Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
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.[/QUOTE]
I know where you're coming from!Not only do you get to watch the best sport in the world but you get a geographic knowledge that your less fortunate friends could never dream of having.Almost every obscure part of Scotland ive been to outwith the western highlands has been because of football
|
| |
|
|
The problem with the programme was that it proved nothing at all.
The central premise of the programme was flawed. I.e. Posing as a potential criminal and asking people if they'd like to earn a fortune joining the scam. Either the dodgy agents interviewed were truthful characters and you take what they said at face value or they were bigging themselves up to get in on the scam. No manager implicated himself in an interview and there was no documentary evidence.
The Redknapp interview was idiotic and that, along with other rubbish, undermined the whole case (what little case there was). The prog could have been 15 minutes long, and focussed solely on Craig Allardyce. It was only this bit that mattered at all. And unless proof that Allardyce Junior actually received money for the transfers, there's no case for Allardyce to answer. And even if he did, there's still not much of a case.
The whole "tapping up" thing is a joke. If players and agents never spoke to other clubs without permission (and vice versa), there would be virtually no transfers. It's a ridiculous rule, as it is unenforceable (as well as being a restraint of labour) and is broken every day probably by every club.
The few people fooled into thinking this documentary was revelatory in any way were taken in by the cloak and dagger methods of the "investigation" and the silly cod-detective thriller production values. Some chump in an earlier post suggested Redknapp's reputation had been damaged. I think it's helped him if anything.
|
| |
|
|
Of all the shocks in the world, that "chump" may well be me (first page, second post). I was as stunned as you all are that the Foro's answer to a question no-one asked picked out something I had posted for dispute, believe you me. However, I'm positvely moist in anticipation of the explanation as to how Harry Redknapp came out of this particular exposé with more professional credibility than he had beforehand...
ACF FIORENTINA : FORZA LA VIOLA
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
The problem with the programme was that it proved nothing at all.
The central premise of the programme was flawed. I.e. Posing as a potential criminal and asking people if they'd like to earn a fortune joining the scam. Either the dodgy agents interviewed were truthful characters and you take what they said at face value or they were bigging themselves up to get in on the scam. No manager implicated himself in an interview and there was no documentary evidence.
The Redknapp interview was idiotic and that, along with other rubbish, undermined the whole case (what little case there was). The prog could have been 15 minutes long, and focussed solely on Craig Allardyce. It was only this bit that mattered at all. And unless proof that Allardyce Junior actually received money for the transfers, there's no case for Allardyce to answer. And even if he did, there's still not much of a case.
The whole "tapping up" thing is a joke. If players and agents never spoke to other clubs without permission (and vice versa), there would be virtually no transfers. It's a ridiculous rule, as it is unenforceable (as well as being a restraint of labour) and is broken every day probably by every club.
The few people fooled into thinking this documentary was revelatory in any way were taken in by the cloak and dagger methods of the "investigation" and the silly cod-detective thriller production values. Some chump in an earlier post suggested Redknapp's reputation had been damaged. I think it's helped him if anything.
the whole programme was a waste of time and licens payers money! |
| |
|
|
Agreed. Nothing proved and a pointless PR exercise for the beeb.
"It's been a long time, I shouldn't have left you ..............."
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Giovanni L:
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.
I know, who'd have thought it eh? People giving their opinions about a football issue on a football forum.....  By the amount of "we've sought legal advice"'s I've read, I bet the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee over all this stuff, it'll be nice for them give them a bit of a change from their endless compo claims cases |
| |
|
|
Yes, it's a lawyers' picnic. You'd hope that the BBC do have some actual evidence up their sleeve, though my suspicion is that they'll get taken to the cleaners. And paying "Big Sam" huge compensation (plus legal costs) will be a wonderful use of taxpayers' money... Shame Panorama don't just give Chomsky and Pilger free reign on alternate weeks rather than coming up with this tripe.
|
| |
|
|
Can't see any more posts from the numpties on the first page of this thread who where condemning the terribly corrupt English football scene and comparing it unfavourably with the Italian.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Giovanni L:
Can't see any more posts from the numpties on the first page of this thread who where condemning the terribly corrupt English football scene and comparing it unfavourably with the Italian.
