I guess if he was just doing punditry and or TV appearances then there wouldn't be an issue. I think the fact he's on there on camera mocking his employer, mocking the previous manager, mocking the previous assistant manager and telling them not to worry about the rules of the game as he knows ways round them all the while quaffing a pint of wine.
He's resigned because he's shown himself to be a complete and utter fool, disrespecting the nation he represents and the employers that pay his salary. This is in no way comparable to a bit of punditry on the side, it was 400K in exchange for information regarding circumventing FIFA and FA rules concerning 3rd party player rights.
It was 400k for 4 meet and greets which he said the FA had to approve or he wouldn't accept, but don't let that stop you. This is how the world works, people do paid meet and greets, they do it for access to the person being paid, they want access for his experience and knowledge. Every single paid speech just about in the world given by famous people and leaders in industry is the same. You get paid to 'make a speech' but the people paying are really paying for the 2 hour sitting around a table getting advice from the guy afterwards about some deal they want to get done.
Somehow people have convinced themselves that a ban on official third party ownership has prevented it happening... it hasn't. The FA put in a for appearances only ban and left a billion legal and by the rules ways to enable third party ownership. If it's legal to have an agent be paid 1/5th of a transfer, and be able to encourage the player to move purely because it will mean a big pay day for both, then nothing has changed. If the FA allow this, and they do, then Fat Sam being paid to explain to someone how to do it is simply not shady or crooked.
I'll tell you how to get around those rules..... is what is on the video, what could be on the video and left out is,
A:-yeah, you can just use these other rules which are fine and the FA allows and everyone does.
or
b: yeah, use a secret account in the caymans, fiddle your papers and have secret ownership no one knows about... it's totally against the rules but the FA will never know.
Now, if B was on the video... wouldn't that be worth being shown? If A is on there, it doesn't make for a great story does it. It could be either, there could be legal reasons they didn't want to show B, or it could be neither and the paper and people in this thread are just assuming it's B and discounting the possibility it's A.
I fail to see anything illegal or out right wrong. Everyone on here constantly called Hodgson Woy and said he was a joke and much worse things, but if Sam says that in a private meeting.... he should be fired? Saying his bosses are idiots, again, would any of you think it fair to be fired if you tell one of your friends in a private conversation that your companies expansion was a bad idea? Yeah, it's not great those things got on camera and leaked but neither are remotely sack worthy statements.
The only remotely obviously against the rules conversation during the meeting, when asked about bungs... he specifically stated no to, don't do it, don't talk about it, don't talk to me about it again, nope, blah blah blah.
So he says no to the bungs(buried at the bottom of the article and left out of the video)... but definitely is going to tell them how to break the rules on something else, does that compute?
