YATESY Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 The Clubs name is being dragged through the mud without anything substantial to back it up other than a few conversations which have been cut and pasted and no doubt taken out of context. It is good to see on the BBC forum and to hear on the Radio 5 phone in last night, that most of the feedback is pretty neutral, stating that the evidence presented by Panaroma was piss poor and had no hard facts to nail on Big Sam. Give it a few days and some of the press will come round to this conclusion too.
Sweep Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Since 1958 the Beeb have had it in for us, just think of the poor coverage we get off MOTD. I think that's a little dramatic, I think the reason that we get poor coverage on MOTD is because we are not one of the glamour clubs, no other reason than that. To think the BBC "have it in for us" is just ridiculous
Ani Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Is it just another slight by the BBC against the club we all love. Since 1958 the Beeb have had it in for us, just think of the poor coverage we get off MOTD. 7 Premiership managers were suppose to be involved but only our man is being dragged through the mud. Listening to 5 Live last night after the match it took an hour before they even mentioned Redknapp, and then was just brushed over before going back to vilify a man who as yet has been proved to have committed any 'crime'. Remember innocent til proven guilty, and the burden of proof is with the BBC and if there was any surely they would have included it in there programme. I just pray to God that this does not upset and derail our beloved club. it is nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty, it is not a court of law. if sam thinks there is anything in there which is untrue then he can sue them, it is very difficult to do that so i would imagine that would be impossible. i think it is time for the fans to arrange some type of show of support for sam at the Liverpool game.
HomerJay Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 i fookin cringe at all this conspircy and "nobody likes us, we dont care" bolx just get on with it...
stinkythefrog Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Its incredibly hard to sue for these sort of allegations at the best of time but when you're damned by your own son then frankly you don't have a cat in hells chance. If Craig Allardyce hadn't shot Sam squarely in the foot I might have gone for the conspiracy / no one likes us theories.
Spider Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I've spoken to fans of 7 other prem clubs so far this morning, and not 1 of them gives the programme or the BBC any credibility whatsoever. One bloke even said Bravo would probably have been reluctant to show it.
Ani Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 3 agents have implied he might take a bung. 1 his son has now said he was bullshitting to get business. the other 2 have based their views on what his son said. so so far we have the word of 3 people who are trying to drum up business. it is a bit like rogue traders, another BBC classic, except despite nine months of filmimg they have no hard evidence of anyone actually taking any money. next week on Panaroma they are doign exposes of men whose knobs are smaller than they claim, women who claim they can drive, women who really orgamsed when i shagged them and dogs who caught their own tails.
Zico Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 3 agents have implied he might take a bung. 1 his son has now said he was bullshitting to get business. the other 2 have based their views on what his son said. so so far we have the word of 3 people who are trying to drum up business. correct I once told a bird I drove a Porsche 911 in attempt to get laid it worked when I gave her a lift home the next day she realised it was a Fiesta but it didn't matter then because I'd got what I'd wanted 2 of her mates still think I drive a Porsche
Nowack Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 It only exposed long known facts that craig allardyce, as an agent, makes/made money out of transfers from BWFC which cooincedentaly happens to be run by his dad. I personally disagree with it but whether it can be construed as a "bung" or is illegal is another matter.
snackum Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Some sensible comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/5362538.stm Best one is: Investigative journalist Tom Bower, author of "Broken Dreams"[/b] "I thought it was a good programme. But the weakness was a failure to prove that Craig Allardyce had shared a bung with his father.
Guest not_even_irish Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 At the risk of my 1st ever SEB http://www.thefootie.com/bungs-my-arse/
bwfc_sue Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 At the risk of my 1st ever SEBhttp://www.thefootie.com/bungs-my-arse/
Guest pansyroadwhite Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Just copy that and send it to the beeb!
enzo gambaro Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 When you get two minutes at the end of Match Of The Day but half an hour at the beginning of Panorama, alarm bells should start ringing. The BBC wouldn't go to such great lengths to get Allardyce if they weren't confident they had sufficient evidence to see off any subsequent legal challenge. To put it down to the BBC simply not liking us very much is a bit weak. Maybe we'll play some decent football before the season is out after all....
Guest Biff Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I think the programme said more about corrupt agents in the game than anything else. At the end of the programme we are told that there are 18 past and present premiership managers who take bungs. This begs the question why were Bolton highlighted and the others not even mentioned. There was not one scrap of evidence in the programme that Sam takes bungs although the BBC might have some that has not been broadcast. My feeling is that there has been so much mud flung that Sam has only two choices. He either has to sue the BBC or resign. If he sues the BBC have to back up their allegations with hard evidence to the satisfaction of a court.
Sweep Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I think Sam was picked on because he has a silly son, if his son wasn't an agent, he would never have been named (IMO)
Traf Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 The BBC must believe they have enough to win a court case. Either way Allardyce is damaged goods., just like David Jones. I must admit I the irony quite amusing. He has considered our club too small for his ambitions since February, now he has nowhere to go.
Smiley Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I think Sam was picked on because he has a silly son, if his son wasn't an agent, he would never have been named (IMO) That's the route I've taken and explained to people. They picked an easy target because both son and dad were agent and manager. Easy. Easy. Easy.
exiledwhite2 Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 When you get two minutes at the end of Match Of The Day but half an hour at the beginning of Panorama, alarm bells should start ringing. The BBC wouldn't go to such great lengths to get Allardyce if they weren't confident they had sufficient evidence to see off any subsequent legal challenge. To put it down to the BBC simply not liking us very much is a bit weak. Maybe we'll play some decent football before the season is out after all.... There is some huge assumption that the BBC are massively competent. Why? If they had evidence they would broadcast it.
yardbones Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I think Bolton have been 'singled out' because of the chain of events that followed that first meeting with Teni Yerimi. Next thing their undercover reporter is sat in a meeting with Gartside and Simon Marland. If the manager who was allegedly due to take that ??50k bung had turned up at that hotel and been caught red-handed on film the Allardyce segment would have been relegated to just a few minutes and we'd be sat here laughing at some other manager's misfortune.
yardbones Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Sven always reckoned there were three corrupt clubs in the Prem: I wonder who the other two were?
HomerJay Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Sven always reckoned there were three corrupt clubs in the Prem: I wonder who the other two were? and the 1st one?
Traf Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Who was Oscar Perez agent? All I know is that the Oscar Perez deal was set up by the same people who instigated the Blessing Kaku transfer. 3 agents were involved in both deals. Answers on a postcard please to: Traf's Trivia Time PO BOX MU58 Manchester. PS A stuck-down brown envelope will suffice in the lack of a postcard.
Zico Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 All I know is that the Oscar Perez deal was set up by the same people who instigated the Blessing Kaku transfer. 3 agents were involved in both deals. Answers on a postcard please to: Traf's Trivia Time PO BOX MU58 Manchester. PS A stuck-down brown envelope will suffice in the lack of a postcard. oscar perez played for his dinner money, I'd be surprised if there was a fee that could be cut for a player on a free transfer who wasn't being paid
Recommended Posts