Giovanni and myself were quibbling with your assertion that "a scandal has been exposed". That's all. Nothing has been exposed.

Your optimism regarding the report and the ability of investigators to find firm evidence is refreshing, but I don't share it. While I'd love to see the names of such awful characters as Big Sam, Fergie and Appy Arry dragged through the mud, it isn't likely. There have been well-funded investigations before that revealed nothing. George Graham was caught presumably for not taking basic precautions to hide the paper trail, but we'll be lucky to find more such carelessness.

It should also be noted that managers and agents are being accused effectively of stealing from football clubs. It's a far cry from the sort of ref fixing shenanigans and corruption that went on in Italy.

As for Chelsea, as I've said the whole "tapping up" malarky is hardly corruption. It's breaking silly, unenforcebale rules, but hardly corrupt in any meaningful sense of the word. In what other profession is it illegal for employers to offer people jobs just because they are working for somebody else? It's a nonsense and will almost certainly be scrapped by the EU.

Bracey, the problem is that there is a conflation of the Panorama allegations, the Leeds allegations and the Cole case in much of the reporting.

The youth players are all covered by a separate FA rule, and the FA will not (and cannot) invoke the suspended points penalty imposed for the Cole offence if they find Chelsea have a case to answer over the youth team players. Unlike the judicial system, the FA can't invoke a suspended penalty awarded for one offence when/if a different offence is found to have been committed (this presupposes that the FA source who gave this info to the Times/Torygraph has got his facts right, of course).

Like George, I can't quite see why it is that players (employees) are prevented from speaking with other prospective employers when no other profession is subject to this.

While I will cheerfully (and, I suppose, slightly hypocritically) lambast the ridiculous illegal approach by press-posturing by Real Madrid presidential candidates while the rule is in place, the rule itself does seem unsustainable under EU law.

Bung-taking is not as serious as match-fixing as it is neither performance-enhancing nor are external parties significantly affected. Bungs are the concern of the recipient (manager), the provider (presumably agent) and the victims (fans/club). Conspiring to produce a desired result is of detriment/benefit to every member of a particular league, betting punters and society as a whole.

I think that the process of transfers of one player to another club pretty much ensures that "tapping up" is reprehensible. In normal practice, the clubs agree a fee before negotiating personal terms with that player. Employers in routine business are not bound to compensate a prospective target's current employers (unless I'm very much mistaken). Only EU trading regulation enforcement will prevent clubs from reversing this trend as they will not risk driving down transfer fees as a result of players and their agents negotiating with teams in the first place.

Agents are frequently lambasted as being ill-intentioned parasites for unceremonious dealings, e.g. Paul Stretford and Wayne Rooney in 2004. Yet they are only allowed to behave in such a way because clubs and managers allow them. If approaching a player first is to become legally acceptable then there must be a rule in enacted in tandem that stipulates that only a player can compensate his agent and clubs are not obliged to compensate them for their involvement. This seems fair because agents are acting on behalf of the players and not the clubs!! Can't see Gordon Taylor greeting the news however.

quote:

Originally posted by .Dave.:
Like George, I can't quite see why it is that players (employees) are prevented from speaking with other prospective employers when no other profession is subject to this. .

Erm, most other professions dont have an intermediary who stands to make vast sums of money when the switch is made between said employers, though.

quote:

Bung-taking is not as serious as match-fixing as it is neither performance-enhancing nor are external parties significantly affected

Errr, hang on mate. They both cheat the football fan and so in my eyes its just as bad. If I'm paying £60 to see my football team play then i dont expect any of that cash to be used to "sweeten" transfer deals for club offcials to heat their olympic size swimming pools. Cheating on or off the pitch is just as bad and shows just how rotten football is everywhere.

Not just Italy.

quote:

Originally posted by roma4ever:

quote:

Bung-taking is not as serious as match-fixing as it is neither performance-enhancing nor are external parties significantly affected

Errr, hang on mate. They both cheat the football fan and so in my eyes its just as bad. If I'm paying £60 to see my football team play then i dont expect any of that cash to be used to "sweeten" transfer deals for club offcials to heat their olympic size swimming pools. Cheating on or off the pitch is just as bad and shows just how rotten football is everywhere.

Not just Italy.

Which team do you watch, paying £60 a time?

I can't overestimate the seriousness of bung-taking but it is in no way as bad as match-fixing for the reasons I have stated.

I understand why you'd wish to preserve the name of Italian football but the over-arching implications of match-fixing supersede bung-taking.

quote:

Originally posted by Bracey:

Which team do you watch, paying £60 a time?

Arsenal?

http://www.arsenal.com/membership/article.asp?article=338115&title=Tickets

Allardyce, being interviwed on Sky Sports after the 0 - 1 win by Bolton at Portsmouth, looked, despite refuting the Panorama claim, a broken man. No doubt his frame of mind was not helped by the impending speculation in the British media yesterday that Newcastle were expected to be announcing the sacking of Kevin Bond.

The Stevens Inquiry will be reorting next week and it has already been confirmed that the Bond/Portsmouth affair was part of the ongoing investigations.

Bond has been sacked now.Was this Sheperd's decision or Roeder's?

I'd bet Shepherd. Hell, its not like Bond will be missed at the club anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Bracey:

Which team do you watch, paying £60 a time?

Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs. All charge up to £60 mate especially if its a top rated match. Not sure about Liverpool or ManYoo but they cant be too far behind. Even Reading are charging £35 a match.

With so much cash sloshing around its not surprising but I still equate it to match fixing cos me, the fan, is being cheated.

The most you'll spend on a ticket at Old Trafford is £37, with some tickets in the lower levels of the stadium available at £23...

More expensive around the capital, it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezz:
The most you'll spend on a ticket at Old Trafford is £37, with some tickets in the lower levels of the stadium available at £23...

For a "top" team, United have always been reasonable. Liverpool were until a few years ago. And now cheeky Dave Whelan is charging £35 for away fans, £30 for over 65's.

My bruv in law went to see Spurs-Chelski last season and paid £60 and didnt even get great seats.

Crazy money for 1hr30 of dire football.

True about Manure, but with large long-term debt to finance, (plus funding transfers to maintain their position a few paces behind the game's elite clubs) that will certainly change over the next 3 or 4 years.