Jump to content
IGNORED

Sam Allardyce

North London Red

By North London Red
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

spudski

spudski

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, reddoh said:

I think the hardest part even after all these years is I miss them both

Hence why I'm trying to spend more time talking with my parents...regardless of how much they annoy me sometimes. I would miss them dearly. Chin up fella...big City Supporter hug flying your way :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bs3

bs3

Posted
Posted
On ‎27‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 18:48, spudski said:

If it say's in his FA contract that he's not allowed to do work for anyone else, then I'd agree...but does it? I very much doubt it. Who else in this world has an employer that bans you from doing other work? As long as what he does doesn't infringe with his FA Work and compromise it, he can do what he wants. Hence him saying he would have to put it past the FA as to whether it contravenes football law.

Plenty of contracts and employers restrict what other work you able to carry out.

The point being is this scenario , it did compromise his work with the FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olé

Olé

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Robin1988 said:

You're right, it is an odd accusation, you've only written two in-depth and utterly scathing posts on the piece. Nice of you to spare the time but it does make one wonder.

Nowhere in that long post have you defended his willingness to suggest how you might purposefully exploit the rules of his employers to essentially break the no third-party ownership idea,

I can see from this and the rest of your post you didn't read anything I wrote. I specifically explained that willingness, it was ITK braggadocio associated with trying to promote his experience to people who are sniffing around to pay money for experience. It's a peacock showing its feathers. It goes on in every line of business. Senior figures having boozy chats  bragging about every connection or trick they know to get ahead - just to appear experienced and connected. 

Allardyce bragging he knows of the who's and how's to get round a rule is meaningless. There are far far more people who know how to cheat the system than will actually cheat the system. Knowing isn't a crime. It's just about being in the know and showing off how experienced/connected you are. How many salesmen hold court over beers telling stories of how others blagged deals. How many directors have schmoozed clients and bragged about loopholes in bribery rules?     

I couldn't care less about Sam Allardyce, I'm not here to defend him, it's not even my effing national team, I just think it's a bit rich a newspaper and to some extent some of you (unless you work in a charity), moralising on something that goes on everywhere and is part of the fabric of doing business in this country. Not to say it's right, but the selective outrage is nauseating hypocrisy. Someone else put it best on here, Allardyce is a fall guy to keep the story away from the real pigs.

Also, literally no idea about your first sentence above, if you've got something to say, come out and say it, what exactly are you wondering? Sounds a bit sinister TBH. My only interest in this thread was the extent to which some people don't know what goes on in business and instead are simply following the cue cards from the Telegraph to be offended about precisely the type of back-slapping, opulent, off-the-record skullduggery the newspaper itself is probably powered by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Olé said:

I can see from this and the rest of your post you didn't read anything I wrote. I specifically explained that willingness, it was ITK braggadocio associated with trying to promote his experience to people who are sniffing around to pay money for experience. It's a peacock showing its feathers. It goes on in every line of business. Senior figures having boozy chats  bragging about every connection or trick they know to get ahead - just to appear experienced and connected. 

Allardyce bragging he knows of the who's and how's to get round a rule is meaningless. There are far far more people who know how to cheat the system than will actually cheat the system. Knowing isn't a crime. It's just about being in the know and showing off how experienced/connected you are. How many salesmen hold court over beers telling stories of how others blagged deals. How many directors have schmoozed clients and bragged about loopholes in bribery rules?     

I couldn't care less about Sam Allardyce, I'm not here to defend him, it's not even my effing national team, I just think it's a bit rich a newspaper and to some extent some of you (unless you work in a charity), moralising on something that goes on everywhere and is part of the fabric of doing business in this country. Not to say it's right, but the selective outrage is nauseating hypocrisy. Someone else put it best on here, Allardyce is a fall guy to keep the story away from the real pigs.

Also, literally no idea about your first sentence above, if you've got something to say, come out and say it, what exactly are you wondering? Sounds a bit sinister TBH. My only interest in this thread was the extent to which some people don't know what goes on in business and instead are simply following the cue cards from the Telegraph to be offended about precisely the type of back-slapping, opulent, off-the-record skullduggery the newspaper itself is probably powered by.

Look @Olé, he didn't say he knew how to get around the rules of his employers, he told them how to do it. If they were a real company, they could have used it.

Your argument that "it happens everywhere", which you've now peddled out again, is bizarre. So what? Does it diminish what he did? No.

You can choose to think I'm being sinister if you want, but you have more of an issue with a newspaper exposing wrongdoing than with the wrongdoing itself. Again, the press have rightly been castigated for phone hacking etc., but the Telegraph was not one of them.

It's strange that, say, no one had a bad word to say about the same paper releasing MP's expenses, which was, by the letter of the law, wrong, as it was leaked private information at the time.