If Chelsea and Liverpool are subjects of the investigation of improper conduct and face a penalty that includes a points reduction then isn't it obvious to draw parallels between the two countries (Italy and England)? Nothing is exposed for years and then all of a sudden two major (although different) scandals are exposed in two of Europe's most prominent football nations and you dismiss comparisons. Strange. |
| |
|
|
The point you seem to be struggling to grasp is that a major scandal has not been exposed in English football.
|
| |
|
|
Whilst the allegations were, in the end, fairly timid, I still think those involving Allardyce are quite serious. The programme showed that he was signing players on the condition his son was secretly paid money.
I didn't realise that tapping-up a youth player was a a different offence from tapping-up a professionally-contracted player...which makes Chelsea meeting with that Boro player not half as interesting as I had orginally thought.
|
| |
|
|
The programme didn't show anything of the sort Michael.
Allardyce's son told somebody (apparently offering him a lot of money to join his scheme) that he'd been involved in all manner of transfers. Even if Allardyce's son was given money in transfers transfers for which he wasn'the named agent, it certainly doesn't follow that the payments to Craig A were a condition of the transfers.
It isn't even anything new. Fergie's son was paid all manner of money for dodgy Manure transfers. Oddly there was a lot less hype about the prog that exposed all those goings on.
I think what should be remembered with all this is the salaries of the folk involved. With Allardyce being paid a few million pounds a year, the idea that his modus operandi is making money out of bungs is far fetched. Not impossible but far fetched. A rational financial objective for Allardyce is to secure another £15 million contract not to fill his squad with players that are no use to the club for the sake of an extra £100k. Admittedly people are often not rational, but a case against Allardyce requires evidence and this programme produced little or none.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Giovanni L:
The point you seem to be struggling to grasp is that a major scandal has not been exposed in English football.
If there wasn't any substance then there wouldn't be such extensive investigations which have been underway since Newell's revelations back in January. Nine months later and the investigation is ongoing (if it had been a tenuous claim it would have been dismissed immediately), yet you seem compelled to dismiss that this carries any weight because of a faulty Panorama documentary. Suppose the Panorama documentary did not exist...did you think there was a match-fixing scandal in Italy before the Calciopoli verdicts? Any answer other than 'yes' is a lie. Thus why would it be daft to assume that the Stevens Report is a waste of time? No smoke without fire. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
Fergie's son was paid all manner of money for dodgy Manure transfers. Oddly there was a lot less hype about the prog that exposed all those goings on.
There was the BBC3 documentary about it...i remember that being quite poor viewing though as it was somewhat of a stretch to make one hour's interesting tv out of suggestions about only one persons 'dodgy deals' as opposed to two or three peoples
"Why do you take my statements with a papal seriousness?"
"I don't want the virgin olive oil..."
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
The programme didn't show anything of the sort Michael.
Even if Allardyce's son was given money in transfers transfers for which he wasn'the named agent, it certainly doesn't follow that the payments to Craig A were a condition of the transfers.
No, but it's extremely suspicious - and if Panorama do have further evidence they were unable to show, then the FA could have to take action. quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
It isn't even anything new. Fergie's son was paid all manner of money for dodgy Manure transfers.
So if it's "nothing new", this implies you think Allardyce Jnr was paid money in dodgy transfers? |
| |
|
|
I meant the allegations were nothing new, not the fact, but the fact either manager's son was paid illegally proves nothing against the manager. It's just the BBC hype that's new with this, apparently for reasons of giving a boost to the dismal-looking new Panorma series.
I don't think anybody is suggesting the Stevens Report is rubbish Bracey (we'll wait with baited breath for that one...). The title of this thread, and subject under discussion, is the Panorama documentary. And no, there is no prospect of anybody getting points deductions. You're getting just a little carried away.
