Bung! - Abandon hope all ye who enter here..

mike65

Luton Town Mike Newell has spoken out about the ongoing practice of agents paying managers and others to get thier clients signed. Needless to say the ****e is already hitting the fan as Harry Redknapp swears blind he leaves the money stuff to the board! (I'm sure thats true 'arry! )

from machesteronline

MIKE Newell will ‘name names’ for the Football Association if they choose to investigate his claims that the game is still rife with transfer bungs.

The Luton manager was called upon by Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore today to do his duty for football by making his allegations specific to the FA.

That will be no problem, according to Newell, who claims football club officials in this country - as well as players’ agents - are embroiled in habitual transfer improprieties.

Asked whether he will be prepared to tell FA chief executive Brian Barwick exactly who has offered bungs - which he estimates to be upwards of £10,000 a time even in the second tier of English football - he said: “I will do that.

“I have no problem; I have no reason to be afraid and I have no fear of anybody coming to speak to me.

“They need to come to me - I have absolutely nothing to hide. I have done my duty to football.”

Newell, who predicts many people will inevitably deny any involvement, is aghast that no-one has managed to uncover the wrongdoing before now.

“You will get a lot of people denying - but you don’t have to be Einstein to understand why they are denying it,” he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

Mike.

whiskeyman

Why is he mentioning this now though?
I heard the interview, and he said he was offered the bungs a good while ago.
Why didn't he report it then?

I get the feeling he's coming clean first.... watch this space....

The Muppet

whiskeyman wrote:

Why is he mentioning this now though?
I heard the interview, and he said he was offered the bungs a good while ago.
Why didn't he report it then?

I get the feeling he's coming clean first.... watch this space....

You could very well be right there . It will be very interesting to see who he names if its made public. TBH I think it could be any and every manager in the game.

redspider

Yeah, Bungs are probably as rife as ever. People have just got smarter at moving the money around and lining their own pockets using techniques such as paying-in-kind, off-shore accounts, shares, property, use-of, etc, after George Graham got caught.

Its why Roy Keane ended up at Man U (Ferguson arranged for Clough to get a bung, after Roy had agreed the terms of a contract with Dalglish at Blackburn!)

Seemingly, its also how Abramovich has been left alone by Putin and is his only favoured Oligarch. Abramovich has "given him" a huge yacht worth 85m dollars! I have no doubt he has paid off many more people. When will Chelsea fans realise they have a criminal owning their club? They may not care now, but shouldn't they?

And in non-football-related circles, unless you count Doncaster Rovers, its how Denis O'Brien won the 2nd GSM licence from Lowry and was then allowed with Eircell to establish a duopoloy that ripped off irish consumers. O'Brien had the added gall of avoiding paying tax on his windfall which was based on a crime! Entrepreneur of the year my arse, more like white collar crime of the year as adjudicated in Mountjoy. At least Clough paid his taxes, well those that were known about! He didnt go to live in Portugal for 183 days (well midnights) of the year.

Illegal payments for favours are endemic across the world, no country or sector is squeaky clean, and people have just got financially smarter at hiding it as capital movement, free markets, etc, have become freer.

Another example is how many of the Arsenal players such as Henry have been receiving "bonuses", such as property in tax-havens and avoiding tax. Some of this was only found out when Viera moved to Italy, seemingly.

But, even when the "dogs on the street" know of a situation like in the Denis O'Brien and the Brian Clough/Roy Keane cases, trying to prove it in court is difficult, time consuming and costly and drags on for years. Only the Governents can afford to do it and they, usuallym, have little interest at times, I wonder why, bungs, illegal payment, "entertainment" perhaps.

It will be interesting to see who Newell names, although it probably wont be made public for a while and not until at least the FA have a footballing case established and the criminal authorities (Police) have as well in terms of criminality.

redspider

Lemlin

Originally posted by redspider
Its why Roy Keane ended up at Man U (Ferguson arranged for Clough to get a bung, after Roy had agreed the terms of a contract with Dalglish at Blackburn!)

Not sure where you got that from. Keane states in his own book that he had agreed terms with Daglish but the Blackburn secretary wasn't there to complete the deal. Daglish shook on it with Keane and they said they'd finish the deal on the Monday.

