Bungs and all that

sundula

the bungs seem to be small when compared to the transfer fee's for example if I was manager of a certain team in Northern England who wear black and white shirts and was been offered a bung to take an all command french centre back i would want about 12 million in cash

wheres me jumpa

Guys will this program be screened again?

thebaz

MrJoeSoap wrote:

You're ignoring the point completely. Obviously match-fixing is much worse, but it doesn't excuse the horrible level of white-collar crime in the Premiership. There's no point changing the subject or bringing anything else up, because the only thing to be discussed here is the 'bungs' that Harry Redknapp and the Allardyce's were shown taking last night.

If you don't care, then theres not much point in continuing to post.

ok i wont post on this subject any more, as my views differ to yours !!!
And by the way , I didn't realise the program actually showed Harry and Sam taking bungs ?

MrJoeSoap

thebaz wrote:

ok i wont post on this subject any more, as my views differ to yours !!!

Lets not get silly, you are posting an awful lot on a topic you initially claimed not to care about. You said you would take a bribe yourself, which says a lot about your character.

I didn't realise the program actually showed Harry and Sam taking bungs ?

Well it certainly showed Harry agreeing to one, the trip to the World Cup...

Craig Allardyce was shown writing out a list of all the players whose transfers he had been involved in, at least one of which he was illegally involved in and received money for. There's no way Sam was ignorant of this.

iregk

Baz you are completely missing the point. You can't say 1 sort of crime is bad where as another is ok regardless of their severities.

Yes the match fixing scandal was of a much larger scale and a lot more serious so rightly the clubs involved got hammered. Collecting 30k bungs for transfers of players is not as serious but it is still breaking the rules.

Crime is crime regardless of the seriousness. Are we to say that we should give life sentances for murder as its very serious but a little bit of mugging/pick pocketing is fine we can ignore that as it goes on every day!

The Rooster

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Well it certainly showed Harry agreeing to one, the trip to the World Cup...

Craig Allardyce was shown writing out a list of all the players whose transfers he had been involved in, at least one of which he was illegally involved in and received money for. There's no way Sam was ignorant of this.

Jeez Louise, if you think Harry saying agents organising groups of 6 or so managers great trips to the world cup sounds like a good idea equates to a bung, then you have no clue what you're talking about. Thats business entertainment and happens in all circles of business life.

A bung is where a manager accepts an illegal payment from an agent in relation to the transfer of a player. They gave examples of where an agents fee would be £100k, but the manager gets the club to up it to say £150k, and the agent kick backs £50k to the manager.

Organising trips to a football event for football managers in the hope that they'll use your agency in the future is in no way a bung.

There was no evidence of bungs shown on the programme.

Craig Allardyce was obviously a bluffer of the highest order. He started off by saying he was involved in one premiership transfer, then upped it to 6 when asked to write down transfers. He was totally making himself out to me more influential than he is in an effort to make a few bob for himself. A pure thick is what he is. And no longer an agent!

This programme brought absolutely nothing new to the table. We all know that many managers have accepted bungs, but we don't know who, when or where, because there is no evidence.

The good thing to come from all the publicity over the last year is there will be far less if any bungs to managers from now on. Although scouts I think will still be vulnerable if figures like £30k are thrown their way, a hell of a lot of money to them - and there the ones who will end up getting caught.

I'll finish by reiterating that programme was a total shambles and BBC should be totoally embarrassed by the lack of substance. I really hope the papers rip the píss out of it tomorrow.

Jivin Turkey

The Rooster wrote:

Jeez Louise, if you think Harry saying agents organising groups of 6 or so managers great trips to the world cup sounds like a good idea equates to a bung, then you have no clue what you're talking about. Thats business entertainment and happens in all circles of business life.

A bung is where a manager accepts an illegal payment from an agent in relation to the transfer of a player. They gave examples of where an agents fee would be £100k, but the manager gets the club to up it to say £150k, and the agent kick backs £50k to the manager.

Organising trips to a football event for football managers in the hope that they'll use your agency in the future is in no way a bung.

There was no evidence of bungs shown on the programme.

Craig Allardyce was obviously a bluffer of the highest order. He started off by saying he was involved in one premiership transfer, then upped it to 6 when asked to write down transfers. He was totally making himself out to me more influential than he is in an effort to make a few bob for himself. A pure thick is what he is. And no longer an agent!

This programme brought absolutely nothing new to the table. We all know that many managers have accepted bungs, but we don't know who, when or where, because there is no evidence.

The good thing to come from all the publicity over the last year is there will be far less if any bungs to managers from now on. Although scouts I think will still be vulnerable if figures like £30k are thrown their way, a hell of a lot of money to them - and there the ones who will end up getting caught.

I'll finish by reiterating that programme was a total shambles and BBC should be totoally embarrassed by the lack of substance. I really hope the papers rip the píss out of it tomorrow.

Very well put. Particlarly the bit about Redknapp. He did nothing wrong as regards Todd. Todd was offered to him by an agent and he said he would be interested, that is all.

