davieG Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 From the mockery: So football is the most corrupt entity since Ancient Rome? It doesn't appear that way, much to the undoubted disappointment of those who have been trumpeting that message over the last few weeks. Funny, I thought football these days was a business. Except for a few points obviously. In business, commissions, finders' fees, outrageous bonuses to top executives of companies making huge losses, are routinely made. In football, apparently, the same practices are "bungs", "scandals" and "illegal payments" which strike at the very core of the sport. Tapping up players? In business, that is what head-hunting firms make a good living doing. So we might be more convinced if the Lord Stevens report had actually, er, you know, found anything. There was also Panorama. I understand they spent a year on their project,Lord Stevens six months, and, apart from innuendo and speculation, they have come up with nothing concrete. That is the real reason Stevens has been given another two months. And what is he investigating anyway? Only a "grand" total of 39 transfers from 362 deals. If he could not find anything in seven months, what does he hope to find in another two? Of course agents take cuts of deals. That is what they do. When City sold Emile Heskey to Liverpool for a declared fee of £11million, they actually received only £9m, the rest going in various commissions and payments. That is how these things work, in business and in football. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral and, in terms of the actual playing of the game, nothing corrupt. Now, Lord Stevens has his eight weeks to try to come up with something, anything, that might get the FA off the hook after they made such a big deal, no pun intended, of the whole matter. Athletics and cycling has had its drugs problems, cricket and Italian and German football its match-fixing. Even squeaky-clean golf gives appearance money larger than the first-place cheque to its top stars to guarantee their participation and ensure bigger coverage and spin-offs. All these we know about and the sporting world is still on its axis. If, and it is a big if, Lord Stevens finds anything, then I bet the main reaction will be: "Was that really what all the fuss was about?" Bill Anderson. There's a big difference between paying "commissions, finders' fees, outrageous bonuses" that are declared to the tax man than bungs in brown paper bags. Not with standing that businesses have to show ALL expenditure in their financial statements. If they're are not it's illegal just like bungs in bags are, and certainly doesn't justify the existence of under the cover payments whatever the business is. Headhunting people in 'normal' businesses is not the same as tapping up players unless they have also signed contracts with a specified number of years, can't say I've ever come across any though.
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 You're right DavieG. The truth is the Mercury won't get involved in such investigations themselves (they probably lack the human resources and its too bloody risky) and, being out of the picture, it's probably easier for BA to write as he did and, of course, avoid biting the always demanding hand that feeds him. Mike Newell (and others), Panorama and Lord Stevens clearly think football and people in football, have a case to answer and the last two have clearly found things. Bill Anderson well knows that the laws of the land don't always make it easy to say precisely what's been found but, I've certainly not been convinced by any denials. Furthermore Lord Stevens' 39 cases does not mean he's found nothing else. It almost certainly means he's absolutely convinced something needs investigating in 39 cases and that there's likely to be an "outcome". There may be lots of other "suspicious" cases that he believes are not worth investigating because wrong-doing would be so hard to prove. Doubtless too, the 39 "cases" will expose other alleged wrongdoing. Furthermore the investigation is of vital importance because practices will have to be changed and the movement of money in football circles will presumably be made much more transparent. Questions will also be raised about the commitment of the football authorities to self regulate properly - and you have to ask why - just the same as I'd ask why there is so much reluctance to introduce video evidence into refereeing decisions. But then I'm not one to trust anyone easily. By all accounts Lord Stevens has done an excellent and thorough job. Mike Newell has done a brave thing blowing the gaff. And, I may be entirely wrong because I don't often read the Mercury now, but I cannot ever remember reading any sort of first hand expose by Bill Anderson in relation to any club or individual involved in football. If that's his way, he's not the first to take that road especially in provincial journalism. But, that being so, he does himself no justice by seeking to belittle those who are trying to make a difference and are trying to at least do something to clear up malpractice. (I seem to recall him effectively sneering at Newell's revelations too). Cos every time someone in football gets away with a financial fiddle, it's another few grand's worth of fans money (among others) that is being gobbled up by the parasites who feed ever more hungrily and shamelessly on the flesh that keeps football alive. Anderson might not believe it or might not want to believe it. But there is corruption in British football and it needs determined people to try to stamp it out.
lookwhaticando Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 The answer is no. He's clearly useless. I'm sure he's a nice bloke tho.
