[moondog]

metallilad, on 01 October 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

I've just read the first page.
I think that Big blue has a good point. The press have gunned down the England manager because of who he is. Why did they need to do it? Why did they need to "out" him first when they are saying that there are at least 8 current & ex premier league managers who are going to be named? Is it because he was the first to be found out? Or is it because he's the England manager and his status will get sooo much press that the public are going to climb over each other to buy that paper? They apparently are still accumulating the evidence before they'll hand it over to the FA and Police. How many of you are willing to bet that this "evidence" appears in the paper prior to it being handed over? It's all going to make money for that paper in sales. But we'll call it business this time. It's all the same though. Allardyce did what he did because he was offered lots of money for it, the press make money out of it.
Again. On the first page that I've read it's stated by a couple that it's down to greed, he got what he deserved but on the flip side of this it shows that we had a man in charge of the national squad who was creative enough to take on the laws of the land and find a way around them, would you not want somebody who is that creative to do you a job instead of just punishing him? Now I'm not saying that what he did was ok but because he gets paid £400k for doing a quick job out of work and not £50 were all up in arms. He is a human being. We all want that little extra and just because he got it for talking to a fake businessman we call him greedy.
The other point I've seen is if it was Blatter would we be defending him? Blatter led a whole organisation that supposedly was corrupt making himself the most powerful man in modern football was a kerching for him and not a honour. Blatter did the wrong on so many levels and got found out, he wasn't a part of a sting operation showing everything he did.

Blatter did our country wrong and the press gunned him down. Allardyce took a dream job and the press gunned him down.

Wrong I'd be quite happy with just my £3m salary.

[metallilad]

moondog, on 01 October 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

Wrong I'd be quite happy with just my £3m salary.

But the money he was offered to sit, talk to some businessmen (with his advisor and solicitor) was approx 1/6 of his salary. If somebody who earns £20,000/yr is offered £3,000 to talk to a businessman about his job alongside a colleague & solicitor do you think they would turn it down? Just cos the numbers are bigger and they're numbers that we'd most probably never see in our lifetime we call him greedy.

[clarevoyant.]

metallilad, on 01 October 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

But the money he was offered to sit, talk to some businessmen (with his advisor and solicitor) was approx 1/6 of his salary. If somebody who earns £20,000/yr is offered £3,000 to talk to a businessman about his job alongside a colleague & solicitor do you think they would turn it down? Just cos the numbers are bigger and they're numbers that we'd most probably never see in our lifetime we call him greedy.

Greed and arrogance a toxic mix.

I'm trying to recall what all the hassle was when his son was involved a few years ago

[moondog]

metallilad, on 01 October 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

But the money he was offered to sit, talk to some businessmen (with his advisor and solicitor) was approx 1/6 of his salary. If somebody who earns £20,000/yr is offered £3,000 to talk to a businessman about his job alongside a colleague & solicitor do you think they would turn it down? Just cos the numbers are bigger and they're numbers that we'd most probably never see in our lifetime we call him greedy.

The £20k analagy isn't relevant as the greed argument is about the size of the salary and the responsibilities that came with it.

[moondog]

clarevoyant., on 01 October 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Greed and arrogance a toxic mix.

I'm trying to recall what all the hassle was when his son was involved a few years ago

See here, Craig of course being a former Spireite, big Sam threatened to sue at the time but never did


http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/5360700.stm


"He said he would not condone any breach of FA rules whatever personal affection he has for his son"

[Bluekent]

metallilad, on 01 October 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

But the money he was offered to sit, talk to some businessmen (with his advisor and solicitor) was approx 1/6 of his salary. If somebody who earns £20,000/yr is offered £3,000 to talk to a businessman about his job alongside a colleague & solicitor do you think they would turn it down? Just cos the numbers are bigger and they're numbers that we'd most probably never see in our lifetime we call him greedy.

Meeting with a businessman isn't the problem though is it , if he turned up found out what it was actually about and told them to shove it we wouldn't be having this debate. If someone dangles a dodgy carrot in front of you , you don't have to eat it.

[metallilad]

Bluekent, on 01 October 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Meeting with a businessman isn't the problem though is it , if he turned up found out what it was actually about and told them to shove it we wouldn't be having this debate. If someone dangles a dodgy carrot in front of you , you don't have to eat it.