Basically what they are doing is holding people to account for their actions. Because loads of people do it, and they can't get all of them, means they shouldn't do it? What planet does that make sense on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

It's strange that, say, no one had a bad word to say about the same paper releasing MP's expenses, which was, by the letter of the law, wrong, as it was leaked private information at the time.

There's a key difference though. They paid for a leak of information on what had been done. In that instance they didn't put the trough under the pigs' nose and see how much pigswill it would take for them to squeal. 

I make no defence of anyone caught out by such actions. Tommy Wright I have no sympathy with. I just find the means reprehensible. That's not me saying I find the DT more morally corrupt than those they catch, far from it, but it doesn't mean I can't sit back and say both parties stink. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 29AR said:

There's a key difference though. They paid for a leak of information on what had been done. They didn't put the trough under the pigs' nose and see how much pigswill it would take for them to squeal. 

I make no defence of anyone caught out by such actions. Tommy Wright I have no sympathy with. I just find the means reprehensible. That's not me saying I find the DT more morally corrupt than those they catch, far from it, but it doesn't mean I can't sit back and say both parties stink. 

How else do you police it? You're right about the key difference, but it's inevitable purely by circumstance, unless you catch Keith Vaz in Homebase buying a duck house on his Parliament credit card.

The FA have said themselves they're powerless, so if you don't catch someone in the act, you've not got much other choice. Here's a different example for you - would you have such a problem if it was an undercover Panorama journalist trying to get a careworker in an old people's home to display the same misconduct the BBC had been told about?

Replace old people's home with FA and careworker with England manager and you've got your Telegraph article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Bard

The Bard

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 29AR said:

There's a key difference though. They paid for a leak of information on what had been done. In that instance they didn't put the trough under the pigs' nose and see how much pigswill it would take for them to squeal. 

I make no defence of anyone caught out by such actions. Tommy Wright I have no sympathy with. I just find the means reprehensible. That's not me saying I find the DT more morally corrupt than those they catch, far from it, but it doesn't mean I can't sit back and say both parties stink. 

I think the means isn't the point.  What was noticeable about the MPs expenses scandal was the timing of the release of information about different MPs.  For example, David Laws was the Lib Dems chief negotiator when the Lib Con coalition was agreed. By all accounts he made a real impression on his 'colleagues' and got a fairly decent post in Cameron's cabinet. Very quickly he was then exposed by the Telegraph, thus removing what the Tories could see was their biggest barrier within the coalition. They knew Clegg was a soft touch.  The rest is history

People should think not just about what has been exposed but also about the motivation of those doing the exposing.  There is an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

How else do you police it? You're right about the key difference, but it's inevitable purely by circumstance, unless you catch Keith Vaz in Homebase buying a duck house on his Parliament credit card.

The FA have said themselves they're powerless, so if you don't catch someone in the act, you've not got much other choice. Here's a different example for you - would you have such a problem if it was an undercover Panorama journalist trying to get a careworker in an old people's home to display the same misconduct the BBC had been told about?

Replace old people's home with FA and careworker with England manager and you've got your Telegraph article.

Again there's a subtle difference which to me makes a huge difference. Undercover filming with no incentive on offer is significantly different to undercover filming with a dangling carrot of either £5k or £400k. There's whistleblowing, then there's subterfuge  

Essentially on the one hand your catching someone in the act and the other you're encouraging them to commit the act. No spilt tears for anyone caught being coerced, but I'm not comfortable with the means, don't think I'll ever be. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
reddoh

reddoh

Posted
Posted

As i need a job at the moment and the wife(bread earner) is getting issy(left the P off deliberately) who wants a job on the back room staff,  RH to take care of the women , tkb/km would have loved you as part of the team , the rest you are all welcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Antman

Antman

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

My memories of Scott McGarvey are twofold - the bouffant and being a bit pony. Wiki however suggests he scored a goal every other game for us so my mind may have played tricks - although I think citystats has the full story....http://www.citystats.org.uk/playerdetail.asp?id=447

i remember  he played against us for Grimsby at the gate shortly before he signed, he got a shed load of abuse about his hair - he was called Shirley temple, wolf whistles etc etc - i recall him getting really red faced and wound up

 

then we went and signed him!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Again there's a subtle difference which to me makes a huge difference. Undercover filming with no incentive on offer is significantly different to undercover filming with a dangling carrot of either £5k or £400k. There's whistleblowing, then there's subterfuge  

Essentially on the one hand your catching someone in the act and the other you're encouraging them to commit the act. No spilt tears for anyone caught being coerced, but I'm not comfortable with the means, don't think I'll ever be. 

Panorama exists to make good television. And also acts as a public service. A right-minded journalist is exactly the same, albeit in print.

