quote:

Originally posted by Duncan!:
I guess all the self-indignant English fans who made fun of the Italian scandel may have to start tasting some feathers.

I do feel that this is just scratching the surface, if they dont hide it under the carpet as is the usual case in england they will find a lot more problems in the english game.
I have been saying this for a long time and i am not surprised things are finally coming to light.
deducting chelsea three points! rubbish there should be a full investigation on that club, they have been doing several things that warrant it.
dont you think it strange that the FA only have one person investigating bungs etc!
perhaps they have a finger in this as well

To be honest, I thought the programme was a biut airy fairy. It skimmed the surface but didnt really find any concrete evidence of any shocking deeds. It suggested that there may be more to the scandal, but Redknapp hardly said "give me a massive bung to buy your players"

Saying that, the evidence against Big Sam given by his own son was more damning.

As has been previously mentioned in regards to George Graham - a lucrative career as a pundit awaits all involved.

Makes the Stevens Report all the more important now.

The programme also showed the Bolton chairman, Phil Gartside, secretly dealing with agents to offload Jay-Jay Okocha. He seemed pretty keen to get rid. Meanwhile, he was making out to the press that he'd never want to lose Okocha.

Hardly a scandal I suppose, but gives Bolton fans all the more reason to be annoyed right now.

quote:

Originally posted by mrsnrub:
To be honest, I thought the programme was a biut airy fairy. It skimmed the surface but didnt really find any concrete evidence of any shocking deeds. It suggested that there may be more to the scandal, but Redknapp hardly said "give me a massive bung to buy your players"

Saying that, the evidence against Big Sam given by his own son was more damning.

As has been previously mentioned in regards to George Graham - a lucrative career as a pundit awaits all involved.

Makes the Stevens Report all the more important now.

yes i felt the same way too!
i did expect a lot more. a more worrying point was made by Zemen regarding the italian scandal.
He was brave enough to note the people who have been caught are still running italian football despite the punishments!
He says a real opportunity has been lost in cleaning the italian game once and for all!
if this is true then the future of italian football does not go well.

I watched it, in hindsight looking at some of the transfers Bolton have made over the years in hindsight and then too really I did think hang on a minute. I remember they signed some Spanish bloke from a third division team, that's not even professional is it? You do wonder what the bribe (I don't get this "bung" word) was for that one to go through? A bottle of sangria probably, judging by last night Dodgy Sam and his son would have snapped the agent's hand off for even that.

Andy Todd? Ha! Why would anyone want that useless lump unless you got a big bribe out of it? He literally gets sent off every other game he plays. I really hope Chelsea get done for that Boro kid tapping up, but like has already been said I doubt it'll happen. I listened to Five Live a bit earlier and it looks like the football world is closing ranks.

It's a murky old world by the looks of it - I would like half time entertainment at grounds now where agents are put in stocks and fans get to pelt them, smash up their Bentleys and flush Sam Allardyce's head down the toilet

The programme looked to me like it had been gutted by the BBC lawyers - presumably there wasn't enough evidence that would stand up in court to mention any more names. Which is a shame. But it will all come out in the end, I would think.

Apart from - shock horror - Chelsea tapping someone up, was the main thrust of it that managers/scouts/chairmen buy players that they don't really want or need in order to take a 'bung'?

If so, then this is surely far worse than creaming a little of the top of a genuine deal. That is, after all, the job description of a football agent. That's what I thought that they were getting at with Bolton's reserve keeper.

You could make a lot of money by shuffling players around clubs like this and 'only' taking £10k here and there.

Anyone who believes this minor scandal can be compared to the Italian scandal is, quite frankly, a fool.

The programme only really uncovered what many of us suspected anyway, but what it did do was provide strong evidence that bungs are being paid to managers. Harry Redknapp didn't appear to do much wrong at all if you ask me. While he strangely held Andy Todd in high regard, he was hardly talking to the player, or accepting bungs.

Sam Allardyce could be in trouble though. If 3 agents mention his name, then i'd say it's pretty likely he's been involved in dodgy deals.

