Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink the latest to be caught up in Telegraph story...

[LondonBristolian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/28/qpr-manager-jimmy-floyd-hasselbaink-asked-for-55k-to-act-for-spo/

More managers to be named by the sounds of it.  Depressing times for football...

[Lrrr]

Hasselbaink's sounds interesting, agreeing to fly out to represent a firm, providing QPR have no objections, the issue? Says he's willing to sign players from the firm, however by the sounds as long as they're good players, so like any manager wanting to sign a player. Doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as Wright who sounds like he was willing to offload prize assets at Barnsley to make money for himself.

[chowie]

PUBLISHED

22:00 28th September 2016

by @QPRFC

Club issues statement relating to allegations in The Telegraph

CLUB STATEMENT

 

THE club is aware of the allegations made against QPR manager Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink in The Telegraph.

First and foremost, the club takes very seriously any alleged breach of the rules.

With this in mind, the club can confirm that there will be a thorough internal investigation regarding this matter.

However, we have every confidence in our manager and the robust systems and processes the club has in place.

 

In addition to the above, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink has issued the following statement:

'I have today, through my lawyers, responded in full to the accusations levelled against me by The Telegraph. I was approached by Mr McGarvey and Ms Newell of The Telegraph purporting to be players' agents. They offered me a fee to make a speech in Singapore. I do not see anything unusual in being offered to be paid to make a speech. I did not make any promises in return. I did not ask QPR to purchase any of the players who were said to be managed by Mr McGarvey and Ms Newell and did not and would not recommend the purchase of a player for my personal gain. I deny any accusations of wrongdoing on my part.'

 

The club will be making no further comment at this time.

Read more at http://www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/qpr-jimmy-floyd-hasselbaink-daily-telegraph-3335922.aspx#UpPZVcxfww7m1gPB.99

[Drew Peacock]

I really don't get the point of setting someone up.  Entrapment seems pretty bloody pointless; someone has done nothing wrong; wave loads of money at them until they crack; flog newspapers.  I hope the journalists are proud of themselves.

At least when the Telegraph broke the expenses scandal it was true investigative, post event journlism.

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I really don't get the point of setting someone up.  Entrapment seems pretty bloody pointless; someone has done nothing wrong; wave loads of money at them until they crack; flog newspapers.  I hope the journalists are proud of themselves.

At least when the Telegraph broke the expenses scandal it was true investigative, post event journlism.

They hear that a manager has done wrong but cannot prove it so they 'entrap' them to prove that they are willing to do wrong.  Superb journalism and weeds out the scum in the game. 

[Drew Peacock]

1 minute ago, RedDave said:

They hear that a manager has done wrong but cannot prove it so they 'entrap' them to prove that they are willing to do wrong.  Superb journalism and weeds out the scum in the game. 

Hmmmm, not fully convinced;  what if they are wrong and the manager hasn't done anything iffy?  If the police did it there would rightly be uproar.

[And Its Smith]

5 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Hmmmm, not fully convinced;  what if they are wrong and the manager hasn't done anything iffy?  If the police did it there would rightly be uproar.

Allardyce has agreed to do dodgy things.  Whether they are real or not he has still agreed to it.  He should have told them where to go from the off.  Don't see why some are slagging the media at all.

[CotswoldRed]

19 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I really don't get the point of setting someone up.  Entrapment seems pretty bloody pointless; someone has done nothing wrong; wave loads of money at them until they crack; flog newspapers.  I hope the journalists are proud of themselves.

At least when the Telegraph broke the expenses scandal it was true investigative, post event journlism.

Paedophiles are caught using similar tactics online.

Ive no issue in weeding out those willing to do wrong. 

[A Horse With No Name]

20 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Hmmmm, not fully convinced;  what if they are wrong and the manager hasn't done anything iffy?  If the police did it there would rightly be uproar.

The police do do it. In areas of high crime rates they leave a white   Van filled with electrical goods and the back doors wide open. Then they stand back and Nick anyone tempted to steal from it, even if it is a previously law abiding citizen. It's exactly the same thing and is totally wrong.

[CotswoldRed]

6 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

The police do do it. In areas of high crime rates they leave a white   Van filled with electrical goods and the back doors wide open. Then they stand back and Nick anyone tempted to steal from it, even if it is a previously law abiding citizen. It's exactly the same thing and is totally wrong.

You sure about that? I've seen similar whereby they leave a locked vehicle in a high crime rate area, but doors wide open? 