Neither a few agents making extravagant claims, Redknapp saying he admires Andy Todd, nor the threat of the Stevens Report constitute a scandal. Sadly. I'd love a good football scandal, but wait more in hope than expectation.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
It's just the BBC hype that's new with this, apparently for reasons of giving a boost to the dismal-looking new Panorma series.
Perhaps, although the Panorama programme last night about Gordon Brown was excellent, I thought. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
I don't think anybody is suggesting the Stevens Report is rubbish Bracey (we'll wait with baited breath for that one...). The title of this thread, and subject under discussion, is the Panorama documentary. And no, there is no prospect of anybody getting points deductions. You're getting just a little carried away.
Neither a few agents making extravagant claims, Redknapp saying he admires Andy Todd, nor the threat of the Stevens Report constitute a scandal. Sadly. I'd love a good football scandal, but wait more in hope than expectation.
Chelsea are rumoured to be on the receiving end of a points deduction so I reject that claim. Plus I never said it was on a par with the Calciopoli business, I said... "It doesn't look healthy if the whole English game is exposed and in light of the punishment of Italian teams this summer, certain quarters will invariably call for stringent punishments." The Panorama documentary cannot be detached from the real issue which is the initial bung claim. This suspect covert documentary was inextricably tied in to Newell's revelations. I even recall him being quoted in the piece. |
| |
|
|
Well it obviously can be detached insofar as the Panoroma docu is what we were discussing and it's "investigation" (or the beginning of the investigation) actually preceded both Newell's comments and the subsequent inquiry. You are right to recall Newell being quoted in the prog, but you clearly misunderstood the context of this as you presumably weren't paying very much attention. And to be fair, who can blame you?
The key to your first sentence is the word "rumoured". You can reject what you like, but Chelsea won't be receiving any points deductions arising from Panorama for reasons explained to you by Michael LV (above).
It's reasonable for you to say that "if the whole of the English game is exposed...certain quarters invariably will call for stringent punishments". The key word here is "if". And If the pope is exposed as a woman it would do great harm to the Catholic church. It might happen, but there's no evidence of it so far.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir George:
Well it obviously can be detached insofar as the Panoroma docu is what we were discussing and it's "investigation" (or the beginning of the investigation) actually preceded both Newell's comments and the subsequent inquiry. You are right to recall Newell being quoted in the prog, but you clearly misunderstood the context of this as you presumably weren't paying very much attention. And to be fair, who can blame you?
The key to your first sentence is the word "rumoured". You can reject what you like, but Chelsea won't be receiving any points deductions arising from Panorama for reasons explained to you by Michael LV (above).
It's reasonable for you to say that "if the whole of the English game is exposed...certain quarters invariably will call for stringent punishments". The key word here is "if". And If the pope is exposed as a woman it would do great harm to the Catholic church. It might happen, but there's no evidence of it so far.
Chelsea are currently the subject of a joint investigation by the Premier League and Football Association over claims by Leeds of illegal approaches for three academy players last season. They were given a suspended three-point deduction by the Premier League following the Ashley Cole 'tapping up' case, hence they are on thin ice. Once again I'll reiterate my position - Panorama talks about bungs, Newell talks about bungs and investigation begins. Therefore, why is it off-topic to discuss the pending investigation in this thread when the subject matter remains the same? I would equally like to point out that I never claimed that there was a logical sequence of events in which one caused the other. I find it impossible not to at least mention the Stevens Report as another (albeit separate and no doubt more valid) inquisition into the so-called "bung culture". Whilst it's fair to illustrate the necessity to reserve judgement until the report is published, I have no doubt in my mind that, after eight or nine months of probing, something will be found that incriminates the English game/individuals within the game's structure. Which means, if the verdict exonerates everyone of everything, I will let you and Giovanni L be the first to pour scorn on my assumptions. |
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