I understand why it makes you uneasy and in a sense it is leading them onto the bamboo pit, yes. But as I said before, I'm not sure there's another way. You can see in the video with Wright, for instance, the lengths these guys go to in order to "not" be involved. Allardyce probably wouldn't have just walked up to a man behind the till at Greggs and offered him advice on third-party ownership, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Esmond Million's Bung

Esmond Million's Bung

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, 29AR said:

There's a key difference though. They paid for a leak of information on what had been done. In that instance they didn't put the trough under the pigs' nose and see how much pigswill it would take for them to squeal. 

I make no defence of anyone caught out by such actions. Tommy Wright I have no sympathy with. I just find the means reprehensible. That's not me saying I find the DT more morally corrupt than those they catch, far from it, but it doesn't mean I can't sit back and say both parties stink. 

The thing is I don't think that even you would believe that they just pull names from a hat, they are targeted because of rumours and or evidence, ergo probably not the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The thing is I don't think that even you would believe that they just pull names from a hat, they are targeted because of rumours and or evidence, ergo probably not the first time.

Not for one minute do I believe pulled out of the hat, of course. But doesn't necessarily have to be targetted based on rumour or evidence either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Esmond Million's Bung

Esmond Million's Bung

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

To be honest I'm wondering how these guys are ever going to get caught if you're not allowed to try to catch them at it. Sit at home and presume they'll turn themselves in at the police station?

I agree, the Spudski defence is a bit like saying, don't go after the Mafia in New York because the rubbish won't be collected, if you get my drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olé

Olé

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Robin1988 said:

Basically what they are doing is holding people to account for their actions. Because loads of people do it, and they can't get all of them, means they shouldn't do it? What planet does that make sense on?

And that's the nub of our difference of opinion. My point is not just that loads of people do it, but that it's the fabric of business in this country, which in of itself is never in question, and so that to me, Allardyce's behaviour is at worst naive but largely legitimised by the culture of senior leaders and business people that pervades.

I'm not 'excusing it because it goes on', I'm saying it has nothing to answer for, it's entirely predictable. This wasn't illegal and clearly by the mutual outcome it wasn't breach of contract (unless the FA have money to throw about) so it's sacking based only on the shock of those that this is news to, that this sort of stuff goes on.

We're not going to agree on that. Okay. I can only share my personal incredulity that Allardyce should be a sacrificial lamb (in a country that could do without second best for national manager) for a lot lot less than will be the legitimate culture at the top of the FA, the Telegraph, and other big business. For ME it's hypocrisy. End of. 

Thank you on your other point, still a little cryptic but beginning to think you feel I have a grudge against the Telegraph or work for a competitor? Couldn't be further from it. PM me if you want to go into it. My input is from the business world in this country where the only shock and amazement is that you don't do this sort of thing. 

By way of some levity, the Telegraph story today is the Barnsley bloke taking a stuffed envelope to buy a player (palpably wrong and has been for decades) and Hasselbaink agreeing a price to go and speak overseas (laughably normal). Have they any idea how many people are paid to speak at events. What is this new moral code?

My guess is the Telegraph has some dirt from all their sting attempts, but not enough for how much they have spent, so are loading as much innuendo to all their other non-stories, in the hope of causing enough collateral damage that the witch-hunt takes others down. And I'm wrong to question the motive (selling papers, as always)?

MPs were breaking the law (fraud). Bungs are breaking the rules. The rest of this stuff is a setup where there has clearly been a courting of the target for their experience in a extra-curricular advisory role (completely legitimate) and they've been put in a boozy interview position and been courted for 'what you know' and 'who you know'.

If there is anyone on OTIB who hasn't ever lied or exaggerated about those two things in any interview context, let alone when drinking too, then I suggest we install you as England manager and make arrangements in the Vatican City to have you canonised too :). Allardyce's response to the courting was the same as most I've come across in business.

The same as Straw and Rifkind who were setup almost identically by the Telegraph (get them bragging about what they know and who they know). The less well publicised watchdog output to that said they did nothing wrong and accused the Telegraph of selectively distorting the conversations and misleading the public on the subject of external interests.

Apologies for yet another lengthy interest in the stability of your national team manager position and good luck in the quest for Steve McLaren MKII ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olé

Olé

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, 29AR said:

There's a key difference though. They paid for a leak of information on what had been done. In that instance they didn't put the trough under the pigs' nose and see how much pigswill it would take for them to squeal. 

I make no defence of anyone caught out by such actions. Tommy Wright I have no sympathy with. I just find the means reprehensible. That's not me saying I find the DT more morally corrupt than those they catch, far from it, but it doesn't mean I can't sit back and say both parties stink. 

Put it far better and more simply than I did. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olé

Olé

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, RumRed said:

Well at least this thread's outed the ITK's... Or at least those that think everyone's up to 'this sort of stuff'.

Maybe that's where I've been going wrong all these years.

I don't profess to be more or less ITK than anyone else but I've seen enough and your second sentence is as sad as it is true. "The way to get ahead" and all that. Not me, by the way. I resemble your remark, difference is it's no longer a surprise to me, just a frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...