Allardyce done?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I thought it was because our team is no good.
It's not as simple as that. quality of management
effectiveness as a TEAM
pride in one's country
Some or all of these factors have been weak in England teams on and off for decades.
Twitter and the internet has already sacked him before actually reading the questions he was asked and what he actually said in response.
So he's stuffed.
What does it say about our footballing nation when the England manager 3 weeks into his job is targeted for a sting campaign for the express purpose of discrediting him?
What he *actually* said, in context may be a little embarrassing in hindsight, but it's not the rocket fuel it's made out to be. Headlines make it sound he's accepted £400k in a dodgy transfer deal.
The reality is that he's:
1) Been offered money for a job he confirms is a 'keynote speaker' at public events.
2) He says on at least one occasion that this was subject to the FA ('the powers that be') sanctioning it. Thus the headline that he's 'accepted' a deal is incorrect.
3) His comment that 3rd party ownership is 'not a problem' is as simple at that - it is not. He puts forward a business model whereby instead of paying a player agent as is the case now, a football club would employ that agent instead so that when the player is sold they have to pay the agent less. IMHO a good development for football.
4) When his own agent suggests something dodgy, he lambasts him for saying it, and specifically corrects him on what is allowed/not allowed.
5) Whilst the fact that he brought up the FA, and that is embarrassing, his reference to the FA being 'stupid' in presiding over a debt caused by Wembley costing £800m not the £400m it should have may be harsh but true.
The idea that Allardyce accepted money for insider dodgy knowledge, or that this was going to be the content of his proposed public engagements is implied by the media, but fact and logic would dictate that it's pure fantasy.
He's been hounded out by journalists who must have planned this sting within days of him getting the job.
So he's stuffed.
What does it say about our footballing nation when the England manager 3 weeks into his job is targeted for a sting campaign for the express purpose of discrediting him?
What he *actually* said, in context may be a little embarrassing in hindsight, but it's not the rocket fuel it's made out to be. Headlines make it sound he's accepted £400k in a dodgy transfer deal.
The reality is that he's:
1) Been offered money for a job he confirms is a 'keynote speaker' at public events.
2) He says on at least one occasion that this was subject to the FA ('the powers that be') sanctioning it. Thus the headline that he's 'accepted' a deal is incorrect.
3) His comment that 3rd party ownership is 'not a problem' is as simple at that - it is not. He puts forward a business model whereby instead of paying a player agent as is the case now, a football club would employ that agent instead so that when the player is sold they have to pay the agent less. IMHO a good development for football.
4) When his own agent suggests something dodgy, he lambasts him for saying it, and specifically corrects him on what is allowed/not allowed.
5) Whilst the fact that he brought up the FA, and that is embarrassing, his reference to the FA being 'stupid' in presiding over a debt caused by Wembley costing £800m not the £400m it should have may be harsh but true.
The idea that Allardyce accepted money for insider dodgy knowledge, or that this was going to be the content of his proposed public engagements is implied by the media, but fact and logic would dictate that it's pure fantasy.
He's been hounded out by journalists who must have planned this sting within days of him getting the job.
JustinP1 said:
3) His comment that 3rd party ownership is 'not a problem' is as simple at that - it is not.
Except it is banned. By the very institution who pay him millions. So if, as he claims, he knows how to break those rules and get away with it, he probably shouldn't be pitching his services to crooks.He shouldn't be pitching anything to anyone. He's England Manager.
SpeckledJim said:
JustinP1 said:
3) His comment that 3rd party ownership is 'not a problem' is as simple at that - it is not.
Except it is banned. By the very institution who pay him millions. So if, as he claims, he knows how to break those rules and get away with it, he probably shouldn't be pitching his services to crooks.He shouldn't be pitching anything to anyone. He's England Manager.
He's wasn't offered to be paid for his advice - he was offered to be paid as a *public* speaker, where clearly you don't promote banned practices. He did not accept - he got taken out for a meal with his agent, and left it stating no more than that he'd speak to the FA about doing it.
Does anyone really think that big Sam was going to rock up to the FA and ask if he can represent a dodgy company doing banned deals, seriously!?
Nope - the story is spin and inference. What he chirped up about this:
Allardyce's agent: "Is that third party ownership a problem though?"
Sam Allardyce: "It's not a problem."
You've fallen into the trap deliberately set out by those reporting the story and the sound bytes, that implying that he's done something dodgy at the start puts a spin on what you think he means in the later sound bytes mean. Take the spin away and the meaning of the words he uttered are that he does not believe 3rd party ownership is a problem in the Premier League - or indeed whatever background they were discussing.
In the same way that he may not think racism is a problem, or that fan violence is a problem in football. That does not mean he condones it or is able to provide methods to be racist or a hooligan.
However, as there is 'BREAK' in the transcript put at opportune moments, so we cannot make meaningful inference as to the meaning. I would suggest the comments taken out of context infer a much more juicy meaning than reality.
JustinP1 said:
SpeckledJim said:
JustinP1 said:
3) His comment that 3rd party ownership is 'not a problem' is as simple at that - it is not.
Except it is banned. By the very institution who pay him millions. So if, as he claims, he knows how to break those rules and get away with it, he probably shouldn't be pitching his services to crooks.He shouldn't be pitching anything to anyone. He's England Manager.
He's wasn't offered to be paid for his advice - he was offered to be paid as a *public* speaker, where clearly you don't promote banned practices. He did not accept - he got taken out for a meal with his agent, and left it stating no more than that he'd speak to the FA about doing it.
Does anyone really think that big Sam was going to rock up to the FA and ask if he can represent a dodgy company doing banned deals, seriously!?
Nope - the story is spin and inference. What he chirped up about this:
Allardyce's agent: "Is that third party ownership a problem though?"
Sam Allardyce: "It's not a problem."
You've fallen into the trap deliberately set out by those reporting the story and the sound bytes, that implying that he's done something dodgy at the start puts a spin on what you think he means in the later sound bytes mean. Take the spin away and the meaning of the words he uttered are that he does not believe 3rd party ownership is a problem in the Premier League - or indeed whatever background they were discussing.
In the same way that he may not think racism is a problem, or that fan violence is a problem in football. That does not mean he condones it or is able to provide methods to be racist or a hooligan.
However, as there is 'BREAK' in the transcript put at opportune moments, so we cannot make meaningful inference as to the meaning. I would suggest the comments taken out of context infer a much more juicy meaning than reality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/sam-allardyce-transcripts-of-undercover-films-in-full-a7332246.html
There is enough in there to sink a club manager, never mind the England Manager.
Lets see what else the Telegraph have. The FA are apparently aware that there is more.
SpeckledJim said:
He is not saying third party ownership is not a problem. He is clearly saying circumventing the rules about third party ownership is not a problem. The transcript is here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/sam-allardyce-transcripts-of-undercover-films-in-full-a7332246.html
There is enough in there to sink a club manager, never mind the England Manager.
Lets see what else the Telegraph have. The FA are apparently aware that there is more.
I think this is the link you mean? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/intern...http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/sam-allardyce-transcripts-of-undercover-films-in-full-a7332246.html
There is enough in there to sink a club manager, never mind the England Manager.
Lets see what else the Telegraph have. The FA are apparently aware that there is more.
Reporting that that is the 'full transcript' when we don't know the context of the 'it's not a problem' is just silly.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff