The BBC Gossip Club.

[pabird]

Panorama was a virtual flop. Only Sam has questions to answer where his career could be affected and then only because of his son.

The BBC spent one whole year investigating and could only bring to the table third party gossip, unsubstantiated chat from the seediest looking group of “agents” ever collected in one place.

The question was never are bungs prevalent? But can anybody prove bungs are paid, The BBC failed to show paperwork, photographic or reliable witness statement that bungs are reality. Remember the question is not do bungs exist but can you prove it?

The business of poaching players from other clubs was a tactic invented at the same time as football was invented.

People keep on about the old style wage cap but trust me players were offered the same wage to move to another club but with a little newsagents or similar for the wife to run.

Sunday league teams tap players from other teams and players get at England players from other teams. During England training sessions

So what are we left with? Sam and son sorting a tactic where Sam says his son was lying to impress and Sam new nothing of the conversations or false claims and he will sue anybody that states otherwise. Perhaps the BBC could tell us how much of our license money was spent on the investigation?

[coupwotcoup]

Didn't see said programme, but I am sure the BBC will find it all very cost effective if they can come up with just one scapegoat - regardless of how spurious the accusations are.

Perhaps this is why he didn't get the England job.

[pabird]

The only thing the programme proved was that there is no case the Inland Revenue/customs and excise people can bring.

Allowing the British custom of allowing a fair and equitable chance for all of us to earn a living they have severely chopped off the career of Sam.

If you cannot prove illegal action then do not hint to millions of people that gossip indicates there “may” be a case to answer.

Do Bungs exist? We all have opinions but that’s all they are until video or written evidence is found.

[ken]

what a suprise there is coruption in a major buisness. every walk of life is corrupt and alot buisness deals in all walks of life go down without some sort of 'bung' we live in a capitilist society and then people are shocked when people try to make money out of it. its not right but it is the culture we have chosen to live in.

[Yellow Bungle]

Absolute rubbish. Sloppy and selective journalism with scant evidence and no proof.

 

A sad indictment on BBC currenct affairs and today's TV as a whole.

 

I was left feeling that perhaps football was cleaner than I had previously thought.

[ken]

i think the lack of evidence is far more to do with the lawyers of the football clubs than anything else. i felt as if it kept wanting to tell you more but then backed away, hence why it only really named one manager and then used his son as the scape goat. in this day and age it has very little to do with proof and alot more to do with who's lawyer can find the best loop holes in the rules,

[Yellow Bungle]

If there are loop holes then maybe the rules have not been broken. In which case what's the point of the programme? If there is proof then why not publish it?

 

My view is that programme is characteristic of the poorly researched sensationalism that passes for investigative journalism today.

[Guest]

I think you will find and I know this for fact, the BBC has considerable evidence about a large number of illegal and innappropriate dealings.

 

However BBC lawyers have recieved a number of warnings of legal action if allegations are published, their lawyers are being cautious with public funds.

 

A deal has been struck where the BBC passes their evidence to the appropriate persons where it can be tested in a court.

 

While court proceedings are public they will get exclusive access to certain news stories!!

 

Allegations made in court or certain tribunals cannot be libelous or slanderous.

 

Therefore once certain aspects of their evidence is tested in court there will be more information coming out.

 

This is not the end this is not even the begining of the end, we have only started hearing about certain Premiership and European Clubs/Managers/Players/Agents.

 

You wait till they start on the dirty dealings further down (all the way down)!

 

Certain people in clubs in Yorkshire, Lancashire and London at all levels are starting to sweat!!

[Yellow Bungle]

Won't happen.

[Guest]

Thats what the Italians said!

[Uncle Urchin]

Quote:

Yellow Bungle said:
Absolute rubbish. Sloppy and selective journalism with scant evidence and no proof.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

sadly the world we live in....but it keeps the sensationalists happy and in jobs....

good win last night by the way....well done... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[The Great Eckscape]

I get very annoyed when journalists publish stories about "celebrities" which have a negative impact on their career, and then it all ends up being rubbish anyway. Have these people not heard of innocent before proven guilty?

