I think people are missing the point about the payments for "speaking." This is all very similar to how Bill Clinton gets paid ridiculous sums of money to speak that just happen to be linked to businesses that gain from US state approvals and the donations from people linked to same businesses that then donate to the foundation. Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a single speech in moscow around the same time as the Russian uranium deal was approved. This is surely the same. The £400k for Allardyce to "speak" is obviously the cover for the payment for his services and not just speaking. "Can you come and make a speech, we'll pay £400k" must be the code for "We need your insider help and we'll pay you very handsomely for it...........ooh my back is itchy, is yours?"
It's not that black-and-white. Because for example, Bill Clinton actually holds no office and has no formal power. And in fact, Hillary Clinton didn't even have the power to approve those deals. And many of the companies that paid Clinton also paid Bush and anyone else. For a company, you don't need a formal tit-for-tat arrangement. The money is small compared to the potential benefit. If they do something for you, great. But even if they don't, the fact that you are hobnobbing with ex-Presidents and powerful politicians is still good for business. Maybe people believe you are bribing them, even if you aren't. Maybe people just take your company more seriously because after all not everyone knows the President. From Clinton's standpoint... same thing. He may have no plans to help these guys out, but if it gets money to his foundation that can help others, so much the better. This type of thing is very hard to call a bribe. Friends helping out friends in an oldboys network with no specific expectations of payback is not illegal. But at least in politics we can say it is shady even if not criminal. Because it's easy to cross the line, and many American dollars and potentially lives are at stake. So if nothing else, the appearance of impropriety and lack of transparency is a bad thing. But in football... well, I don't really care. There is no conflict of interest here. Or at least no more conflict of interest than already is inherent in a manager/club/supporter/agent relationship. It sounds like maybe Wright is sort of saying (maybe) "Look, I'm just trying to win some games. These are players I think will help me do that. I'm not going to inquire as to how you get them, do whatever shady stuff you gotta do. If that means I have to take a player later on I might not like as much or some other favor but the overall package is still worth the eventual cost, fine. And if you want to pay me 5k on top of that... well, even better." The team is better because it got that player. The supporters are happier because the team is better. Wright is happier because his team is winning, his career is going good, and he's got an extra 5k. The agent is happier because he has more influence and can use that influence to help his clients (and make more money). The clients are happier because their agent is getting them the teams and contracts they want. It's a win-win. It's so win-win that every party involved is willing to give up something to make it all happen. To me it's no different than when a dealership sells me a car with a $3k upcharge for the super stereo package. I don't particularly want the super-stereo package. If I did, I would install it myself for much less than $3k. But I do want say, a moon roof. And I can't get the moonroof without the super-stereo package. In the end even with the super-stereo, the price still comes down to less than what I would pay at any other dealer or for any other comparable model car. I get the car I want at the best deal possible, the dealer gets a nice extra profit on the car, the car maker maybe gets some extra financing. ALL of business is you scratching someone else's back in return for them scratching yours. I only care when you two scratching each other's backs means someone else loses their human rights. Can't see anything even remotely approaching that in this situation. Which isn't to excuse Wright. While I might not think that cash exchange is inherently unethical, it's still against the rules. And presumably other, more scrupulous people are playing by the rules. So he got an unfair advantage by deliberately cheating. Cheating is wrong. No point in playing a game, when the game has no rules, or no one obeys them. So I have no sympathy for him. But I also find myself... sort of failing to be aghast. Because I'm just like "So? Just make all this legal and the problem goes away." I suppose I might be more convinced if The Telegraph showed me how this impacts me as a supporter or a taxpayer. But instead it seems less like "We are exposing this for justice!" and more "EXCLUSIVE! BUY OUR NEWSPAPER! WE CAUGHT SOMEONE BEING NAUGHTY TEEHEE! AND NO ONE ELSE DID!!" So I do feel a little dirty perhaps in supporting Gotcha journalism. Like... how much time and effort was spent on this, and couldn't it have better been spent exposing dirty politicians, or at least dirty FIFA whose crookedness is legit costing lives in Dubai? So my predominant feeling is really more like "Meh" to the whole thing. If I cared about social justice I should probably be spending my time and money helping the poor or something. And even from a pure sporting perspective, if I wanted football to be more fair and more fun to watch, there are much bigger issues than this. Like revenue sharing amongst clubs. Or standing only sections. Stamping out hooligans and kicking out racism.
"People" being the football authorities and not people involved at Southampton, that is. That Saints have aired some concerns and not gotten a response but they think that now the powers-that-be will be more receptive to them. Otherwise, it could be misinterpreted that people at Saints have not been listening to crooked agents before, but now that they see things are evolving in the sport, they will!
No. There are some rotten apples in the barrel. Maybe a lot of rotten ones, but don't tarnish everyone with the same brush. We've had enough of that this week.
Oh grow up for Christ sake. I don't need to appease you by being specific in every post, obviously not all salesman and journalists are bad. Yes, I'm definitely in a dead end job, and whilst I'm at work today I'll be smiling to myself knowing you're helping to pay my salary FLT.
Making money on the side to the detriment of your employers is a crime. If you purchase one player over another for your monetary gain and your club (who trusts you) ends up paying more, you are cheating. It's a very slippery slope once you start thinking that you'd have bought him anyway, so no one is hurt if you get a cut....only one step from buying a poor player because it is in your financial interest. And if corruption is rife, more people get drawn into it....remember that young cricketer who got drawn into cheating by more senior players. However, so far all revelations do not concern the actual game. That is where my true interest lies...there are many countries where matches are fixed and that would be intolerable. Perhaps there has been the odd spot fix that we know nothing about, but the game is generally clean. And refs don't live in fear of their lives as they do in South America. So no need for total despair.
And can I just say how pleased I am with what RK said. No scorn cast on entrapment, no tears for Sam. Just disappointment in a system that they kinda knew harboured deceptive flaws. Well said that man.
Perhaps if you didn't mean to include all salesmen (or all journalists) in your tirade you shouldn't have worded it that way. If you make sweeping statements on an Internet forum you should be prepared to be criticised by those who disagree with you. Be more careful next time perhaps?
It will of course be [SUPERINJUNCTION] and [SUPERINJUNCTION] and it is hard to understand how [SUPERINJUNCTION] has got away with it for so long when it was pretty well known that he was up to this sort of thing. Surely there will be more on Allardyce now!!! Ravel Morrisson tweeted last night "No 1 listened to a word I said." and we know one other that is surely on the list. There are another 2 which I would think most people suspect and then there will be a couple we are schocked by. Either way there is no point appointing the next England Manager until its all come out because some of the "candidates" may well fall in the next week.
Same here, but then one straight away stops being sad when one realises that part of the reason why one liked the bloke has been down to one's own error in judgement. He's not quite the nice guy one thought he was. You can still like him if you want. Just take into account that he isn't Mr Honourable Chap. PS. Apologies for the overdose in 3rd personage.
What we haven't spoken about is how many pundits will be missing from the screens after this. A lot of the ex managers like [SUPERINJUNCTION] that the media for some reason loved was quite often a pundit. Hasselbaink has been quite a few times and potentially a fair few that are "guest" pundits might be in this. Wouldn't think the TV companies will want to be putting these guys on screen anymore telling us how good or bad the game is/was. Especially [SUPERINJUNCTION]