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 The answer is no. He's clearly useless. I'm sure he's a nice bloke tho. What makes you think that?
lookwhaticando Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 What makes you think that? The bit about him being useless or about being a nice bloke? As for being a bit useless perhaps, I refer people to the point he made about the sale of Heskey - and the fact that we only pocketed 9 of the 11 million. He makes a fairly obvious point, but it's completely irrelavent in the context. The 2m we didn't earn on that deal was legitimate outgoings during the process of the sale - it didn't just disappear in myserious brown bags or anything. I'm not sure if he's missing the point or what, but he must surely know there's a difference between the 2m in fees that were paid in the Heskey transfer, and the under-the-table exchanges of cash the inquiry is looking for. It's plain to see there's at least some corruption in the game - it was only a year ago that the whole Ashley Cole situation caused a stir. That was breaking the laws of the game - an activity which a few parties were hoping to gain from. If Anderson still doesn't believe that corruption isn't in and around the game, he needs his head checking.
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 The bit about him being useless or about being a nice bloke? As for being a bit useless perhaps, I refer people to the point he made about the sale of Heskey - and the fact that we only pocketed 9 of the 11 million. He makes a fairly obvious point, but it's completely irrelavent in the context. The 2m we didn't earn on that deal was legitimate outgoings during the process of the sale - it didn't just disappear in myserious brown bags or anything. I'm not sure if he's missing the point or what, but he must surely know there's a difference between the 2m in fees that were paid in the Heskey transfer, and the under-the-table exchanges of cash the inquiry is looking for. It's plain to see there's at least some corruption in the game - it was only a year ago that the whole Ashley Cole situation caused a stir. That was breaking the laws of the game - an activity which a few parties were hoping to gain from. If Anderson still doesn't believe that corruption isn't in and around the game, he needs his head checking. No. I wondered why you think he's a nice bloke.
lookwhaticando Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 No. I wondered why you think he's a nice bloke. HAHAHA Whoops. It's just what you say when you put someone down in a professional capacity, isn't it? He's a w*nk footballer, but I'm sure he's a nice bloke.
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 HAHAHA Whoops. It's just what you say when you put someone down in a professional capacity, isn't it? He's a w*nk footballer, but I'm sure he's a nice bloke. That's what I thought. But I just wondered if you were going to change an opinion of mine!
Phube Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 Alegedly!! City under MON employed an old Cloughie trick to do with bungs. You declare an "any other expenses" lump sum with the Tax Man and pay the tax on it. This money can then be used for 'any' purpose, and because you've paid tax on, no one can investigate it!!!
Thracian Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 Alegedly!! City under MON employed an old Cloughie trick to do with bungs. You declare an "any other expenses" lump sum with the Tax Man and pay the tax on it. This money can then be used for 'any' purpose, and because you've paid tax on, no one can investigate it!!! Wasn't MON trained in law?.
lookwhaticando Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 That's what I thought. But I just wondered if you were going to change an opinion of mine! Why would I want to do that?
Head Honcho Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 He hasn't got a scooby!! I've seen the same kind of article written by various journalists over the past few days and they've all been muppets!!
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 He writes his articles for fans to read & completely misses the point that it's our money in terms of gate receipts that's than showered on agents to line their back pockets & disappear from the game. That additional £2m from the Heskey deal would have probably saved the club from going into administration. Re the nice bloke theory, for any female posters on here, Mr Anderson doesn't really like women at football games, a female Trust member interviewed him for a project & that was one thing very clear
Finnegan Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 There are women on the Foxes Trust!? That's OUTRAGEOUS.
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 Is he a member of the Foxes Trust? As a Spurs supporter that's unlikely
The People's Hero Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 As a Spurs supporter that's unlikely That's not really an answer. I expect what you were getting at is 'no'. Just thought if he is a member, it's probably best not to go criticising him whilst posting under the 'banner' of the Foxes Trust.
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 There are women on the Foxes Trust!? That's OUTRAGEOUS. The Interim Chair was female & we have always had several females on the Trust board, currently it's 2 Members wise haven't analysed it
The People's Hero Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 It's about time the FT usurped power at the club in a people's uprising.
Finnegan Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 The Interim Chair was female & we have always had several females on the Trust board, currently it's 2 Members wise haven't analysed it I was joshing, I'm not actually bothered.
The People's Hero Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 As long as there aren't any of those men who dress as women/women who dress as men. If so, I demand my tenner back from a few years ago.
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 That's not really an answer. I expect what you were getting at is 'no'. Just thought if he is a member, it's probably best not to go criticising him whilst posting under the 'banner' of the Foxes Trust. Correct he isn't a member. His match reports are an inspiration......as in it inspired us to introduce match reports on our website where real fans were free to make it quite clear when somebody had a 'mare & give a true assessment without worrying whether they have upset a potential interview candidate at the training ground next week. The Trust does not edit the content of any of our reporters views on the game, they are free to say what they think on an individual basis
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 October 2006 Posted 4 October 2006 As long as there aren't any of those men who dress as women/women who dress as men. If so, I demand my tenner back from a few years ago. Not during Trust meetings........
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.