So Craig Allardyce got 50k for signing Nakata to Bolton.Or so he wrote.
And that was a Loan deal!
Then they baulk at paying a million for him while trying to flog Okocha for 5m euros.

not only is it going on,it has been for years.
Nothing substantial will be done about it because it would be nearly impossible to regulate and anyway,theyll say,its the way its always been.The powers that be will pay lip service to the problem and once in a while a sacrificial creature will be offered up-most likely Sam Allardyce or Harry Redknapp or both to show just how seriously its being taken.To expect anything else would be as naive as thinking that modern democratic government is exercised in parliamentry chambers and not "smoke filled rooms"

I thought a bung was something you put in testubs. Does it stand for anything or is it just a weird variation of a bribe?

The etymology is from the 1950s, apparently, and is criminal slang for 'bribe' - I've been told that it was from 'bunging some cash in [someone's] direction', (from the use of 'bung' to mean 'throw' or 'put'.

God, it's sad that I know that...

(completely O/T - is your accommodation at Brum sorted out now, Rosa?)

(yes but i'm in a shared room wiuth no internet, hwoever i'm just glad i'm not homeless!)

It's not sad it's interesting. What's sad is the fact i know most things about european (and to a lesser extent world) geography from football- UEFA cup, obscure eastern european teams and the like.

I was expecting more from the programme, given all the hype beforehand. However, on the radio yesterday morning, it was reported that the FA have asked for all of the tapes and that there is stronger evidence on the tapes that hasn't been shown.

It was a shame that the deal at the hotel never went through, I'd love to know who was involved (although I suspect it might have been the manager of the South Coast Resthome for Old Footballers )

Here's what gets me.Big Sam is looking to sue the BBC for broadcasting it.Yet he isn't suing the agents for slander.It would be very easy to win as the agents now say they were lying.
Open and shut case there.
If I was him I would.Ultimately the agents have implicated him as dodgy,Panorama just documented it.

The agents could say (and a couple have, I think) that they were lying in an attempt to discover if the person to whom they were talking was (a) dodgy (b) an undercover reporter, and that if it transpired that he fell into category (a), they would have been on to the FA like a shot, oh, yes, I would have been, your honour.

Allardyce's lawyers would then have the task of proving that the agents were lying so as to spread falsehoods about Allardyce and damage his reputation, rather than using his name in an honourable (yes, I know...) attempt to uncover corruption (and of course, the agents had no idea that they were conducting anything other than a private conversation).

However, the BBC can more easily be sued for failing to ensure that the agents' comments weren't simply made up in an attempt to flush the reporter out.

This would have involved them phoning the agents, reminding them of the meeting and then saying 'actually, the chap was an undercover reporter. Were you telling the truth about Allardyce?'

Given the choice of (a) incriminating themselves or (b) saying 'Ah, I suspected there was something dodgy about the fellow, so I strung him along to see if he was genuinely corrupt, and had he convinced me that he was, I would have reported him to the FA. But I had no further meetings with him, so couldn't reach a conclusion', which do you think they'd do?

However, the fact that they failed to do this means that they may have slandered/libelled Allardyce. The BBC then has to plead justification and demonstrate that the agents concerned were telling the truth about Allardyce. Much harder for them to prove, and much easier for Allardyce's lawyers to refute, unless the BBC has further evidence from other sources. Which they may, or may not...

The burden of proof lies with the party accused of slander/libel.
Perhaps Sam won't sue them because the agents might have proof of him taking cash.That and/or further implications for his son.
I take your point that it's easier to sue the Beeb.Although like you say we'll wait to see what comes out of the unseen footage.
It's all very messy.

I'm finding it annoying, but not surprising, that the football world has closed ranks more or less totally, Mike Newell must feel like he's on a desert island or something now. I heard Phil Brown (Dodgy Sam's old assistant) on Five Live the other night sounding absolutely incredulous about it all, at one point he was asked someting like so you don't think it goes on and he replied "what, in the beautful game?!" - what a tool, probably the reason he was so useless at Derby couldn't bung his way into getting players like at Bolton. I don't want to sound like a armchair tabloid judge but I reckon they're all guilty as sin, I hope the library's thrown at them - somehow I think that's very unlikely though

Sky News interview with Peter Harrison

I don't know which is the most pointless: trial by television or trial by Football Italia Forum. It's a hard one as the actress said to...etc.