He was targeted by the press because of his status. The main point is why did the press need to do this, why did they need to announce that the England manager did this before stating any other managers that are tangled up in this? People are calling Allardyce greedy but the paper is only doing this to sell papers, not for the love of the game. We'll dress it up and call it business but it's all about making money, which is exactly what Allardyce was doing. Talking to the "businessmen" wasn't illegal, what he said was what cost him his job but talking to a bloke for £400,000 is not illegal or greedy.

[calvin plummers socks]

It's journalism at its best.
Investigating wrong doing and highlighting it.
I like Big Sam but had his fingers burnt once to often.

Contrast with shoddy journalism- like local Twitter hack Biggsy.
Speculation which is usually wrong and nothing controversial dared by written for fear of not being allowed in the press room.

I'd imagine Cookie is thinking long and hard about any dealings he and Wright did in the last few years and praying it was all above board

[Mr Mercury]

metallilad, on 01 October 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

He was targeted by the press because of his status. The main point is why did the press need to do this, why did they need to announce that the England manager did this before stating any other managers that are tangled up in this? People are calling Allardyce greedy but the paper is only doing this to sell papers, not for the love of the game. We'll dress it up and call it business but it's all about making money, which is exactly what Allardyce was doing. Talking to the "businessmen" wasn't illegal, what he said was what cost him his job but talking to a bloke for £400,000 is not illegal or greedy.

So why was Tommy Wright targeted by the press, hardly because of his status, maybe because they'd been tipped the wink he may be likely to accept?
Alladyce, like Redknapp, was targeted because their names, whether rightly or not, have never been far away when any topic of football financial dealings of a certain sort have cropped up.

[metallilad]

Mr Mercury, on 01 October 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

So why was Tommy Wright targeted by the press, hardly because of his status, maybe because they'd been tipped the wink he may be likely to accept?
Alladyce, like Redknapp, was targeted because their names, whether rightly or not, have never been far away when any topic of football financial dealings of a certain sort have cropped up.

Ive read that thread on Tommy and not one person has stated that he shouldnt have been so greedy.

[metallilad]

Mr Mercury, on 01 October 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

So why was Tommy Wright targeted by the press, hardly because of his status, maybe because they'd been tipped the wink he may be likely to accept?
Alladyce, like Redknapp, was targeted because their names, whether rightly or not, have never been far away when any topic of football financial dealings of a certain sort have cropped up.

Why didn't the press release the story about Tommy accepting the money before Allardyce? Would Tommy sell as many papers as the current England manager?

[Mr Mercury]

metallilad, on 01 October 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Why didn't the press release the story about Tommy accepting the money before Allardyce? Would Tommy sell as many papers as the current England manager?

Of course not

[moondog]

calvin plummers socks, on 01 October 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

It's journalism at its best.
Investigating wrong doing and highlighting it.
I like Big Sam but had his fingers burnt once to often.

Contrast with shoddy journalism- like local Twitter hack Biggsy.
Speculation which is usually wrong and nothing controversial dared by written for fear of not being allowed in the press room.

I'd imagine Cookie is thinking long and hard about any dealings he and Wright did in the last few years and praying it was all above board

Cook replaced Wright!

[metallilad]

Mr Mercury, on 01 October 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Of course not

Just like I said. They put Allardyce up first cos it gets all the publicity, sells their paper making more money but that's just business. But because Allardyce wanted more money it was greed.

[calvin plummers socks]

moondog, on 01 October 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

Cook replaced Wright!

Argh of course he did!
My bad!
Seems like a lifetime ago!
(Sheridans assistant not Cooks) must remember!

[Guest_freelander2_*]

http://www.telegraph...-to-get-into-t/

[Paul Fisher]

calvin plummers socks, on 01 October 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

Argh of course he did!
My bad!
Seems like a lifetime ago!
(Sheridans assistant not Cooks) must remember!

Wright was Cook's assistant until the summer of 2013. He and Crossley then left and Leam Richardson dropped the Accrington job and joined Cook.

[Sammy Spireite]

freelander2, on 17 October 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

http://www.telegraph...-to-get-into-t/

Paying off an employee while publically condemning his actions whilst in your employment could be construed as 'hush hush money'

Would never happen down at 1866 Sheffield Road.....

[60s 70s Spireite]

Sammy Spireite, on 17 October 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Paying off an employee while publically condemning his actions whilst in your employment could be construed as 'hush hush money'

Or following lawyers' advice when it comes to contract and employment law.

[DIFH]

freelander2, on 29 September 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

Nearly 14 years old, but still a good read:

http://www.telegraph...tball-club.html

Neil Warnock the centre of allegations this morning .