Sam Allardyce

[Robin1988]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I can't believe how holier than thou' people are being. Apart from being naive and poorly guided by his agents for turning up to such a meeting, Big Sam has done nothing wrong.

 

You said this before and I suggested watching the Telegraph's video, and you clearly haven't. He explains to these relative strangers - in a public bar, which is always smart - how to get around FA rules on third-party ownership. That in itself is a strange interpretation of doing nothing wrong.

[exAtyeoMax]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

The Irony of all this, is that the fella who brought all these accusations forward and got the ball rolling, is a Banned Agent known for being 'unreliable'.

I can't believe how holier than thou' people are being. Apart from being naive and poorly guided by his agents for turning up to such a meeting, Big Sam has done nothing wrong.

People say it's 'Greed' and yes he was on a £3m contract...however...who would turn down 400K for basically a weeks worth of time? That amount of time isn't going to effect his ability to manage England properly.

Even with all the amount of money 'sloshing' about in British football...it still needs Investors, and many of them are from the middle East and abroad.

Do people slate SL for having other businesses in such countries as Botswanna and call him Greedy? Did people accuse him of not controlling the Club properly whilst doing 'deals' abroad. No...of course they didn't. It's the same scenario...businessmen doing business.

It's a 'stitch up' and witch hunt by the media...to sell papers. Lets face it...they aren't doing it for the good of the game, they are doing it to sell papers and make more money for themselves, by taking down people. Like they are 'whiter than white'.

Without the witch hunt, Big Sam would have carried on as normal and all would be fine. Lets face it...what's he done wrong? If he had gone on holiday for a week...no one would have minded. The fact he's spending a week making 400K is what's going against the grain to 'normal fans'.

I find it laughable that fans are so quick to point the finger and feel aggrieved at so much money sloshing around in football....yet they still pay into it in various forms. They complain...yet still buy into it. They still pay £70 for a piece of tacky polyester etc...who's the idiots here?

What I find even more laughable is that the FA are seen as the people who are cleaning up the mess and 'policing' the situation...oh the irony in that.

I'd prefer to see the Telegraph set up some of those guys tbh...

Not every person in football is a 'bad apple'...but i'd suggest that if a set up like Big Sam had occurred to the majority in the game, then football as it stands wouldn't exist, as they'd all be sacked.

I'm waiting for the proverbial 'excrement' to hit the fan… I'm under no illusion that the FA are entirely 'clean', just protecting themselves.

When I saw the video, I didn't actually hear/see SA say anything incriminating, just that it may be perceived in that way - plus you don't know how the film has been edited to put emphasis in certain areas. He is the scapegoat, the FA will let him fall on his sword and hope that it all gets swept under the carpet.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

39 minutes ago, spudski said:

With respect EMB...I'd disagree...Agents aren't the problem...businessmen outside of football are. It's a very big pie, and everyone in business wants a slice of it. Why would a businessmen in Indonesia want something to do with British football otherwise?

Since the advent of the Premier League, The Champions League and big Television rights, it has become massive business.

The average man on the street can't get his head around the money being moved around.

And with respect who are always the middle men?, agents. Like in this particular case.

PS:- No holier than thou on this thread, Allardyce is greedy and money was his only motivation certainly not the good of the game when he set out on this ill advised venture, especially after being heavily mired in a previous scandal.

 

 

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And with respect who are always the middle men?, agents. Like in this particular case.

PS:- No holier than thou on this thread, Allardyce is greedy and money was his only motivation certainly not the good of the game when he set out on this ill advised venture, especially after being heavily mired in a previous scandal.

 

 

Take away those 'middle men' EMB...and lets see how far we get in football.

would you slag off SL for having 'middle men' doing business for him abroad, outside of football or outside of one financial business and call him greedy?

Would you slag off any businessman who has been advised ( in this case naively ) by their advisors on how to do good business?

As can be seen in all that video and transcript shown...he spoke how to jump through loop holes...which isn't illegal...it's a loop hole. He then stated he would have to clear everything with the FA before he agreed to do anything.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

Take away those 'middle men' EMB...and lets see how far we get in football.

would you slag off SL for having 'middle men' doing business for him abroad, outside of football or outside of one financial business and call him greedy?

Would you slag off any businessman who has been advised ( in this case naively ) by their advisors on how to do good business?

As can be seen in all that video and transcript shown...he spoke how to jump through loop holes...which isn't illegal...it's a loop hole. He then stated he would have to clear everything with the FA before he agreed to do anything.