MrJoeSoap

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Very well put. Particlarly the bit about Redknapp. He did nothing wrong as regards Todd. Todd was offered to him by an agent and he said he would be interested, that is all.

Does that not constitute an illegal approach?

leninbenjamin

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Does that not constitute an illegal approach?

all he said is that he like the player.... he never actually made any moves on camera to actually sign him. There was no discussing whether Todd wanted to come to Portsmouth or not, personal terms or anything else involved in a transfer. To my knowledge what Harry did wasn't wrong in the slightest. It may have been the precursor to an illegal approach but there is no evidence of this..

LostinBlanch

I would have been quaking in my boots if I was that agent who tapped up Jay Jay Okocha.

The Bolton chairman (Gartside I think, who's on the FA executive committee, went through him for a short cut. It went something like this:

Gartside "You shouldn't really do that. It's against the rules you know. You can't really do that."

Agent "Yeah I know"

Gartside "Good"

Fills me with anticipation waiting for the results of his investigation into last nights programme. It'll probably be more like "who let that journo in here" rather than "why are we paying out twice for our own players?"

Jivin Turkey

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Does that not constitute an illegal approach?

Who is doing the approaching Redknapp or the agent?

So who is breaking the rules?

MrJoeSoap

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Who is doing the approaching Redknapp or the agent?

So who is breaking the rules?

Both. The agent is hardly going to sit still and wait for someone to approach now is he? I'd say thats the case in 99.9% of illegal approaches.

redspider

Match-fixing is clearly wrong, but so are Bungs!

One problem with the current system is that agents dont have an unlimited supply of players, so hence, if a manager is 'prone to wanting a bung' from a couple of 'select' agents, it is likely to lead him to:

a) churn more players through the club than is necessary, ie: buy and sell
b) buy players that he wouldnt necessarily buy otherwise
c) sell players that he wouldnet necessarily sell otherwise

Whether Bungs are acceptable to you or not as a crime, this clearly affects the performance of the club as well as its finances than it would have been otherwise. Buying and selling players unnecessarily eats up much more than the cost/loss of the bung itself. Whether this is significant or not is difficult to say, but it is a factor and may result in a team under-performing, perhaps say 6-10 pts a season. This may be the difference between qualifying for Europe or not, or indeed relegation.

So, in my opinion, bungs are clearly wrong. What is also at fault is the system. Agents, whilst registered, there is however no regulation in the market. If an agent 'represents' a player, a club will have to pay not only for the transfer but also a wad to the agent for 'fees'. As was stated in the programme last night, one agent got 1 million for his part in the transfer of Gudjonsen from Bolton to Chelsea.

Another fault with the system is that managers are a short-lived beast, usually, so will want to maximise their money while they can. Chairmen, Owners may also benefit by getting tax free money out of the club.

The fees agents are receiving are excessive to the work/productivity/service they are providing. FIFA/Uefa could set a standard fee for all agents of something like 20k per transfer, ie: regulate the market. Club owners would then be fools to pay anything more than the 'going rate'. But as it is, bribes are the current mechanism and the gong rate is expensive. All paid by fans (mugs like us) whether attending or watching or buying merchandise at the end of the day.

In terms of the programme last night, I think the evidence that some money paid to an agent was not declared in a transfer was accepted. But bunging has become a streamlined and smooth process and bungers and bungees have developed coy ways of covering things up.

I think any Manager that has a son as an Agent is under pressure to be compromised. Allardyce might be an example, Ferguson may be another. There is nothing wrong with providing nice treatment to potential customers, as in Redknapp's case, but when the amounts are excessive and the value is extraordinary, at least the tax man has to take an interest for benefit in kind reasons and the law for bribery reasons. This was not so evident against Harry but it may happen of course. (ie: it does!). This is rife in Italy by the way in compensating players, allegedly. :-)

One agent was on (the 2000-2005 chap) and said bungs were endemic and not under a hidden camera either, the Luton manager also, so those that are still waiting for evidence, please continue to stick your head in the sand. Not all crimes are recorded on CCTV!

The report due soon will be interesting, whether scathing and revealing, a whitewash or somewhere in between. Lets see.

Redspider

Jivin Turkey

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Both. The agent is hardly going to sit still and wait for someone to approach now is he? I'd say thats the case in 99.9% of illegal approaches.

The agent posed a question to Redknapp "What do you think of Andy Todd?", to which Redknapp replied he rated him as a player and would love to have him at their club.

How many times do you hear in post match interviews a manager say about an opposing player who has just destroyed his team, he's a great player I would love to have him at our club. Is that also tapping up? It happens all the time when it is a small club being blitzed by say Thierry Henry or someone.

To go by your logic, managers shouldn't even mention the name of a player from another club.

G

Totally disapprove of bungs, it's obviously against the rules but it can also effect what players come and go from your club depending on the agents and management involved on both sides.

On the show itself, I would put big money on Sam having trousered his fair share of dirty money but when it comes to pinning him the BBC fcuked up bigtime. Dissapointing stuff.