Big Sam could be in trouble...

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is a fantastic get out of jail card for the FA and the ludicrous decision to employ Big Sam

 

[Normal Rob]

Listening to Talksport now. How long has Barry Shitpeas been an agent for?

 

[AK74]

Convincing denial here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/thebig_sam

 

[Ernest]

Typical TORY press witch hunt, he has done nothing wrong so why all this discussion ? Rooney has done far worse as England captain yet still plays

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Hoddle went for much much less

He has to go, this isn't a shock

Hoddle had to go. Apart from all the Eileen Drewery nonsense you cant say things along the lines of "the disabled are paying for sins in a previous life"

Far worse than taking a few quid off dodgy arabs.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Should never be getting involved in any illegal deals such as these.

1.You deprive clubs of funds by costing them extra fees. Money that could be used to invest in the squad

2.You deprive the Government of extra Revenue in Taxes which could be spent on our health service

3.It encourages the wrong type of people to get involved in the game


I really like Sam and I think he is a very good Manager but you cannot overlook this, otherwise it sends out the wrong message about what is acceptable. You would then be getting into the territory of FIFA in overlooking practices which were against the law.

I hate all these types of schemes where people look for loopholes in legislation. There is nothing wrong with maximising your earning potential but you should do it within the law and pay the correct tax on it.

I am really sorry to see Sam involved in this. He comes across as a really nice down to earth bloke but to be honest people who earn the level of income he earns should not feel the need to go outwith the legislation

He comes across as bent to be honest!

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Hoddle had to go. Apart from all the Eileen Drewery nonsense you cant say things along the lines of "the disabled are paying for sins in a previous life"

Far worse than taking a few quid off dodgy arabs.

Hoddle had to go yes, but this is still worse.

We are trying to be seen as being whiter than white with everything going on with FIFA.

Our national coach is advising on how to get round FIFA Guidelines and is mocking someone for a speech problem.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Overblown if you ask me.

He doesn't say that much at all and when the slightest hint of bribes is mentioned he shut the guy down.

This was before he had the England job too.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

This is a fantastic get out of jail card for the FA and the ludicrous decision to employ Big Sam

And which available managerial talent will they give the job to?

 

[Doc Lynam]

And which available managerial talent will they give the job to?

Harry all the way.

 

[trueblue]

Most of the Telegraph's outrage is guff. Mocking 'Woy', criticising Neville, so what? On those things, what he's saying actually make sense - that the manager needs to be decisive for instance. As far as he was concerned this was a private conversation. The stuff about the FA wasting money on Wembley - bang on. Unwise to take the risk of criticising the FA but, again, as far as he's concerned a private conversation. Plenty of people have pretty strong negative opinions of their employers' decisions that they express all the time away from work.

The bit where he tells these contacts not to even think about paying bungs to a player, manager or CEO - that it's just not acceptable. Oh, funnily enough, they seem not to have given that bit much prominence.

So we're left with the 3rd party ownership, where I suspect he'll argue he was describing how the system works in reality, not advocating it. What these contacts do with that information is up to them. It could certainly - at a stretch - be interpreted in that way. If this fake £100k a speech thing had gone through and he'd been caught out giving that 'advice' on a formal basis rather than when he was bragging in a bar, that'd be a lot more damning.

As usual there's a huge amount of spin to the way this has been presented... this meeting came 'before he'd even taken his first Engalnd training session'. Shock, horror. Another way of saying that might be, "before he'd even properly started the job'. No wonder the FA want to see the whole transcript as the video appears to be extremely selective.

Idiotically trusting, yes. Greedy, yes - but lots of people are in all walks of life. Does it really affect his ability to manage the national team? Probably not, but it will by the time the press have finished with him.

 

[Puppet Master]

Back to Klinnsmann with their tail between their legs go the FA then...

 

[drew]

Most of the Telegraph's outrage is guff. Mocking 'Woy', criticising Neville, so what? On those things, what he's saying actually make sense - that the manager needs to be decisive for instance. As far as he was concerned this was a private conversation. The stuff about the FA wasting money on Wembley - bang on. Unwise to take the risk of criticising the FA but, again, as far as he's concerned a private conversation. Plenty of people have pretty strong negative opinions of their employers' decisions that they express all the time away from work.

The bit where he tells these contacts not to even think about paying bungs to a player, manager or CEO - that it's just not acceptable. Oh, funnily enough, they seem not to have given that bit much prominence.

So we're left with the 3rd party ownership, where I suspect he'll argue he was describing how the system works in reality, not advocating it. What these contacts do with that information is up to them. It could certainly - at a stretch - be interpreted in that way. If this fake £100k a speech thing had gone through and he'd been caught out giving that 'advice' on a formal basis rather than when he was bragging in a bar, that'd be a lot more damning.

As usual there's a huge amount of spin to the way this has been presented... this meeting came 'before he'd even taken his first Engalnd training session'. Shock, horror. Another way of saying that might be, "before he'd even properly started the job'. No wonder the FA want to see the whole transcript as the video appears to be extremely selective.

Idiotically trusting, yes. Greedy, yes - but lots of people are in all walks of life. Does it really affect his ability to manage the national team? Probably not, but it will by the time the press have finished with him.