 

You are talking in riddles Spud, one minute the Indonesians are the bad guys but the agents who act as middle men are 'necessary', you can't have it both ways.

This was about an easy buck and exposed a greedy man, who has paid the price of losing his dream job.

Loopholes designed to take vast amounts of money out of the game and you believe that is an ethical stance for the manager of our national football team?.

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

You are talking in riddles Spud, one minute the Indonesians are the bad guys but the agents who act as middle men are 'necessary', you can't have it both ways.

This was about an easy buck and exposed a greedy man, who has paid the price of losing his dream job.

Loopholes designed to take vast amounts of money out of the game and you believe that is an ethical stance for the manager of our national football team?.

No i'm not...I said the big businessmen abroad are the 'problem'. But football still needs investment...and that's where the money is, so it's a catch 22.

All big businesses have a middleman.

Greedy to you...business to others.

You avoid my question re SL....he's moved to a Tax haven...does business in Africa, which some would say is unethical in parts. Taking advantage of situations around the world where 'easy' money can be made. Is he Greedy for doing so?...moving to a 'tax haven'...a loop hole so as not to pay as much tax into GB.

What suits some argument doesn't add up in others.

See where I'm going here.

[1960maaan]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but he said he took the meeting to help a mate who'd hit hard times. An agent that was struggling and had been promised a job on £200k which would have made a big differnce to said agent, one Scott McGarvey.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10595592/scott-mcgarvey-naive-but-denies-wrongdoing-in-sam-allardyce-sting-lawyer-says

Now he may be a ****, a greedy barsteward etc , etc. But 90% of Journo's said he hasn't said anything that isn't generally known, and that nothing he said was illegal , stupid maybe but nothing more. If he had gone seeking this sort of thing I would be happy to see him hung out to dry, but it does seem a bit harsh. 

I won't loose any sleep over him going , but I would rather see this sort of Journalism stopped. Finding out someone is doing wrong, fair enough, encouraging them to do wrong ? Don't agree with it. 

[Robin1988]

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

As can be seen in all that video and transcript shown...he spoke how to jump through loop holes...which isn't illegal...it's a loop hole. He then stated he would have to clear everything with the FA before he agreed to do anything.

Who said it was illegal? He got exposed telling people how to get around the back of his own employers.

And SL is greedy, yes. But I'm not his boss and as far as I'm aware you're not either.

[...]

Apparently Wrigley's have arranged a press conference for 1400 hrs, and will announce he will have to buy his own chewing gum from the start of next season.

He is going to be well out of pocket.

 

Uncle TFR

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

No i'm not...I said the big businessmen abroad are the 'problem'. But football still needs investment...and that's where the money is, so it's a catch 22.

All big businesses have a middleman.

Greedy to you...business to others.

You avoid my question re SL....he's moved to a Tax haven...does business in Africa, which some would say is unethical in parts. Taking advantage of situations around the world where 'easy' money can be made. Is he Greedy for doing so?...moving to a 'tax haven'...a loop hole so as not to pay as much tax into GB.

What suits some argument doesn't add up in others.

See where I'm going here.

I don't give a **** about SL's business, it doesn't interest me in the slightest and is just a diversion from the discussion and it doesn't take money out of the game of football.

You say football needs investment, what investment in football would have come from this had it been it been kosher?.

What you are advocating is allowing criminals to be introduced to people like our national team manager and discuss how they can make each other richer and introduced by saintly agents, it stinks.

Now if you were to argue that this sort of journalism is wrong, there we would have common ground but to say that without allowing the criminality, the greed of the middlemen agents and people like Allardyce is what makes football go round, you 100% wrong and the majority of people on this thread would agree.

 

 

[...]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I don't give a **** about SL's business, it doesn't interest me in the slightest and is just a diversion from the discussion and it doesn't take money out of the game of football.

You say football needs investment, what investment in football would have come from this had it been it been kosher?.

What you are advocating is allowing criminals to be introduced to people like our national team manager and discuss how they can make each other richer and introduced by saintly agents, it stinks.

Now if you were to argue that this sort of journalism is wrong, there we would have common ground but to say that without allowing the criminality, the greed of the middlemen agents and people like Allardyce is what makes football go round, you 100% wrong and the majority of people on this thread would agree.

 

 

....... the new, 'angry' EMB, eh?

"Nice".

 

Uncle TFR

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 minutes ago, Taxi for Rennie said:

....... the new, 'angry' EMB, eh?

