Heath, Peter Gilbert (again) and Tommy Wright are also 'undisclosed'. I thought part of Tim Davies' remit was to make the club more open about it's finances? Why are so many transfer fees kept secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Good question. After the horrors of administration, and the sleazy reputation that still persists around our club following that episode, we should really be as transparent as possible in ALL financial dealings. I personally very much doubt that anyone currently employed at our club is on the take. But there are some gangsters in our game (and our league), and the sooner these parasites are exposed and removed, the better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 I'll have to be careful about how this is phrased in case Levein or Davies are the litigious type. Bearing in mind what Mike Newell (someone who has connections with Leicester City) said about bung-taking in the game, which has been backed up by Ian Holloway, Sven Goran Erikkson and Palace chairman Simon Jordan, I find it interesting that Leicester are not exactly transparent when it comes to transfer fees. The transfers into the club of Matty Fryatt, Patrik Gerrbrand, Peter Gilbert, Elvis Hammond and Joe Hamill all go down officially as being 'undisclosed'. The transfers out of the club of Matt Heath, Peter Gilbert (again) and Tommy Wright are also 'undisclosed'. I thought part of Tim Davies' remit was to make the club more open about it's finances? Why are so many transfer fees kept secret? Do you know what I think you're correct. I also think on the way down to Plymouth Levein nipped into London and killed wally the whale. Also it has been reported in Russia that he was seen downloading tactics from a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJ Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Do you know what I think you're correct. I also think on the way down to Plymouth Levein nipped into London and killed wally the whale. Also it has been reported in Russia that he was seen downloading tactics from a rock. tactics from a rock? i think you've hit the nail on the head there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationwider Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 I'll have to be careful about how this is phrased in case Levein or Davies are the litigious type. I think its fairly clear what you're implying by the title/subtitle of your thread. Your last paragraph poses two good questions, though. Playing devil's advocate, some answers might be: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?There are so many add-on clauses to transfers that its difficult to publish a single figure that isn't misleading (Has Walcott gone to Arsenal for £5M or £15M?).We don't want to embarrass ourselves by admitting when we've "Done A Peter Gilbert". What strikes me as odd is that the Connolly transfer sum was made public - surely we would have wanted to have kept that sum quiet, or at least played it down? Advertising we've got £2-3M in the bank only pushes the fees for potential targets up. Getting back to the original question, no - I don't think anyone is on the take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 We don't want to embarrass ourselves by admitting when we've "Done A Peter Gilbert". Ha ha quality What strikes me as odd is that the Connolly transfer sum was made public - surely we would have wanted to have kept that sum quiet, or at least played it down? Advertising we've got £2-3M in the bank only pushes the fees for potential targets up. Getting back to the original question, no - I don't think anyone is on the take. Because they needed to calm the fans down. Losing your main striker for an "undisclosed fee" wouldn't of gone down very well!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationwider Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Because they needed to calm the fans down. Losing your main striker for an "undisclosed fee" wouldn't of gone down very well!!! Point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman of the Bored Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Don't think he's taking money, just the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJ Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Its embarrassing at least if he were on the take then there'd be an excuse for signing kisnorbo and chums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Don't think he's taking money, just the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighton Matt Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 I can't quite put my finger on why, but I find this thread bloody hilarious! 'On the take' indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 I can't quite put my finger on why, but I find this thread bloody hilarious! 'On the take' indeed! I've heard DeVries is on the take... i've heard he takes something and puts it somewhere he shouldn't!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Do you know what I think you're correct. I also think on the way down to Plymouth Levein nipped into London and killed wally the whale. Also it has been reported in Russia that he was seen downloading tactics from a rock. Actually he did. There was snow on his boots at Plymouth Station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Actually he did. There was snow on his boots at Plymouth Station. That was coke, i've heard he is a Columbian drug runner in his spare time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighton Matt Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 That was coke, i've heard he is a Columbian drug runner in his spare time. That would explain the 'crack team' of Kisnorbo and Douglas being ever present! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 That would explain the 'crack team' of Kisnorbo and Douglas being ever present! No wonder we have gone to "pot", the "weeds" need trimming in this club. I hope we can find a hero or "heroin". I'll be in "ecstasy" if we stay up, I hope the board act with some "speed" to find a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighton Matt Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 No wonder we have gone to "pot", the "weeds" need trimming in this club. I hope we can find a hero or "heroin". I'll be in "ecstasy" if we stay up, I hope the board act with some "speed" to find a replacement. No chance every week is 'draw' week with CL in charge. *snort* *snort* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Loving the puns Babylon and Knighton Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Harpic Posted 23 January 2006 Author Share Posted 23 January 2006 So it's bongs not bungs for Levein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 haha, some funny posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Burger Posted 23 January 2006 Share Posted 23 January 2006 Well, wasn't he shagging some young girl behind his wife's back? Corrupt man? seems so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 January 2006 Share Posted 24 January 2006 Do you know what I think you're correct. I also think on the way down to Plymouth Levein nipped into London and killed wally the whale. Also it has been reported in Russia that he was seen downloading tactics from a rock. But I gather it was Wilma the Whale. The he turned out to be a she! Bit of a cock up all round that rescue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 January 2006 Share Posted 24 January 2006 Mainline stuff the lot of you. Thoroughly entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disillusioned Posted 24 January 2006 Share Posted 24 January 2006 I'll have to be careful about how this is phrased in case Levein or Davies are the litigious type. Bearing in mind what Mike Newell (someone who has connections with Leicester City) said about bung-taking in the game, which has been backed up by Ian Holloway, Sven Goran Erikkson and Palace chairman Simon Jordan, I find it interesting that Leicester are not exactly transparent when it comes to transfer fees. The transfers into the club of Matty Fryatt, Patrik Gerrbrand, Peter Gilbert, Elvis Hammond and Joe Hamill all go down officially as being 'undisclosed'. The transfers out of the club of Matt Heath, Peter Gilbert (again) and Tommy Wright are also 'undisclosed'. I thought part of Tim Davies' remit was to make the club more open about it's finances? Why are so many transfer fees kept secret? A fair post. But undisclosed transfer fees are rarely, if ever, the start of the bung trail. Most bungs supposedly happen when the transfer fee has been disclosed and widely reported. Common characteristics of bung business are transfers where: (a) slightly-less than-great players are involved, (b) the fee is inflated and © the agent at the centre of the deals is often used by the offending clubs. I don't know why some transfer fees are not disclosed but I have heard all sorts down the years from tax dodges down to hushing up a low offer that has been accepted when other clubs have made higher bids for a player. Maybe undisclosed fees could be covering up bungs. But at our level, if an agent wanted to give a manager the back half of his own back half I don't think that publishing the fee would get in the way of his generosity. Whilst we know that there is a bung culture in the game we don't yet know its scope. My suspicion is that it is vast. The way that Newell and Sven are being treated and the way that the Murdoch media has suddenly gone all coy about revealing the identities of the accused suggests there is much to hide. At least most Premiership players are too rich now to bother with brown envelopes for 'on-field services.' It's just the other 1,500 we need to worry about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 24 January 2006 Share Posted 24 January 2006 I thought part of Tim Davies' remit was to make the club more open about it's finances? Why are so many transfer fees kept secret? I don't know, but I'd guess that in some cases, with appearance fees, sell-on clauses, agents' fees, etc., and because most transfers aren't paid in one payment, but rather over time, that the final transfer prices for some of the aforementioned players could change. Leicester City also released how much total money they spent on transfers and agents fees for last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.