Ferguson rang Keane on the Saturday and Keane went to see him. He then refused to sign for Blackburn and had to train with the reserves at Forest until United upped their offer.

I've never heard anything about a bung before.

whiskeyman

Lemlin wrote:

I've never heard anything about a bung before.

They were commonly reported in the mid to late 80s and early 90s.
Even the early "Championship Manager" games back then had plenty of bungs when you traded players.

With much more money now involved in the industry (it's just barely still a sport at this stage), I'd say bungs are the tip of the iceberg.

Lemlin

whiskeyman wrote:

They were commonly reported in the mid to late 80s and early 90s.
Even the early "Championship Manager" games back then had plenty of bungs when you traded players.

With much more money now involved in the industry (it's just barely still a sport at this stage), I'd say bungs are the tip of the iceberg.

I know what a bung is

I meant I'd never heard anything in the Keane-Man Utd transfer about Clough getting a bung.

Looks like we got our wires crossed.

kensutz

Norwich paid the highest behind Leeds for agents fees £438000 between June and December. We're an honest club and the chairman informs the fans about every penny spent, our financial situation, approaches from clubs etc.

whiskeyman

Lemlin wrote:

I know what a bung is

I meant I'd never heard anything in the Keane-Man Utd transfer about Clough getting a bung.

Looks like we got our wires crossed.

oops.. sorry man
Ah well, it may help those younger viewers amongst us

Will be interesting to see what comes out of the FA meeting next week.

redspider

Lemlin wrote:

Not sure where you got that from. Keane states in his own book that he had agreed terms with Daglish but the Blackburn secretary wasn't there to complete the deal. Daglish shook on it with Keane and they said they'd finish the deal on the Monday. Ferguson rang Keane on the Saturday and Keane went to see him. He then refused to sign for Blackburn and had to train with the reserves at Forest until United upped their offer. I've never heard anything about a bung before.

Hi Lemlin,

We had a discussion on boards.ie about it before in 2004 and handily I've kept the text (see below). By the way, I wouldnt believe everything that's written in Roy's book. He's not the only footballer that likes to rewrite history, and its not as if he's going to actually write that Ferguson was involved in a bung to Clough.

Here's some info:

The facts about how Roy Keane moved to Man U are different than whats in Roys (Dunphy's?) book. You have to listen to what Kenny Dalglish and Brian Clough have had to say on the topic. Alex Ferguson doesn't comment on it.

Seemingly what happened is that Roy/Forest had agreed verbally to a move to Blackburn. Someone (Clough?) at Forest got in touch with someone (Ferguson?) at Man U again to try to up the price. Man U would by a small amount but didnt want to be seen to be in a bidding war. Man U offered an alternative to pay Clough money directly - a bung. Clough accepted, Forest accepted and perhaps others had to have their palms greased. And Roy, who had thought that Man U were not interested enough in him, was on his way to Man U and signed the contract quickly.

Dalglish and Blackburn were left high and dry. They complained to the FA but got nothing out of it. They suspected things but of course had no proof.

Dalglish was just too honest, Ferguson and Clough on the other hand were perhaps not so ......

+++

More:

This is not the first time this has been mentioned. I will try and get some links but you just need to remember that bungs were endemic in the sport at one stage so they were happening all the time and between many. Only a few were punished for it, most notably George Graham at Arsenal. Clough was brought up for it due to the Teddy Sheringham sale.

Here is one link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/07/06/do0604.xml



and an excerpt:

It was exactly 10 years ago, during the epic High Court battle between Alan Sugar and Terry Venables, that the word "bung" first entered football parlance. Sugar, the owner of Tottenham Hotspur testified that Venables, his former manager, had told him that the proposed purchase of Teddy Sheringham from Nottingham Forest would proceed more smoothly if Forest's manager, Brian Clough, received "a bung". And that this practice was widespread throughout the game. Football was shocked. Shocked!

The subsequent bung inquiry set up by the Football Association managed to finger one culprit - George Graham of Arsenal. Graham lost his job but was soon back in another one. As, of course, was Venables, despite being disqualified, on 19 separate counts, from being a company director.

The message was clear. Anything went in football - as long as there was money in it.

+++

More:

The Roy Keane case wasn't mentioned in court, but it didnt have to be. Clough was getting bungs for every deal at Forest at the time, so why would the Keane deal be any different. It wasnt.

+++

The key thing to remember is that Clough was receiving bungs, as were many, and Man U were paying them, as were many, and the Keane deal went though in a dodgy manner, according to Dalglish and as seen evidentloy by what happened. Obviously Keane is not going to write about this in his book even if he knows what actually happened or not.

+++

The Rooster said:

But the transfer price was interesting. Ferguson wanted Keane, but ManU wouldnt match the £4m (as far as I remember) offer by Blackburn. So Ferguson persuaded Clough to persuade the Forest board to accept the ManU bid. I think 3.6m was the figure paid in the end by ManU. Thats all the facts. Why did they accept the lower bid (instead for example of going to, say, Arsenal, Liverpool, Celtic or even Spurs (who Keane supported) for a counter offer)? The specualtion is that clough was promised a 100k if the Keane transfer to United went ahead. The speculation continues that Ferguson did Clough and only gave him 50k. Clough obviously couldnt complain. Clough believes Ferguson pocketed the other 50k (hence Clough ALWAYS refers to Ferguson as "greedy", "hungry Scotsman" and similar whenever he's asked about him), but whether Ferguson really did get any money out of it is completely unknown.

+++

I’ve looked at a few books by Ferguson and Dalglish and it seems that there was indeed animosity between them before the Keane bung saga. Ferguson managed Scotland for a while and had dropped Dalglish who was on 97 caps at the time and just short of the milestone 100. Ferguson tormented him, Dalglish was 34 at the time and obviously still playing well enough to warrant a place on the Scotland team (it was tougher in those days though!). Dalglish did get picked though mainly due to pressure from the Scottish media and fans, etc. Ferguson is not revered in Scotland particularly at Celtic, although he will always have backing in Aberdeen.

The pair clashed again when at Liverpool and Man U. Dalglish insulted Ferguson on several occasions and the press and media lapped up these spites, favouring Dalglish. They clashed again when Dalglish went to Blackburn, where in the shape of Walker they had the Abramovich of the day and bought there way to success (although it took a canny Dalglish to get them there). Ferguson and Dalglish competed for every signing. There was even talk that Man U weren’t interested in Roy at all until Blackburn showed their interest and after Nottm For were relegated. If Alex was really interested in Roy, why didn’t he chase him the year before? It wasn’t as if Roy had changed his play. The pair also clashed over getting Shearer. Also, Dalglish had to suffer Man U collecting the trophy when playing Blackburn, and it was thought at the time that the presenting of the trophy was setup by Alex especially on that date. Blackburn lost the match to boot. But Dalglish had a laugh the next year when Blackburn won the league on the last day just pipping Man U.

The bungs for Keane are only one part of a long saga of animosity.

For those that may think that Alex is squeaky clean, he definitely isn’t when it comes to bungs.

In terms of relevance, I think bungs and payments to agents are much more of a problem than tapping, as the former takes money from the sport whereas the latter is nearly impossible to stop and police – people will talk.

Send in the CAB on them I say to prove where they got their money.

Oh, I forgot, Alex "won it on the horses" …… ;-)

+++

redspider

leeroybrown

Remember the famous quote from the Venables case:

"Cloughie likes a bung!".

redspider

Lemlin wrote:

I never heard anything in the Keane-Man Utd transfer about Clough getting a bung.

So, did you get a chance to read my response Lemlin?

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

So, did you get a chance to read my response Lemlin?

I read it , and as far as I can see there is noting factual in it regarding the Keane to United Move.

Since when is a thread on a Bulletin Board considered a relaible source for anything?.

I,m sure United were/are as guilty as club for paying under the counter inducments over the years but to make such a a specific claim as you did you need more than circumstantial evidence to back it Especially as the player involved version of events is at odds to yours.

astrofool

The only way they'd be able to find out what really goes on is probably to grant all clubs amnesty and pin the agents that way.

As its the agents that basically set the way transfers go, all clubs would probably be caught out in some way or another, hence, no one would give any evidence.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

I read it , and as far as I can see there is noting factual in it regarding the Keane to United Move.
Since when is a thread on a Bulletin Board considered a relaible source for anything?.
I,m sure United were/are as guilty as club for paying under the counter inducments over the years but to make such a a specific claim as you did you need more than circumstantial evidence to back it Especially as the player involved version of events is at odds to yours.