"Nice".

 

Uncle TFR

 

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I don't give a **** about SL's business, it doesn't interest me in the slightest and is just a diversion from the discussion and it doesn't take money out of the game of football.

You say football needs investment, what investment in football would have come from this had it been it been kosher?.

What you are advocating is allowing criminals to be introduced to people like our national team manager and discuss how they can make each other richer and introduced by saintly agents, it stinks.

Now if you were to argue that this sort of journalism is wrong, there we would have common ground but to say that without allowing the criminality, the greed of the middlemen agents and people like Allardyce is what makes football go round, you 100% wrong and the majority of people on this thread would agree.

 

 

Said from the armchair from the heart, because it's football and tribal. Slightly naïve like SA I'd say...we can agree to disagree fella ;-)

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

Said from the armchair from the heart, because it's football and tribal. Slightly naïve like SA I'd say...we can agree to disagree fella ;-)

and agreed with by the vast majority.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

and agreed with by the vast majority.

Who have never walked in the shoes of a Professional football manager...yes..I agree.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Who have never walked in the shoes of a Professional football manager...yes..I agree.

Like you?.

 

[Robin1988]

3 hours ago, 29AR said:

The Telegraph claim they have caught eight. I'm not so convinced it wasn't as scattergun as you insist. 

They said they had received information on them did they not? Entrapment is a red-top game.

10 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Like you?

Don't worry @Esmond Million's Bung, about 80% of Spud's discussions end in this way.

[spudski]

@)Robin1988.... what do you want to know?

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

The Irony of all this, is that the fella who brought all these accusations forward and got the ball rolling, is a Banned Agent known for being 'unreliable'.

I can't believe how holier than thou' people are being. Apart from being naive and poorly guided by his agents for turning up to such a meeting, Big Sam has done nothing wrong.

People say it's 'Greed' and yes he was on a £3m contract...however...who would turn down 400K for basically a weeks worth of time? That amount of time isn't going to effect his ability to manage England properly.

Even with all the amount of money 'sloshing' about in British football...it still needs Investors, and many of them are from the middle East and abroad.

Do people slate SL for having other businesses in such countries as Botswanna and call him Greedy? Did people accuse him of not controlling the Club properly whilst doing 'deals' abroad. No...of course they didn't. It's the same scenario...businessmen doing business.

It's a 'stitch up' and witch hunt by the media...to sell papers. Lets face it...they aren't doing it for the good of the game, they are doing it to sell papers and make more money for themselves, by taking down people. Like they are 'whiter than white'.

Without the witch hunt, Big Sam would have carried on as normal and all would be fine. Lets face it...what's he done wrong? If he had gone on holiday for a week...no one would have minded. The fact he's spending a week making 400K is what's going against the grain to 'normal fans'.

I find it laughable that fans are so quick to point the finger and feel aggrieved at so much money sloshing around in football....yet they still pay into it in various forms. They complain...yet still buy into it. They still pay £70 for a piece of tacky polyester etc...who's the idiots here?

What I find even more laughable is that the FA are seen as the people who are cleaning up the mess and 'policing' the situation...oh the irony in that.

I'd prefer to see the Telegraph set up some of those guys tbh...

Not every person in football is a 'bad apple'...but i'd suggest that if a set up like Big Sam had occurred to the majority in the game, then football as it stands wouldn't exist, as they'd all be sacked.

I don't think the comparison with Steve Lansdown holds any water, Spud. 

Allardyce is a football manager, not a businessman. That's his job, and he was paid extortionately well to do it. 

Lansdown is a businessman who has a side interest in sport. His side interest is not a money maker for him - in common with every club owner. His is not a full-time post and he is not paid by BCFC to undertake a specific role.

[Silvio Dante]

For what it's worth, I can see where both spud and EMB are coming from here. Spudski is 100% right that the money in the game and anywhere else comes from somewhere, and sometimes that has ethical considerations. It's likely in the vast majority of business/football deals that if we all stood steadfast behind morals and ethics the deals wouldn't get done, but each man must take a choice on where he stands - and in some cases an ethical choice means you're poorer financially and don't get on in the company/game.

To Sam though - his contract would allow outside interests with the approval of his employer (think media etc). However, he would have to be mad to think that people who were bringing up bungs and outside interests may be an appropriate outside interest that the FA would authorise and should have excused himself asap

The sad thing here is that even though the game and the world works how spudski said, Sam had no need to get involved at this stage in his career. He was past being blackballed for not playing the game, he could have made that moral stand and walked out. That he didn't and allowed himself to be entrapped through greed is what makes it a sad state of affairs for him - and no justifying how the broader world works makes that better 

 

[spudski]

23 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I don't think the comparison with Steve Lansdown holds any water, Spud. 