 

We'll have Dick Marshall anyday!

[Merv]

Remember the Fleet Street maxim? "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!"

 

 

A similar scenario seems to be building up around the Richard Hammond story. When the news broke last night it was reported that he had crashed at a speed approaching 280 mph. On GMTV this morning the speed had crept up to 'nearly 300 mph.' The Sun reports on today's front page that he crashed at 315 mph. I'm sure that by the end of today someone will have it as high as 400 mph. Reason? The faster, the better the story. Don't worry about the facts, we need to sell the story.

 

It's the reason I never buy a newspaper.

[Yellow Bungle]

MOB

 

It won't happen for a number of reasons. Firstly, there isn't the will for a wholesale change, there are too many vested interests with skeletons in the cupboard. Mr Bean, the FA compliance officer was underresourced for years and the Premiership chairman have fought tooth and nail against fit and proper persons tests.

 

Furthermore, if the BBC had proof (i.e. incontrovertible evidence) rather than evidence which may be circumstantial (and flimsy in my view from what I have seen) then surely this would have been apparent, if not necessarily disclosed, in the course of the programme.

 

As you point out, the court proceedings will be public, and if the BBC are to support the case to ensure convictions (supposing criminal proceedings are brought - most likely by HMRC, as opposed to the clubs who would bring civil proceedings probably relating to breech of conduct or misrepresentation) then they will have to reveal their sources. Additionally, the case will be sub judice so the BBC will not be able to make use of these sources until the legal process is complete and the story fully known.

 

Whilst I agree that there is no smoke without fire, I think that this a campfire rather than the forest fire of "dodgy money" allegedly entering football elsewhere. The agents know how much the clubs will pay, if they don't bung the manager they won't cut their rates they will just make larger profits.

[Guest]

I think those of us that enjoy the writings of Andrew Jennings knows how powerful football people like covering things up.

 

What I find comforting and exciting is that a man like Jennings is showing an interest in such things and has been asking some interesting questions!!

[Exile]

The BBC might have done better to explain the shortcomings of the current system rather than taking some elaborate steps to expose a couple of dodgy agents. The basic problem is that players under contract are not allowed to talk to other clubs about a possible transfer (why not - in how many walks of life are you not allowed to look for another job ?). Players can hardly contact other clubs directly; international players can of course chat with players from other clubs, but in the main players are too busy at the golf club/pub/night club/brothel to sort it out themselves so they pay agents to do this for them (and don't forget managers have their own agents doing this sort of thing too !). Agents have to find out if other clubs would be interested in their player, which of course means talking (putting in a transfer request is of course possible, but this is often done once a move has been lined up). As has been stated already, tapping up has gone on since football started. I'm not sure what would be a better system - maybe something like Spain where a buyout value is specified in players' contracts, so if you meet the asking price you can talk to the player, although no doubt this would generate problems of its own. A couple of things which could be done quickly in the current system would be to ban agents from taking payment from both clubs involved in the transfer of a player, and to ban agents from taking payment from clubs when clubs have not requested their work - if a player asks his agent to find another club, the clubs ultimately involved in a transfer should not have to give a cut of the deal to the agent. Change will undoubtedly come, probably very slowly; I believe the Football League has made more progress on the role of agents than the Greedier League. Still I guess exploring possible changes to improve the current set-up would not make for good television...

[Yellow Bungle]

Jennings is okay, Foul and Lord of the Rings were interesting. If you want some rigourous, analytical research though, the best book out there is FIFA and the Contest for World Football, by Sugden & Tomlinson. It can be a bit hard going in places as it is an academic book but it is worth perserving. If you can't wade through it, they have rehashed in an easier to read version which I believe is called Badfellas.

 

Another good one is David Yallop's How They Stole the Game.