I thought you and I had discussed it before and since when did you become Lemlin ????

The URL is not a thread from a bulletin board, its an opinion from a Uk paper.

The problem with you Muppet, is that you presume everything Ferguson/Keane/Man U is squeaky clean, and you cant be arsed looking up and researching some facts yourself. People have to come up with court-standard evidence before you accept it and even then you dont - so people have to resort to sticking your face in it before you will eventually realise it and even them you can ignore whats obvious. It must be funny living in a rose-tinted world like yours and the view of the sand with your head stuck in it must be irritating.

So, do a bit of googling and you might find quite a lot:

eg:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/09/20/sfnwin20.html

Now, Sheringham was sold around the same time as Keane, right? Forest were doing bungs left, right and centre, right? Both before the Keane deal and after the Keane deal, right?

So, do you honestly think that out of all their transfers, they would think, "No, this is Roy Keane, no, we dont want to look for a bung with HIS transfer. We will look for a bung for everybody else, but no, not Roy. Why he is next to godliness."

If you cant understand the situation as it was then Muppet and just accept that Keane was part of a bung deal and that Ferguson arranged that bung, then there is no hope for you.

And do you honestly think that Keane would write about it in a book?
cop yourself on.

Accept it and move on, Roy does, and has.

redspider

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

I thought you and I had discussed it before and since when did you become Lemlin ????

I'll ignore all the personal rubbish and address the points you have raised.

We had discussed it before and you did had no proof to back up your claim then either. What's with the "since when did you become Lemlin" comment this is a BB not a chat room.

redspider wrote:

The URL is not a thread from a bulletin board, its an opinion from a Uk paper.

The URL does not even mention The Keane to United transfer. How can that prove nything about Keanes Transfer?

redspider wrote:

The problem with you Muppet, is that you presume everything Ferguson/Keane/Man U is squeaky clean, and you cant be arsed looking up and researching some facts yourself. People have to come up with court-standard evidence before you accept it and even then you dont - so people have to resort to sticking your face in it before you will eventually realise it and even them you can ignore whats obvious. It must be funny living in a rose-tinted world like yours and the view of the sand with your head stuck in it must be irritating.

If you had read my post you would have seen that I already said I believed "United were/are as guilty as any club for offering inducement to players. You have provided no evidence what so ever to support you claim.

I have posted here criticising people for looking for links for everything. Your allegation is so specific that you should be able to back it up .If you can not link to it can you tell What the source of your information is?

redspider wrote:

So, do a bit of googling and you might find quite a lot:

eg:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/09/20/sfnwin20.html

Nope still no mention of Keane in that article either.

redspider wrote:

Now, Sheringham was sold around the same time as Keane, right? Forest were doing bungs left, right and centre, right? Both before the Keane deal and after the Keane deal, right?

So, do you honestly think that out of all their transfers, they would think, "No, this is Roy Keane, no, we dont want to look for a bung with HIS transfer. We will look for a bung for everybody else, but no, not Roy. Why he is next to godliness."

What does the Sheringham transfer have to do with the keane transfer. Thats pure circumstantial rubbish.

redspider wrote:

If you cant understand the situation as it was then Muppet and just accept that Keane was part of a bung deal and that Ferguson arranged that bung, then there is no hope for you.

And do you honestly think that Keane would write about it in a book?
cop yourself on.

Accept it and move on, Roy does, and has.

redspider

I understand the situation all right. The situation is that you posted a wild accustaion/opinion here that another user asked you for a source for your information. You have not provided the source instead you have posted quotes from a Bulletin Board and links to articles that do not even mention said transfer.

The laughable bit about it is that you expect the users here to accept your unsubstantiated allegation over the version of events published by the player himself .

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

Your allegation is so specific that you should be able to back it up. If you can not link to it can you tell What the source of your information is? What does the Sheringham transfer have to do with the keane transfer. The situation is that you posted a wild accustaion/opinion here.
The laughable bit about it is that you expect the users here to accept your unsubstantiated allegation over the version of events published by the player himself .

If you cannot see any link between the Sheringham deal, which was mentioned in court, the other Nottm F deals, which were mentioned in court, then there is no hope for you. Keep your head in the sand Muppet, fine by me, just dont expect anyone here to treat your opinions with any sense of credibility. You are very blinkered.