Still, if you're not a thieving scumbag the goods will remain in the van and you'll not be eating porridge. 

Surely if anyone complains about being caught this way they're simply stating "it's not fair that temptation is put in front of me as I can't resist". 

[mozo]

37 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I really don't get the point of setting someone up.  Entrapment seems pretty bloody pointless; someone has done nothing wrong; wave loads of money at them until they crack; flog newspapers.  I hope the journalists are proud of themselves.

At least when the Telegraph broke the expenses scandal it was true investigative, post event journlism.

I think the point is that they are being set up to show what stuff they willingly get up to anyway. 

 

No one has been offered an amount to make them crack.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

40 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I really don't get the point of setting someone up.  Entrapment seems pretty bloody pointless; someone has done nothing wrong; wave loads of money at them until they crack; flog newspapers.  I hope the journalists are proud of themselves.

At least when the Telegraph broke the expenses scandal it was true investigative, post event journlism.

it's like shooting fish in a barrel, sniff out the greedy bastards, offer them riches and wait to see common sense fly out of the window.

There is a saying about men shagging around, so I will paraphrase it 'an upright wad has no conscience' just add common sense to that statement as well and you are about right.

 

 

[Spoons]

Send him down !!

[Ian M]

I'm glad we chose Lee Johnson.

Close. Shave. x2. 

[Pickle Rick]

2 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/28/qpr-manager-jimmy-floyd-hasselbaink-asked-for-55k-to-act-for-spo/

More managers to be named by the sounds of it.  Depressing times for football...

He wouldn't have done it if he knew it was The Telegraph.

[WhistleHappy]

31 minutes ago, Ian M said:

I'm glad we chose Lee Johnson.

Close. Shave. x2. 

Indeed, and that LJ wisely chose to inherit Pembo as his no2.  .......leaving his previous one behind.

Its all worked out pretty well for us all so far  

[ColeCiderRed]

Jimmy Floyd Piggy Bank!

I'll get me coat!!

[Tipps69]

Is the Scott McGarvey mentioned in this case as the agent involved the same Scott McGarvey that played for us?

[Unan]

8 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Is the Scott McGarvey mentioned in this case as the agent involved the same Scott McGarvey that played for us?

Yes

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Is the Scott McGarvey mentioned in this case as the agent involved the same Scott McGarvey that played for us?

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIT ODD TOO MATE...AS THEY SAY HE WAS A JOURNALIST IN THIS CASE.

Edit...just realised the journalists had entraped McGarvey into acting as an agent for them...my mistake.

[EnderMB]

I see no real problem in entrapment like this. Sure, it's dishonest, but I'd like to think that if your manager/chairman isn't named, they're one of the good guys. The Telegraph would keep a lot of credibility if they were to publish the names of people they had tried to catch out, but didn't fall for it.

Personally, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a manager in the Premier League that isn't corrupt in some way. Even Arsene Wenger, a man that doesn't deal with some of the "super agents" in the game, has his fair share of dodgy transfers.

With that said, I'm sad to see JFH as one of the names involved.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

24 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

I see no real problem in entrapment like this. Sure, it's dishonest, but I'd like to think that if your manager/chairman isn't named, they're one of the good guys. The Telegraph would keep a lot of credibility if they were to publish the names of people they had tried to catch out, but didn't fall for it.

Personally, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a manager in the Premier League that isn't corrupt in some way. Even Arsene Wenger, a man that doesn't deal with some of the "super agents" in the game, has his fair share of dodgy transfers.

With that said, I'm sad to see JFH as one of the names involved.

I see a lot of problems with this sort of entrapment.  What gives the ******* Daily Telegraph the right to appoint itself as the guardian of the nation's moral standards?  They are tricking people into incriminating themselves, and then gleefully reporting it.  That is gutter journalism to me.  Look at the 'Fake Sheikh' and how that ended up!

Investigative journalism is all very well, but tricking people into incriminating themselves is contemptible in my opinion.  Just my view, mind.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I see a lot of problems with this sort of entrapment.  What gives the ******* Daily Telegraph the right to appoint itself as the guardian of the nation's moral standards?  They are tricking people into incriminating themselves, and then gleefully reporting it.  That is gutter journalism to me.  Look at the 'Fake Sheikh' and how that ended up!

Investigative journalism is all very well, but tricking people into incriminating themselves is contemptible in my opinion.  Just my view, mind.

But do you think they just thought - 'let's go and see if we can catch some managers out'.

Unlikely.  

