Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Big Sam

J*B

By J*B
in Football Messageboard Archive

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Gav

Gav

Posted
Posted

Why was Allardyce paid so much money if bang to rights?

I think he mentioned in the footage that the FA 'got paid, everyone gets paid' but I can't find that now, maybe its been censored already.

NDA to make sure and £1m, disgusting OJW

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onlyonejackwalker

onlyonejackwalker

Posted
Posted

I think he mentioned in the footage that the FA 'got paid, everyone gets paid' but I can't find that now, maybe its been censored already.

NDA to make sure and £1m, disgusting OJW

I think he mentioned in the footage that the FA 'got paid, everyone gets paid' but I can't find that now, maybe its been censored already.

NDA to make sure and £1m, disgusting OJW

Sorry, stupid phone.

The whole thing stinks as usual from all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stuart World Cup

Stuart

Posted
Posted

He was showing intent.

Do we wait for people to do wrong and then step in, no we try to prevent and the law allows for this

That's not how the law works and you know it. That's in the realms of Thought Police.

Innocent until proven guilty. Even speed cameras only get you if you go overvthe speed limit, not if you talk about an intention to speed before the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gav

Gav

Posted
Posted

Latest Telegraph allegations involve JFH Tommy Wright (who?) and Massive Cellini apparently.

Looks like they're having to scrape the barrel a bit after the Premiership names concerned lawyered up.

Massimo Cellino is an interesting one, striking similarities to our own demise under clueless owner :rock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoda

yoda

Posted
Posted

That's not how the law works and you know it. That's in the realms of Thought Police.

Innocent until proven guilty. Even speed cameras only get you if you go overvthe speed limit, not if you talk about an intention to speed before the event.

So if a terrorist is only talking about cutting your head of he goes freely about his business until he actually does it,

I think you need to read up on the law, it has provisions for people who are planning to break it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rover_Shaun World Cup

Rover_Shaun

Posted
Posted

Gross misconduct nullifies contracts. No need to pay him anything.

I'm not his best mate, nor related to him, nor on the gravy train. No bother to me he has been potted. No fool like an old fool.

Perfect scenario is he comes back here. ;)

He would have fought it in the courts and dragged it out all he could. Knowing he likes a bung is different from proving it. Very messy hence the cash to go away.

A man of class could have donated it to charity but he chose to act like a heel and burn a few bridges with his victim act outside his mansion.

So if a terrorist is only talking about cutting your head of he goes freely about his business until he actually does it,

I think you need to read up on the law, it has provisions for people who are planning to break it.

what, like conspiracy?

Who'd of thunk it? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hasta

Hasta

Posted
Posted

He's either guilty of gross misconduct or not.

If Allardyce left the FA on really bad terms, how much do you reckon he could embarrass them by revealing how widespread a problem corruption in football is.

"Sam, you've left us no choice but to get rid of you but here's a couple of mill to keep quiet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevidgeBlue World Cup

RevidgeBlue

Posted
Posted

Trying to cover arse in case of a setup

Not even that I don't think, he obviously had no idea it was a sting otherwise he'd have gone running back to the FA to report what had happened.

He thought he was getting 4 public speaking gigs. He'd obviously have to tell the FA about that and he probably could do outside commercial deals with their prior approval even though the average man in the street will be wondering why someone with tens of millions of pounds already in the Bank and on 3m p.a. has to grubbily chase another few hundred grand instead of devoting his time and energy 100% to the England job.

You can safely bet 400k he wouldn't have told them the part where he was advising these guys how to circumvent FA rules though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onlyonejackwalker

onlyonejackwalker

Posted
Posted

He would have fought it the courts. Very messy hence the cash to go away.

A man of class could have donated it to charity but he chose to act like a heel and burn a few bridges with his victim act outside his mansion.

I get it. He would have won in court. Not me clutching Shaun as no crime has been committed.

However he needed to go. Position untenable. Greed in its purest form, highly unnatractive.

If Allardyce left the FA on really bad terms, how much do you reckon he could reveal as to how widespread a problem corruption in football is.

"Sam, you've left us no choice but to get rid of you but here's a couple of mill to keep quiet."

Revealing what he knows in theory would end up with him in a lot of bother. If, as posters are suggesting, he is historically knee deep in it.

If cut and dried should gave simply sacked him with immediate effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stuart World Cup

Stuart

Posted
Posted

So if a terrorist is only talking about cutting your head of he goes freely about his business until he actually does it,

I think you need to read up on the law, it has provisions for people who are planning to break it.

What exactly did Sam say off camera?? I think I've missed the terrorism accusations. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rover_Shaun World Cup

Rover_Shaun

Posted
Posted

I get it. He would have won in court. Not me clutching Shaun as no crime has been committed.

However he needed to go. Position untenable. Greed in its purest form, highly unnatractive.

No crime that we know of. However he will forever be tainted.

But I never brought up the criminal angle I thought he was rightly dispensed with based on the meeting revelations alone. Having my suspicions about has no bearing on the events. He did wrong and paid the price. Reputation in tatters

Time to retire like he kept threatening when he was here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoda

yoda

Posted
Posted

What exactly did Sam say off camera?? I think I've missed the terrorism accusations. :D

Don't be obtuse Stuart, he was planning to advise people how to get around 3rd party ownership which is illegal in the UK and within the UEFA area

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tomphil World Cup

tomphil

Posted
Posted

Rovers won't crop up now I don't think and if you look back at those involved it's obvious they've known how to dodge around the rules and dot the right i's and cross the right t's on documents etc to make it look legal.

That's why these people wanted a stake in their own club and that's why they needed clueless and pliable wealthy backers. It obviously threatened to get out of hand and it's my belief that despite fobbing off fans some at the FA had a quiet word years ago after being presented with dossiers etc. So it went deeper and of course quieter for a while whilst GB & the embargo gave them plan b.

The ultimate sting has been pulled here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hasta

Hasta

Posted
Posted

Don't be obtuse Stuart, he was planning to advise people how to get around 3rd party ownership which is illegal in the UK and within the UEFA area

But which the FA knows happens within the UK but refuse to actively get involved in eliminating, especially as it may involve one of their former key sponsors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunnfc World Cup

Dunnfc

Posted
Posted

What utter rubbish. Clearly you aren't an employer, you don't know much about employment law or contract law and can't distinguish between criminal law and employment law.

I'd appreciate it if yourself knew the facts or where competent, maybe even found themselves involved in such a case. I've pointed out both from a criminal perspective i.e zero evidence and from what would be deemed standard employment law doubts over his sacking.

For those interested in disambiguation: http://www.professionalsecurity.co.uk/news/interviews/employment-and-criminal-law/

Without getting to involved Mark you again fail to challenge any point made with substance. So perhaps you could extend on your intial post so i know what your actually challenging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.