The laughable thing is that you treat everything that Keane says as immutable and 100% fact.

Muppet, I think you live up to your name more aptly than you realise.

Lets just agree to disagree,

redspider

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

If you cannot see any link between the Sheringham deal, which was mentioned in court, the other Nottm F deals, which were mentioned in court, then there is no hope for you. Keep your head in the sand Muppet, fine by me, just dont expect anyone here to treat your opinions with any sense of credibility. You are very blinkered.

The laughable thing is that you treat everything that Keane says as immutable and 100% fact.

Muppet, I think you live up to your name more aptly than you realise.

Lets just agree to disagree,

redspider

If you rather revert to personal abuse rather that back up your opinion thats fine by me. The users here can make their own mind up without comment from either of us.

I have asked you for proof of your allegation that Clough recieved a bung in Keane Transfer. You have failed to do so and have reverted to personal abuse when pressed on the matter. You are talking rubbish as usual as what you posted as fact is just your unsubstaited opinion.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

I have asked you for proof of your allegation that Clough recieved a bung in Keane Transfer. You have failed to do so and have reverted to personal abuse when pressed on the matter. You are talking rubbish as usual as what you posted as fact is just your unsubstaited opinion.

No, Muppet, I am not talking "rubbish as usual".

I am going round in circles with you, like many other posters before, little wonder you cause so much consternation around here and get banned. I will go around the circle once more for your benefit. Lets see if you see the light.

I am trying to get you to make a judgement call, for you perhaps it is a big leap of faith to actually believe something that contradicts what Roy Keane has said, even though its plainly obvious to the dogs on the street, and the dumb dogs at that.

Its quite simple. I am not going to present to you evidence, tape recordings, photo-copies of bank statements, fuzzy pictures of Ferguson getting a brown paper bag, envelope, in a back of a car, under the table at a restuarant, etc, nor should I have to.

You have to take, what for you is a leap of faith perhaps, and try and understand that not all situations that are actually true, have to get proven in a court of law, or indeed get a chance to.

To distill the argument for you:

It was accepted in the Judges report that bungs were endemic, and evidence was given that Clough arranged a bung for EVERY transfer deal from/to Nottm Forest:

Transfer A from Forest - bung, mentioned in court
Transfer Sheringham from Forest - bung, mentioned in court
Transfer Keane from Forest
Transfer D from Forest
Transfer E from Forest - bung, mentioned in court
Transfer F from Forest - bung, mentioned in court
etc
etc

So, with that evidence alone, and as I have mentioned in previous posts on this thread, do you honestly think for one second that Clough arranged bungs and was involved with them for ALL Forest deals, apart from the Roy Keane one? Do you honestly think that? Are you not one wee bit suspicious? Do you have no doubts at all? Can you say uncategoriaclly that a bung did not take place?

And since you are a person that is so hung up on evidence, what about the corrollary to your position, how do you know for sure that a bung did not take place? How can you sleep at night knowing that there is no proof of that, or are you taking a leap of faith and believing what Roy Keane has said in a book. Would you not prefer that himself and Ferguson were brought in under some form of tribunal or Parliament Committee and questioned under oath?
Not that such a system can always produce the truth anyway - if the English PM lies under oath then anyone can, and people do.

I'm not firing personal abuse at you. Your intransigence is annoying for myself and many other posters. I have seen it in other threads. Ever heard of trying to bring a horse to water, but unable to make him drink. In your case a similar saying with a mule would apply.

I'm am trying to make you realise something. I'm trying to do you a favour.

Its up to you what you want to do. Its not up to me to go get the evidence.

redspider

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

No, Muppet, I am not talking "rubbish as usual".

I am going round in circles with you, like many other posters before, little wonder you cause so much consternation around here and get banned. I will go around the circle once more for your benefit. Lets see if you see the light.

This is a discussion forum. As therecklessone said to me in a recent post where our opinions differed “ It would be a very boring forum if we all agreed on everthing”. The difference in this case is that you have taken offence at me daring to question you on your unfounde allegation. Grow up.

