Bungs are we implicated?

[Casino]

If the manager wanted the player anyway, why take the payment?

 

And it's also illegal on a number of counts.

 

 

1 why not?

 

2 a number? can think the revenue will be intersted, but who else

[wiggy]

1 why not?

Because I pay tax on my earnings. Why should someone already earning infinitely more than me be exempt from this?

[exiledwhite2]

1 why not?

 

2 a number? can think the revenue will be intersted, but who else

 

Why not? Because it's illegal. That's a good enough reason in my book. But most of all, it's immoral.

 

Inland Revenue. FA rules. Fraud (fair enough, may ultimately be the same as tax evasion). May even fall under theft from employer.

 

If you found out an employee had formed a relationship with a supplier - where the supplier was giving the employee a cut - would you not question whether your employee was comprimising his judgement? Even if it didn't directly cost your company anything, in the short term?

 

Somewhere down the line their decisions will become clouded by what is in it for them - not for the business.

 

It's blatantly wrong.

[Casino]

Because I pay tax on my earnings. Why should someone already earning infinitely more than me be exempt from this?

 

the question was why would somebody take a bung if they already wanted the player

 

i answered, why wouldn't they

 

 

i'd have no problem with the revenue going after anybody - high earner or otherwise - who avoids income tax

 

but i didn't think that was the question

 

the question, as i understood it, was what an employer should do

[exiledwhite2]

the question was why would somebody take a bung if they already wanted the player

 

i answered, why wouldn't they

i'd have no problem with the revenue going after anybody - high earner or otherwise - who avoids income tax

 

but i didn't think that was the question

 

the question, as i understood it, was what an employer should do

 

In a nutshell - they shouldn't take it because it's illegal, and like many things illegal - it's also immoral.

 

The employer should sack the employee for dishonesty, fraud and comprimising their position.

 

Quite clear cut in my book...

[wiggy]

What should an employer do? They should sack them immediately. As suggested by exiledwhite, if a manager is offered 2 players for the same price, their decision on which to buy should based purely on footballing ability. I would hate to think that transfer decisions are clouded by the availability or otherwise of a bung. Then again, how else do you explain transfers such as Bellion from Sunderland to Manchester United?

 

Despite what I've already said, I agree with suggestions from other posters that it's probably best for us not to say too much on this right now. At the moment, it is after all, just rumour and scaremongering.

[chrisw99]

can't believe he won't know whats in the show before its aired

 

I don't think anyone does. I've just read on the BBC website that the programme has still not reached the final edit, there are bits going into it even this afternoon, and whereas normally other internal BBC departments get to see previews, this time they're not being allowed

 

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

 

As a record 300m pounds was spent on players in the Premiership this summer, an undercover team infiltrated the murky world of football for a year to reveal the extraordinary depth of dishonesty, flagrant rule-breaking and outright corruption in the nation's favourite and wealthiest sport. The investigation names top agents, clubs and managers who are cheating their supporters and delivers evidence which will rock football to its foundations.

[Traf]

Unusual horseracing results are investigated after every race.

Transfers that look a little strange ie Bellion, Oscar Perez, Emile Heskey for ??5.5m etc should also be investigated straight away.

[Spider]

I think a more difficult documentary to make would be to uncover someone in football who is completely clean.

Christ, who gives?

[enzo gambaro]

 

Anyone recognise this fella?

 

There must be some reason we signed him....

[Spider]

Just a thought, and I haven't checked my facts, but....

 

Didn't Venables get done for something like this? If so, God help Allardyce if the same happens to him. This time in a couple of years he might be the England assistant manager.....

[Sweep]

 

Anyone recognise this fella?

 

There must be some reason we signed him....

 

So that's what he looks like

[exiledwhite2]

Just a thought, and I haven't checked my facts, but....

 

Didn't Venables get done for something like this? If so, God help Allardyce if the same happens to him. This time in a couple of years he might be the England assistant manager.....

 

I suspect Sugar made allegations (when he ousted Venables from Spurs) that boringly dragged on for months and months with no real evidence ever forthcoming.

 

From memory like...

[YATESY]

 

Anyone recognise this fella?

 

There must be some reason we signed him....

 

 

That is the deal that really worries me.

 

We have all questioned why? why? why? and you have to say that what ever the reason, it does stink.

[jayjayoghani]

I suspect Sugar made allegations (when he ousted Venables from Spurs) that boringly dragged on for months and months with no real evidence ever forthcoming.

 

From memory like...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/965692.stm

 

In January 1998 the High Court banned him from being a company director for seven years.

 

In their case against Venables, the Department of Trade and Industry outlined instances of bribery, lying, deception, manipulation of accounts and taking money that should have been given to creditors.

 

He also left the BBC for ITV in 1994, following a legal dispute over allegations ironically on Panorama.

[Sweep]

He sounds a good, honest law abiding sort

[YATESY]

The real worry about this programme is what does not make TV due to legal reasons but still ends up in the hands of the Lord Stevens enquiry.

 

I hope Big Sam is cleared but just think back to the many transfers of players into the Reebok that make you ask why?

Remember the 3 signings on transfer deadline day in January 2003(?). Sam admitted he had not seen any of them play and the names had come from agents!

 

All is probably innocent and above board but these investigative hacks make a living out of half-cooked stories like that!

[Gonk]

The real worry about this programme is what does not make TV due to legal reasons but still ends up in the hands of the Lord Stevens enquiry.

 

I hope Big Sam is cleared but just think back to the many transfers of players into the Reebok that make you ask why?

Remember the 3 signings on transfer deadline day in January 2003(?). Sam admitted he had not seen any of them play and the names had come from agents!

 

All is probably innocent and above board but these investigative hacks make a living out of half-cooked stories like that!

 

 

 

The BBC is run by Jews & Queers. I'll wait until the Stevens enquiry thank you very much.

[YATESY]

The BBC is run by Jews & Queers. I'll wait until the Stevens enquiry thank you very much.

 

 

You believe everything that Keith Chegwin says?

[jayjayoghani]

The BBC is run by Jews & Queers. I'll wait until the Stevens enquiry thank you very much.

 

Funny that as Jewish friends of mine reckon BBC News coverage of the Palestinian/Israel conflict is massively anti-Israel.

[Tombwfc]

Surely Big Sam would know what will be in the show. To some extent, because he knows whether he's guilty or not.

 

I will say though, that the Oscar Perez deal does scare me.

[jimmyjoojar]

Anyone else seen the mob of press at the game, much more than usual. All there to get a snap of Big Sam. Something smells shitty....Just hope this isn't Sam's last game

[frank_spencer]

Well craigs on there anyroad!

[exiledwhite2]

Jesus wept. This isn't looking good.

[coles05]

Ooh Boy