What is more likely is that either an agent, player, other manager has made some accusations, given some inside info, and the journo has investigated it.  The approach to use entrapment is just the approach to get the evidence.

No smoke without fire is where I'm coming from.

Big Sam was one of the key people in that Panorama documentary a few years back also.

[CotswoldRed]

3 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I see a lot of problems with this sort of entrapment.  What gives the ******* Daily Telegraph the right to appoint itself as the guardian of the nation's moral standards?  They are tricking people into incriminating themselves, and then gleefully reporting it.  That is gutter journalism to me.  Look at the 'Fake Sheikh' and how that ended up!

Investigative journalism is all very well, but tricking people into incriminating themselves is contemptible in my opinion.  Just my view, mind.

Without this kind of journalism its unlikely wrongdoing/wrongdoers would be uncovered.

The police often set up stings and contrive situations to catch crims.  Seems quite similar to me.

As for appointing itself the nation's guardian - they believed managers were dishonest for whatever reason and sought to find some.  I've no issue with it.

If someone tried to fabricate a business dealing with me they won't find me breaking rules, albeit I'd be annoyed they'd wasted my time.

[Olé]

18 hours ago, RedDave said:

They hear that a manager has done wrong but cannot prove it so they 'entrap' them to prove that they are willing to do wrong.  Superb journalism and weeds out the scum in the game. 

Everyone is 'scum' if you offer enough money.

[CotswoldRed]

6 minutes ago, Olé said:

Everyone is 'scum' if you offer enough money.

Speak for yourself. 

[And Its Smith]

18 minutes ago, Olé said:

Everyone is 'scum' if you offer enough money.

Speak for yourself 

[Olé]

44 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Speak for yourself 

Good one...  I wasn't speaking for myself. 'Scum' wasn't my choice of words either.

I was referring to your comment that it was 'superb' journalism - yet it needed to find the right amount of money to make it work. That 'superb' journalism could fill their front pages for the rest of eternity if they keep going with the money (or sex or drugs) until they find each persons weakness. I expect the public would get bored after about 1 week though. 

BTW if the "Speak for yourself" remarks were this new fangled "virtue signalling" about personal qualities, then if you really don't have any weaknesses through which you could be induced to change your behaviour, more power to you. Most people though, I think would admit otherwise. Whether subconscious or not, integrity usually has a price. On a sliding scale:

• Not disclosing a minor defect in a private car sale - calculating that the avoided discount value is worth the "white lie"
• Telling a job interview what they want to hear, not the actual truth - calculating that the salary reward is worth the lie
• Being in hospitality with a company you're supplied by - too distracted by freebie to consider the risks to impartiality
• ...and so the list goes on, making the prize bigger, the grooming of trust longer, and the 'looseners' larger... 

Given a world where so many people, though they don't admit it, will compromise integrity for reward somewhere on that sliding scale, I fully expect with the right inputs and offers, the whole of football will be locked up before the FA Cup third round kicks off.

[And Its Smith]

23 minutes ago, Olé said:

Good one...  I wasn't speaking for myself. 'Scum' wasn't my choice of words either.

I was referring to your comment that it was 'superb' journalism - yet it needed to find the right amount of money to make it work. That 'superb' journalism could fill their front pages for the rest of eternity if they keep going with the money (or sex or drugs) until they find each persons weakness. I expect the public would get bored after about 1 week though. 

BTW if the "Speak for yourself" remarks were this new fangled "virtue signalling" about personal qualities, then if you really don't have any weaknesses through which you could be induced to change your behaviour, more power to you. Most people though, I think would admit otherwise. Whether subconscious or not, integrity usually has a price. On a sliding scale:

• Not disclosing a minor defect in a private car sale - calculating that the avoided discount value is worth the "white lie"
• Telling a job interview what they want to hear, not the actual truth - calculating that the salary reward is worth the lie
• Being in hospitality with a company you're supplied by - too distracted by freebie to consider the risks to impartiality
• ...and so the list goes on, making the prize bigger, the grooming of trust longer, and the 'looseners' larger... 

Given a world where so many people, though they don't admit it, will compromise integrity for reward somewhere on that sliding scale, I fully expect with the right inputs and offers, the whole of football will be locked up before the FA Cup third round kicks off.

Not disclosing a bump in a car is not the same as doing what Tommy Wright has done.  

[TRL]

1 hour ago, RedDave said:

Not disclosing a bump in a car is not the same as doing what Tommy Wright has done.  

Is to the person who parted with cash for the car.