Allardyce is a football manager, not a businessman. That's his job, and he was paid extortionately well to do it. 

Lansdown is a businessman who has a side interest in sport. His side interest is not a money maker for him - in common with every club owner. His is not a full-time post and he is not paid by BCFC to undertake a specific role.

And there in lies the problem RR...if football clubs were run like businesses only, and never had outside interest and 'investors', football wouldn't be the big business it is now.

Too many outside influences.

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

And there in lies the problem RR...if football clubs were run like businesses only, and never had outside interest and 'investors', football wouldn't be the big business it is now.

Too many outside influences.

They'd be shut if they were businesses,  mate. They don't make profits in the main.

I think you'll recognise that in Allardyce's case this affair,  overblown or otherwise, does demonstrate the lack of judgement that has shown itself many times in his career. 

Literally,  what was he thinking?!

[Super]

[spudski]

6 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

They'd be shut if they were businesses,  mate. They don't make profits in the main.

I think you'll recognise that in Allardyce's case this affair,  overblown or otherwise, does demonstrate the lack of judgement that has shown itself many times in his career. 

Literally,  what was he thinking?!

Exactly...football would be better if it had been run like any normal business. We wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Take away TV revenue and what would you be left with?

 

[Antman]

3 hours ago, Super said:

"Scott McGarvey introduced the England manager to undercover reporters he believed were businessmen representing a firm of investors, the newspaper claims".

Is this the same guy who played for us back in the day?

yes - it is him - the bouffant haired scots forward

 

that will probably warrant an evening post headline i'm sure.

[Silvio Dante]

7 minutes ago, Antman said:

yes - it is him - the bouffant haired scots forward

 

that will probably warrant an evening post headline i'm sure.

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

[Major Isewater]

Big Sam admits he made an error , he got caught .

[Olé]

4 hours ago, Robin1988 said:

Let me take that chip off your shoulder Ole, he got found out showing a bunch of people he'd only just met, in a public bar, the way to get around his bosses' rules. Now that's not only aiding the breaking of FA rules, it's also ******* stupid.

Odd to think I have a chip on my shoulder. Doesn't affect me mate. Just loathe the self-righteousness hypocrisy that permeates public discussion when anything like this happens, that forces these sort of feeble retreats from the FA. It's totally disconnected with reality.

I've worked in business long enough to know this stuff goes on in every type of business under the sun. I can't even begin to imagine the UK would still function without it. The story for me is naive, self-righteous angst whipped up by a newspaper trying to sell papers.

 

To be clear, 99% of people are out for themselves. Self preservation is a primal instinct. The main asset of people in senior business roles is their experience and their network. They never stop trying to sell one or build the other, because it keeps them where they are.

This is why:

a) they take every opportunity to demonstrate their experience, in particular premium, under-the-counter information that comes of gossip and inside knowledge. It's the insight Big Sam shared. It's the number one topic at business jollies. It's as egotistical as OTIB ITKs. They do it because the inside track is a commodity that reinforces perceived experience. I see senior business people do it time and time again.

b) they accept every invitation to meet new contacts, especially ones that are enthusiastic, forward, and have lots of money. You want to have a powerful network. You're a big name. You've earned the right to be in demand. Why wouldn't you have discussions about making >10% more over an already large salary, just for having your experience? Especially when your main job has legendarily poor job security.

 

The whole idea Big Sam would become some sort of recluse is ridiculous and also the grossest form of hypocrisy by FA bigwigs. Senior business people don't do this LESS when they have well paid prestigious roles, they do it more. Precisely because they're asked to.

The £400k is a non-story. We'd all have that conversation. The Chief Exec of the FA, ex CEO of United Biscuits, has spoken openly about looking for a non-executive directorship in the food industry, which would also pay 10-15% over salary for a few hours of his experience.

This is the game. It goes with the territory that these folk share a bit of gossip to enhance the air of experience and connection. It happens in every business and sacrificing the England manager for doing it is pointless self-righteousness, cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

Big Sam was courted, and like every other senior business person, instinctively (and probably unthinkingly) took an opportunity to build his network and retirement options, and showed "a bit of leg" about his experience and ITK-ness. At worst it's egotistical self-preservation.