Haven't you just put your own spin on it?

 

[GT49er]

Most of the Telegraph's outrage is guff. Mocking 'Woy', criticising Neville, so what? On those things, what he's saying actually make sense - that the manager needs to be decisive for instance. As far as he was concerned this was a private conversation. The stuff about the FA wasting money on Wembley - bang on. Unwise to take the risk of criticising the FA but, again, as far as he's concerned a private conversation. Plenty of people have pretty strong negative opinions of their employers' decisions that they express all the time away from work.

The bit where he tells these contacts not to even think about paying bungs to a player, manager or CEO - that it's just not acceptable. Oh, funnily enough, they seem not to have given that bit much prominence.

So we're left with the 3rd party ownership, where I suspect he'll argue he was describing how the system works in reality, not advocating it. What these contacts do with that information is up to them. It could certainly - at a stretch - be interpreted in that way. If this fake £100k a speech thing had gone through and he'd been caught out giving that 'advice' on a formal basis rather than when he was bragging in a bar, that'd be a lot more damning.

As usual there's a huge amount of spin to the way this has been presented... this meeting came 'before he'd even taken his first Engalnd training session'. Shock, horror. Another way of saying that might be, "before he'd even properly started the job'. No wonder the FA want to see the whole transcript as the video appears to be extremely selective.

Idiotically trusting, yes. Greedy, yes - but lots of people are in all walks of life. Does it really affect his ability to manage the national team? Probably not, but it will by the time the press have finished with him.

Good post.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Harry all the way.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Most of the Telegraph's outrage is guff. Mocking 'Woy', criticising Neville, so what? On those things, what he's saying actually make sense - that the manager needs to be decisive for instance. As far as he was concerned this was a private conversation. The stuff about the FA wasting money on Wembley - bang on. Unwise to take the risk of criticising the FA but, again, as far as he's concerned a private conversation. Plenty of people have pretty strong negative opinions of their employers' decisions that they express all the time away from work.

The bit where he tells these contacts not to even think about paying bungs to a player, manager or CEO - that it's just not acceptable. Oh, funnily enough, they seem not to have given that bit much prominence.

So we're left with the 3rd party ownership, where I suspect he'll argue he was describing how the system works in reality, not advocating it. What these contacts do with that information is up to them. It could certainly - at a stretch - be interpreted in that way. If this fake £100k a speech thing had gone through and he'd been caught out giving that 'advice' on a formal basis rather than when he was bragging in a bar, that'd be a lot more damning.

As usual there's a huge amount of spin to the way this has been presented... this meeting came 'before he'd even taken his first Engalnd training session'. Shock, horror. Another way of saying that might be, "before he'd even properly started the job'. No wonder the FA want to see the whole transcript as the video appears to be extremely selective.

Idiotically trusting, yes. Greedy, yes - but lots of people are in all walks of life. Does it really affect his ability to manage the national team? Probably not, but it will by the time the press have finished with him.

Have to say, even as someone in 'the press', agree with a lot of this.

Unless (and it is a big unless) there is even more of a smoking gun to emerge from the Telegraph, there is nothing illegal here.

Comments about individuals make some headlines but so what, who wouldn't make the odd unguarded comment in life. People gloss over the lies told by the reporters.

Given this is part of a supposed wider investigation into corruption in football I'd take a guess the Telegraph were hoping to get Sam to implicate himself on some of the other speculation that has floated around him in the past; they have failed; so to justify their behaviour and investigation they have gone big on his lack of judgment on some far less serious stuff.

Hopefully they have some more serious reports to come on corruption in the game.

Isn't it just News of the World Fake Sheikh stuff by another name - and that was a largely discredited method of procuring stories.

Sam has been a bit stupid and a bit greedy and a bit drunk, but if you sacked everyone in football with those faults there would be no one left.

 

[Eddiespearritt]

Dreadful man - and worse was the weak FA's decision to appoint him. No action now on this serious error of judgement would be shameful.

 

[LlcoolJ]

No I am not. You need Reading lessons that's all. No offence like.

I don't need lessons to know that they're TINPOT.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And which available managerial talent will they give the job to?

It shouldn't be too difficult to find someone with slightly more modern ideas on football.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Have to say, even as someone in 'the press', agree with a lot of this.

Unless (and it is a big unless) there is even more of a smoking gun to emerge from the Telegraph, there is nothing illegal here.

Comments about individuals make some headlines but so what, who wouldn't make the odd unguarded comment in life. People gloss over the lies told by the reporters.

Given this is part of a supposed wider investigation into corruption in football I'd take a guess the Telegraph were hoping to get Sam to implicate himself on some of the other speculation that has floated around him in the past; they have failed; so to justify their behaviour and investigation they have gone big on his lack of judgment on some far less serious stuff.

Hopefully they have some more serious reports to come on corruption in the game.

Isn't it just News of the World Fake Sheikh stuff by another name - and that was a largely discredited method of procuring stories.

Sam has been a bit stupid and a bit greedy and a bit drunk, but if you sacked everyone in football with those faults there would be no one left.

This. And what [MENTION=73]trueblue[/MENTION] said. The outrage of some people on here is way over the top. And does anyone really think that the FA itself isn't totally corrupt?