All I am saying is that there is if there is a hint of corruption then it will almost certainly be the case that it's true. If this story was in the UK, especially with the journalists we have here then there would be some of doubt in my mind, but there, that sort of thing is commonplace.
Rush I agree, however it will be impossible to lose in a court of law with that "video" as "evidence" rendering the whole thing completely irrelevant
They didn't make it up. But I don't think we should be giving their undercover stings any credibility whatsoever. This is an opportunity for United and the FA to say "**** you" to the media, at a time when they're rightly taking a kicking.
The media are currectly so desperate to take the spotlight off themselves that they are going to be setting people up left right and centre. Lets face it robbo is and always will be a pisshead, hes just pissed acting big lol
Don't be silly. You can't blame another media organisation's use of illegal phone hacking for Channel 4's exposure of your ex captain's wrong doings. Robson was solely culpable - the media simply highlighted it. In no way whatsoever does it negate his wrong doing.
I'm not saying that he didn't do anything wrong. I'm saying that it's not the media's place to judge, and that we shouldn't be taking what they present to us at face value.
Nothing about our "ex captain" i couldnt give a rats arse about bryan robson, he was a great payer that was it oh and a drunk
Well, there's generally always two sides to these "fake sheikh" style of stings. After all, the documentary makers are the ones who edit the raw footage and make sure they only include the stuff that is good viewing, i.e. the most controversial. We have no idea what they promised Robson off camera, or what was in the footage they didn't use. There's a reason entrapment I have no doubt that Robson has shown some questionable ethics, although it should be noted he wasn't actually the one who discussed circumventing the FA rules on club ownership was he? (still can't get 4oD to work, stupid interweb). But honestly I doubt there are many people involved in modern football; players, managers, owners or agents, who are entirely ethical and wouldn't try to bend the rules if they could get an advantage or see a benefit. Same goes for modern business unfortunately, as history has shown time and again. In fact, interesting comments here from someone who knows the inside of football: http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/...l_Palace_chairman_slams_Dispatches_programme/ "Personally I thought it was poor journalism. I don't think there was anything there and not many people in football are surprised that that is going on. Foreign people want to buy clubs, the only scandal that was there was buying two clubs through an investment fund. I thought Bryan Robson came out with a lot of credit, they tried to push him into an area he didn't understand."
To be fair, that's complete supposition. Actually, he was, and in great detail. He was asked by the reporters if ownership of two clubs would be a problem. Robson then explained to how to circumvent the rules, by how they would set up a separate sub fund for the second club in order to hide the two transactions. Then he and his colleagues went on to explain how they would supply people to front the second company - in order to deceive the true ownership. That's not an excuse and colluding with it, makes it worse. *Splutter* That's a fanciful appraisal of the situation. Robson was quite clear and detailed about what he and his fund could offer.
Who ****ing cares, its buisness, money and power, football matters, where there is wealth their is corruption, get over it
I happen to care about the game I love. I care about seeing a former England captain sell out and break the rules which are there to protect the game, simply to line his own pockets. Clearly you don't