 

The great irony, is it's the same self-preservation that makes the Telegraph want to sell lots more papers and its proprietors put their staff under pressure to create these stories. They egged him on to play the same game as everyone else, he obliged. And people are surprised?

If the FA are on such a moral crusade about what every other business considers reality, perhaps they'll check what goes on in hospitality boxes at every single one of their sanctioned league stadiums in the UK. Who is in them? Why are they there? What are they sharing?

FFS football is surrounded with business people schmoozing other business people, building networks and showing off experience in return for more business and more schmoozing. The England manager is invited and suddenly the FA has a moral conscience about it? 

 

Also, to your point of "only just met", as this sting was groomed for months before he was appointed England boss, he had EITHER "only just met" but with no conflict of interest, or he'd been subject to lengthy setup and had trust in his confidants. Can't have it both ways. 

A stitch up and one that isn't so much dripping as drowning in rank hypocrisy.

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, Olé said:

Odd to think I have a chip on my shoulder. Doesn't affect me mate. Just loathe the self-righteousness hypocrisy that permeates public discussion when anything like this happens, that forces these sort of feeble retreats from the FA. It's totally disconnected with reality.

I've worked in business long enough to know this stuff goes on in every type of business under the sun. I can't even begin to imagine the UK would still function without it. The story for me is naive, self-righteous angst whipped up by a newspaper trying to sell papers.

 

To be clear, 99% of people are out for themselves. Self preservation is a primal instinct. The main asset of people in senior business roles is their experience and their network. They never stop trying to sell one or build the other, because it keeps them where they are.

This is why:

a) they take every opportunity to demonstrate their experience, in particular premium, under-the-counter information that comes of gossip and inside knowledge. It's the insight Big Sam shared. It's the number one topic at business jollies. It's as egotistical as OTIB ITKs. They do it because the inside track is a commodity that reinforces perceived experience. I see senior business people do it time and time again.

b) they accept every invitation to meet new contacts, especially ones that are enthusiastic, forward, and have lots of money. You want to have a powerful network. You're a big name. You've earned the right to be in demand. Why wouldn't you have discussions about making >10% more over an already large salary, just for having your experience? Especially when your main job has legendarily poor job security.

 

The whole idea Big Sam would become some sort of recluse is ridiculous and also the grossest form of hypocrisy by FA bigwigs. Senior business people don't do this LESS when they have well paid prestigious roles, they do it more. Precisely because they're asked to.

The £400k is a non-story. We'd all have that conversation. The Chief Exec of the FA, ex CEO of United Biscuits, has spoken openly about looking for a non-executive directorship in the food industry, which would also pay 10-15% over salary for a few hours of his experience.

This is the game. It goes with the territory that these folk share a bit of gossip to enhance the air of experience and connection. It happens in every business and sacrificing the England manager for doing it is pointless self-righteousness, cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

Big Sam was courted, and like every other senior business person, instinctively (and probably unthinkingly) took an opportunity to build his network and retirement options, and showed "a bit of leg" about his experience and ITK-ness. At worst it's egotistical self-preservation.

 

The great irony, is it's the same self-preservation that makes the Telegraph want to sell lots more papers and its proprietors put their staff under pressure to create these stories. They egged him on to play the same game as everyone else, he obliged. And people are surprised?

If the FA are on such a moral crusade about what every other business considers reality, perhaps they'll check what goes on in hospitality boxes at every single one of their sanctioned league stadiums in the UK. Who is in them? Why are they there? What are they sharing?

FFS football is surrounded with business people schmoozing other business people, building networks and showing off experience in return for more business and more schmoozing. The England manager is invited and suddenly the FA has a moral conscience about it? 

 

Also, to your point of "only just met", as this sting was groomed for months before he was appointed England boss, he had EITHER "only just met" but with no conflict of interest, or he'd been subject to lengthy setup and had trust in his confidants. Can't have it both ways. 

A stitch up and one that isn't so much dripping as drowning in rank hypocrisy.

 

All very well, but Allardyce isn't a businessman. He's a football manager and more to the point he's an employee. Therein lies the difference.

[Robin1988]

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, other than to say "oh well, it happens a lot". Which doesn't wash.

He's unfortunate on one hand it's him and not someone else, but then no one else is the England manager (or rather was).

And Allardyce says himself he was at the original meeting to help out a long-term friend, so yes, they had only just met. You'd think at his age, and with his experience, he would know better than to start mouthing off about stuff like this straight off. Especially in public.