Eric Black, the next to be named by the Telegraph

Assistant Managers are much like Goalkeeping coaches. Anyone can do that job and if you don't have them around, you can easily make do.

If Black left, everyone would forget about him inside a week or two, including the players and Puel.

 

Exactly. We have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. TLL thinking the club have acted poorly is his perogative. Not everything has to be sorted overnight. Ralph has talked sense so I trust the club to get things right.

 

I'm guessing they want to actually speak to the guy first, old fashioned though that may seem.

 

To me, just meeting with a consortium you know is looking to represent players is a big potential conflict of interest for the club even if that consortium was completely on the up-and-up and just wanted legit, legal advice. I would expect to be notified if my assistant manager did that. So I have no problem with sacking Black just for the meeting alone, regardless of whether he took a bribe or hinted at something scandalous.

I am okay with the club waiting a bit, because there could possibly be some logical explanation for it. Maybe Black was duped and thought it was just a lunch meeting with associates or something and then just played along, meaning to report it later. I find that really doubtful, but who knows? It's not wrong to give him due process.

But I do think they have more than enough to at least suspend him with pay, pending the resolution. Or at least not have him on the pitch because I mean, there's no rule that the assistant manager has to be on the pitch or in the grounds anyway, right? I will be disappointed if they do not do this.

 

I'd be surprised if he's there on Sunday. I think the club have probably got it just about right; they've asked to see more script and are waiting for that to happen. It's one day since the release and they have been travelling back from Israel.

They've checked in with the FA and the premier league and are probably getting it right in terms of not diving in just yet. They'll have all day tomorrow to decide anybactions before Sunday.

Sometimes social media and opinions move too quickly for real life and thengetting together of heads to disucuss things like this.

I'm sure we'll see tomorrow/Sunday.

 

Black, Allardyce, Hasselbaink and the agent involved all say the same thing...the meeting was to discuss a possible invitation to give talks. So if you went along to discuss a business opportunity, I think you would try to impress a future employer with your insider knowledge...Sam especially couldn't resist showing off (a friend pointed out that he is prone to this). QPR said Hasselbaink is allowed to take on such jobs. If a real offer resulted, all may have informed their employers (we have no proof they wouldn't as no such offer was made). All the Telegraph has shown is that people within football know that dodgy things go on. Sam has lost his job, Hasselbaink looks like he will keep his and the jury is out on Black. Will the police pursue this further....that will be the interesting thing.

 

Saints latest statement is in line with my thinking. How can any decisions be made when you only have access to about 5% of the information?!

 

I am glad I don't work for some of the blighters who post on here.

 

Yep agreed. There's due process required & any action needs to be carefully considered, which has a "start point" from tomorrow's game. Let's allow SFC do their job, which I have total faith they will do.

 

I love this sentence, I'm re-reading 'War Story' by Derek Robinson and it puts me in mind of the dialogue. Brightened my morning up.

As for the current silly situation. None of us, not even Southampton FC, has the full information which would suggest to me that the Torygraph aren't really that interesting in rooting out corruption in football but generating sales for their propaganda sheet. Who'd have thunk it eh?

 

I'm thinking of going back to work as I'm only 75. I'm going to set up a company advising businesses on employment law. If most of the buggers on here run a business they'll need it!

Of course this isn't the first case of trial by social media and shooting someone before the facts are known. Won't be the last.

Now can we go back to talking about Leicester?!

 

I've said earlier that you could have tried to sting me any number of times when I sold IT and not have caught me. However, I've thought it over and there is a way.

Get me in a meeting where you want my advice on how to buy IT equipment. During the hour, bring up in a friendly way how easy it is to bribe someone to reduce prices for a share of the discount. "Well, the way I've heard of that working is that you ..... [clip the next five minutes of explanation and publish in the Telegraph] ... but I want to be clear, I'm talking purely about how I've heard it work. It's all hearsay and I want there to be no misunderstanding; that's not something my company or I would ever, under any circumstances consider." Miss out the ending and you have me apparently bang to rights.

That's one example of why Saints need to investigate rather than mindlessly sacking someone without any further investigation.

Vin

 

Very true Vin, but may I just ask, if you are happy with your job, why are you at this meeting?

 

In Black's case, because advisory jobs on the side are not unusual in football and he was invited (like Sam) by a long standing acquaintance. And no matter how happy you are, you can be happier. Remember that his job is probably dependent on Puel...in football you can be out of work tomorrow...no long service clock to look forward to.

 

QPR seem to be in the same position. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37518589

I have to say, the longer this goes on (without further information coming out), the more likely it is that Black does not leave. It's already off the Telegraph and BBC Sport websites. It's not mentioned in the Telegraph's self-congratulating editorial/summary today. Any FA investigations will take ages to get off the ground. There is no suggestion of Saints involvement so no reputation damage to us so far.

 

Exactly what i was thinking reading through some of the near hysterical posts on this subject. Goodness me !

 

I'm an IT consultant looking for new clients (i.e. it's my job).
I'm talking to occasional customers about their requirements and someone new is in the room.
I'm chatting at a trade show to someone who might be interested in dealing with us in future.
I've met a friend of a friend who's looking for some impartial advice.
Etc, etc.

Vin

 

Oh, I thought you were being hypothetical. Obviously IT consultant & Football boss are slightly different in some aspects.

 

This make a lot of sense.....Going in too quickly could leave the club open to a law suite for defamation or some such.......I am sure the lawyers out there will know better than I.........

 

I'm no longer in IT so it was indeed hypothetical. I was just trying to point out that an utterly innocent conversation cut correctly can sound awfully implicating. It's why the club needs the full details.

As for why Eric might meet other people, I turn to my own experiences: it's always been a policy of mine to help anyone I ever meet if I can. For instance, I spent 45 minutes on the phone last night to a competitor, solving a problem he's having getting the right person for a franchise. Why? Firstly because I like to help; secondly because you never know when you might need help yourself but thirdly, and most importantly, you never know what magnificent idea might come out in any given conversation so the more people you meet and exchange ides with the better your life will probably turn out.

Perhaps that's why Eric was there, conversation and contacts. Pretty innocent if so.

I'd like to stress that if the club finds wrongdoing then it'll have to be dealt with, just that a full investigation is warranted before that.

Vin