For the record the only ban I have ever got here is because someone I sponsored got banned. You really should check your facts before spouting more rubbish.

redspider wrote:

I am trying to get you to make a judgement call, for you perhaps it is a big leap of faith to actually believe something that contradicts what Roy Keane has said, even though its plainly obvious to the dogs on the street, and the dumb dogs at that.

Its quite simple. I am not going to present to you evidence, tape recordings, photo-copies of bank statements, fuzzy pictures of Ferguson getting a brown paper bag, envelope, in a back of a car, under the table at a restuarant, etc, nor should I have to.

You have to take, what for you is a leap of faith perhaps, and try and understand that not all situations that are actually true, have to get proven in a court of law, or indeed get a chance to.

To distill the argument for you:

It was accepted in the Judges report that bungs were endemic, and evidence was given that Clough arranged a bung for EVERY transfer deal from/to Nottm Forest:

Transfer A from Forest - bung, mentioned in court

Transfer Sheringham from Forest - bung, mentioned in court

Transfer Keane from Forest

Transfer D from Forest

Transfer E from Forest - bung, mentioned in court

Transfer F from Forest - bung, mentioned in court

etc

etc



So, with that evidence alone, and as I have mentioned in previous posts on this thread, do you honestly think for one second that Clough arranged bungs and was involved with them for ALL Forest deals, apart from the Roy Keane one? Do you honestly think that? Are you not one wee bit suspicious? Do you have no doubts at all? Can you say uncategoriaclly that a bung did not take place?

You just don’t get it do you. There is not one iota in any of that that proves your allegation to be true. I know clough was paid “ Bungs”, I know Man United paid Bungs in certain transfers, That does not necessarily mean Man United Paid Clough a Bung in the kean transfer . If you can prove they did post the evidence other wise clarify your original statement with an “IMHO”.

redspider wrote:

And since you are a person that is so hung up on evidence, what about the corrollary to your position, how do you know for sure that a bung did not take place? How can you sleep at night knowing that there is no proof of that, or are you taking a leap of faith and believing what Roy Keane has said in a book. Would you not prefer that himself and Ferguson were brought in under some form of tribunal or Parliament Committee and questioned under oath?

Not that such a system can always produce the truth anyway - if the English PM lies under oath then anyone can, and people do.

See that's your problem right there, you are jumping to conclusions . I never argued the point that there was no a bung payed, I am arguing that there is no proof that there was. To sumarise I don’t know (and care less) whether there was a bung payed I have never read anything apart for your opinion that suggests there was.

redspider wrote:

I'm not firing personal abuse at you. Your intransigence is annoying for myself and many other posters. I have seen it in other threads. Ever heard of trying to bring a horse to water, but unable to make him drink. In your case a similar saying with a mule would apply. .

I'm am trying to make you realise something. I'm trying to do you a favour.

Its up to you what you want to do. Its not up to me to go get the evidence.

IMO It is up to you to support your allegation, otherwise it is just unfounded opinion.

You most certainly did post personal abuse at me. As I said earlier it would be a boring place if we all agreed but there is no need to abuse someone just because they do not share your opinion or ask you to explain how you came to that opinion.

I have had differences of opinion with many users here. Some of them are mature enough to accept it , agree to differ and we leave it at that and move on, Others like yourself in this instance appear to take it personally and react in a negative manner. I don’t understand why anyone gets worked up over a post on a bulletin board but some do. It’s not all that important is it?

I keep an open mind , I don’t believe I am always right . Any opinion I express is genuine and formed from the facts as I know them. Therefore to change that opinion I need more than some else’s unsupported opinion to convince me. If everyone used the same criteria there could be a lot less aggro here than there is. I don’t need any favours in that regard thanks.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

... but to make such a a specific claim as you did you need more than circumstantial evidence to back it Especially as the player involved version of events is at odds to yours.

I never argued the point that there was no a bung payed, I am arguing that there is no proof that there was.

Arent you contradicting yourself here?

First you say that you cant make a claim that there was a bung paid, unless there is more than circumstantial evidence (and in this case not very circumstantial but very much accepted in the public domain), and then you are saying: "I am arguing that there is no proof", so opening up the prospect that indeed a bung was paid!

These are two different things.

I wont go around the points of the argument again. But one final question for you:

Do you believe that there was a bung paid in the Keane transfer, yes or no?

redspider

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

Arent you contradicting yourself here?

