http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/who-premier-league-managers-bungs-8928460 There are descriptions of the 8 managers here.
Manager 1 Pagliara claimed a former top-flight boss liked "bungs" in cash or deposited in a Swiss bank account. He even stated he could call the manager at any given time. Manager 2 The Italian stated another ex-Premier League boss was now "whiter than white" - even though he has received a large amount of money. Manager 3 The boss is said to have been in charge of a number of British clubs. Pagliara claimed he was fired by one of his former employers for having his "fingers in the till". Manager 4 The agent claimed the manager had plenty of experience in the Premier League. Pagliara suggests he knows the boss "very, very well" and the accused asked if there was a "coffee for me" in the negotiations. Manager 5 It is reported Pagliara would often pay into a Swiss bank account to another ex-top-flight boss. He claims the manager would call him to given him a number to the account. Manager 6 The manager, a former player, is said to not be on a big salary at his club. Pagliara suggests he likes extra money to secure deals. Manager 7 Another former Premier League boss who was allegedly "on the pay roll" with the agents. It is suggested the manager would receive money for taking players. Manager 8 A long-serving manager who would make his own players give him kickbacks in return for increasing their wages.
Very vivid descriptions there Does anybody really care if an agent is trying to get his player to a certain club and, the manager at that club thinks "yeah, I would like him here, I can use him and get paid into the bargain"? I would be a little more interested in managers (or refs) taking bungs for game results than this. As long as it doesn't hurt the club or fair play then I have no issue with people paying or receiving money to complete a deal which benefits all parties.
Well the Telegraph aren't going to make them obvious enough to spoil their reveal, are they? PS - You've totally missed the point about 'bungs' and I'm not quite sure you understand what they actually mean for the buying club and the players themselves.
Well, for the player it probably means he has got the move he wanted since that is what he pays his agent for. For the club, it probably means they have had to pay a little bit more than they wanted to outbid a competing club and fulfil the player and agents wishes. Club gets player they wanted, club is happy. Player gets move he wanted, player is happy. Agent has done the job he is paid to do, agent is happy. Manager gets the player he wants and a little gift besides, manager is happy. Win, win all round
There's a reason the agents have to pay the managers to take them... Why do you think if you were a manager of a club that wanted X player, the player's agent would still give you money to sign him? That's not how it works, the reason the manager gets paid is because he's basically buying a dud/player that's not required. Its not signings like Pogba that are going to be involved in bungs, because he sells himself, its ones you look at like Bebe and think hold up, why the **** are Man Utd signing this guy who was going free a month ago for a big fee for someone of his experience and talent. Not saying Ferguson did take a bung to sign Bebe but transfers like that always stick out to me as something not being quite right.
Yep, to get the best move for their client. I can imagine a situation where an agent say's "look, you have bid £28m but Y have bid £30m, my player really wants to come to you so if you make it happen at £32m I will make sure you don't lose out". The player is happy, the manager is happy, the agent is happy. The club just think the manager has upped his valuation slightly so as to get the player. Win, win. That said, I have been led to believe that all transfer negotiations are done by chief execs now so fail to see where a bung to the manager would help.
On a serious note, with both Giggs and Pardew on the list, do you think there could be consequences for our clubs if dodgy deals are proven? I know from our point of view, I'm very worried about the number of dud players we have signed while Pardew was with us. Didn't they also say there was a club official involved at one club too? It could explain why Graham Carr kept going back to the same group of **** French players for all of our signings for so long here at Newcastle.
Giggs is a bit of a weird one to be honest, not saying he is pure and innocent or anything, just that it's hard to see where he could have taken a bung whilst managing 4 games at the end of a season, I really cant see him being involved with transfers at any stage. Unless there was match fixing involved of course, in which case many others would have to be involved (a winger is not a keeper who can let goals in to throw matches). I actually thought you did quite well out of the French players considering the fees you paid.
I can't help but be suspicious about our club over two signings; 1) Balotelli - £16m? Really? 2) Markovich £20m - and Jose had declined him for Chelsea a year before when he was hawked for less than half of that? And I sincerely hope Lil Rim's agent never got paid a penny by OUR club over his transfer; I expect he did. I think all agents' fees for all transfers should be publicised, and let's this nonsense of 'undisclosed fees'.
Pretty sure all agents fees have had to be declared for the last few years, not sure about individual deals but certainly the amount paid to agents in total.
As i said for anyone going who cares... These guys are breaking the law of the land and paying no tax. They are also messing round kids and taking advantage of people. Thats what 3rd party ownership is all about. I would expect having seen the mirror thing now that it wont be publishing namea but is desperate to getvin in the big scoop so the telegraph wont have long to milk this.
you keep going on about tax but how do you know Allardyce wasn't going to declare it to HMRC & Hasselbaink clearly expected to pay tax on his speaking fee for he requested it be paid to him in Holland as it would lessen his tax liability. The 3rd party ownership is a different kettle of fish but seen nothing yet but people suggesting other people get round the rules by doing x y z. So fat this amounts to less than that Panarama programme some years ago and nowhere near as the Stevens report which listed about 20 transfers where monies were unaccounted for coincidentally 4 of those were Bolton transfers back in the day
