Big sam - telegraph made up false accusations

The_One · 30 Aug 2018 at 12:09

all over the news about the telegraph who lied about what big sam had said regarding transfers and 3rd party ownership which uptimately got him sack from england

Diabolical from the telegraph i see many millions of compensation coming big sams way and he deserves it

BaZ87 · 30 Aug 2018 at 12:38

This isn't exactly correct though, is it? The investigation dismissed Allardyce's case as a whole but said that there were 3 inaccuracies (from a total of 15 articles) that required correcting - one being that they implied that Allardyce said 3rd parties could benefit from transfer fees and the other two (which is actually one thing repeated in two articles) being that Allardyce had offered to advise this fake company how to get around 3rd party ownership.

What Allardyce said is on video for all to see. He openly states that you can still get around third party ownership and that the company could own the agent so that they get paid not just once but everytime a player signs a new contract. All the Telegraph done wrong was to suggest that Allardyce was offering to sell his services to help get around 3rd party ownership rules when in actual fact he openly provided that for free but was offering himself up as a guest speaker.

drunkenmaster · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:37

Which is essentially the same thing, half the business world revolves around doing one thing for 'free' but getting a ridiculously overpaying gig that lets you put said cash down legally on your books.

Taking a bribe is hard to put down on taxes, doing what they want for free then being paid 500k to show up to give a 'talk' in Dubai, which involves a first class ticket and 3 guys in a room who you talk to for a couple hours while drinking telling your best football stories can be put on your taxes as paid speaking appearance.

BaZ87 · 30 Aug 2018 at 16:05

Tbf, it's not. He already told them what they could do to get around 3rd party ownership rules - it would be pretty stupid of them to then pay him to carry out any speeches once they've already got the info out of him if that were the case.

Allardyce was a moron for a) telling people how to get around 3rd party ownership/alternative ways for 3rd parties to profit from players, whether it was a legal way or not and b) for whoring himself out to these sorts of people on the back of his England appointment.

drunkenmaster · 30 Aug 2018 at 18:21

The paying gig could have been him saying that's in exchange for this meeting, or a that's by the way how I'd like to get paid for this. Or more likely said speaking gig covers how you do a deal with an agent and lock in a player without being investigated or running up against laws, etc. How to tell clubs to structure it and how to work the system. It's not exactly difficult to say you get around third party ownership by owning the agent, because that's not unknown, I'm fairly certain I said those exact words on this forum long before the telegraph showed Alladyce saying it. The details are a different matter though, also dealing with the club, knowing which agent will sign a contract with you to 'buy' players for you, knowing which clubs are happy to deal with which agents, a recommended list of players, etc.

The_One · 30 Aug 2018 at 18:30

no he didn't tell them how to get around it at all have people even bothered to check the report?

Ipso has found I did not suggest a model by which a third party could benefit from sharing in a player's transfer fees; did not brief reporters on breaking rules; and did not enter negotiations to provide guidance on how to get around rules

he broke no rules

Ipso concluding that the proposal set out by Sam Allardyce "would not have resulted in the rules being broken", means the former England manager can also claim to have won.

BaZ87 · 30 Aug 2018 at 19:30

The_One said:
no he didn't tell them how to get around it at all have people even bothered to check the report?

he broke no rules

Did you watch the video and hear what he said? I did and read the findings of the IPSO. Of the 25 points, only 3 were upheld and they were nothing more than minor details. No, he didn't say a 3rd party could benefit from players fees. He instead advised them to own agents, who typically earn around 10% of the player's contract, so that they could make their money that way and continue to earn money even after that player is sold - he advised them of a way around/alternative way of making money from players.

And just because what he was advising them didn't break any rules, it doesn't make it morally right and certainly not something the England manager should be advising people. As I believe I said in the original thread on this, it would be like the Prime Minister advising people of legal tax loop holes.