First you say that you cant make a claim that there was a bung paid, unless there is more than circumstantial evidence (and in this case not very circumstantial but very much accepted in the public domain), and then you are saying: "I am arguing that there is no proof", so opening up the prospect that indeed a bung was paid!

These are two different things.

I wont go around the points of the argument again. But one final question for you:

Do you believe that there was a bung paid in the Keane transfer, yes or no?

redspider

NO there is no contradiction , I have seen no proof that would alter my stated opinion.

I have an open mind as to whether there was a bung paid or not. I have never seen anything that proves there was. Keanes version of events suggest there was not but contray to your belief I do not take that as a given either.



PS LOL @ the thread title change T4TF's work I assume or was it the OP MIke 65?

Big Nelly

The Football Association have launched an investigation into QPR manager Ian Holloway's claims he was offered a bribe to push through a player's transfer.

The FA will address the issue, which follows a week after Luton boss Mike Newell's claims about a widespread bung culture, as a matter of priority and will be contacting Holloway this morning.

The QPR manager will be asked to give evidence to investigators from the FA's compliance unit that he was offered money to push through the free transfer of Argentinian full-back Gino Padula from Jerez.

An FA spokesman told: "We will be contacting Ian Holloway to request a meeting. We take these matters very seriously and our compliance department will thoroughly investigate any evidence of wrongdoing or breaches of regulation.

"We would expect anyone who has evidence of any wrongdoing to come forward."

As the transfer was an international one, it will almost certainly fall under FIFA's jurisdiction.

The spokesman added: "If necessary we will pass on any information to FIFA and other national associations."

Former Rangers chairman Nick Blackburn has backed up Holloway's claims.

Holloway said: "I thought I was getting a certain player on a free transfer. His agent then came back to me and said 'my fee is this amount and you will get that from it'.

"I went back to the board and said 'You must be joking'. I earn my money through my contract, not any other way. I've nothing to hide.

"There are agents out there with whacking great wheelbarrows who say, 'Fill that up with money'."

Blackburn, who was in control of QPR at the time, said such incidents were not isolated.

He said: "Ian called me and said the agent of the player we were interested in wanted £50,000 - and Olly [Holloway] was going to get £30,000 of it.

"We didn't think the player in question was worth £50,000, never mind that amount for his agent. In the end we settled on a £4,000 handling fee.

"I heard stories all the time when I was chairman. I'm very disappointed the game has to endure this."

Newell has already been quizzed by FA officials after revealing he had been offered cash by agents and club officials as an incentive to buy and sell players.

Blackburn added: "Ian told me because he is an honest guy, but how many more of these deals happen behind the scenes when people are not so honest? It is an appalling state of affairs and it leaves me sickened.

"I applaud Mike Newell for coming forward - and yet what happened to him? People turned on him.

"We need to try to clear up the game."

Everyone seems to be joining in now. Risdale was on radio 1 earlier this week he was offered bung which I thought was hilarious. Why would anyway need to offer him a bung to take a pay. He would just give them huge wages instead and cripple the club. He is just looking to get his name in the paper is all!

WhiteWashMan

in all fairness, i havent actually seenany proof of anything.

only subjective speculation.....



which as we all know, is great to talk about, but actually means nothing.

Thanx 4 The Fish

/Hand up

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

NO there is no contradiction ... I have an open mind as to whether there was a bung paid or not. Keanes version of events suggest there was not.

LOL @ the thread title change T4TF's work

So, now you are saying that you have an open mind. Interesting, with an open mind you are opening the door on an equal possibilitiy that there was a bung, thereby contradicting Roy's version of events.

Thats much different than you saying:
"you cant make a claim that there was a bung paid"

If you have an open mind about it, surely anyone who is claiming that there was a bung is equally as relevant as someone who is claiming that there was none, such as Roy's version which doesnt indicate that there was, more by omission than actually stating the equivalent of "there was no bung paid for me".

If your open mind position is that either actuality is possible, you should equally be as condemning of Roy's version, as you were with the opposing position.

An open mind is perhaps as far as I will get with you on this topic, and perhaps for you it is a big step not to take everything that Roy has said as sacrosanct.


> Abandon hope all ye who enter here..

Perhaps not a bad idea. I'll abandon this one .... for now ;-)


redspider