There's surely no way back for him, if "just try to make me happy" is not to be added to our club's crest. He's a sleazeball as well as being incompetent. If he had any self-respect he'd resign. Speaking of respect, it surely won't enhance his reputation among our players. Go...
We have those eternal enquiries over here. ....sorry we have enquiries that take an eternity. .... voted 2. ..
Astonishing that about one third of us, think the Telegraph is above reproach and JFH should be sacked purely on their "edited" version of the sting. British media, honest reliable reporting ??? Don't think so. and to sack someone purely on a newspaper story ? Perhaps JFH managerial performance may represent 99% of the reason for people voting for immediate sacking ????
You may be right KPD. These stings are really gutter press. They say they are following up on a story on someone yet they try and trap 10-15 others? What about the ones who have not broken any regulations but still had that undercover meeting? Obviously that wouldn't sell papers. Sadly the Telegraph has gone down in my estimations. It used to be a top read now it's like The Sun.
I'm not too sure on this. There isn't enough evidence to gauge the context of what this was taken in. For all we know Jimmy would have realised what was going on and was taking the proverbial. He must of realised that the money they offered him was ludicrous. I've read elsewhere that Sir Geoff Hurst can only command a fee of £10 grand for speaking at an event. I'm intrigued to find out how he ended up in a sandwich shop with two complete strangers. Was it via his agent and if so why wasn't this properly researched beforehand? Maybe these kind of events are quite normal and they see it as a chance to make a few grand. If the Allardyce scandal hadn't of happened this would be a non-story.
I think one of them was a real, known agent who wasn't in on the sting. I may be cynical but I was assuming that the £55k was to include 'business favours', the speaking invitation was a front for it, and this was tacitly understood by all. If JFH was taking the piss why did he meet with them twice? I doubt he has done anything demonstrably wrong because no money changed hands, but it's all so seedy.
Good points. I completely forgot that he had met them twice and didn't realise that the £55k was a front for business favours. I'll reread it.
For whatever reason I had to speed read the article last night and forgot some of the salient points today. It reads even worse the second time round. I think I'll change my vote from the second option to the first one.
I hope it just an additional reason for those who would like him to go for football performance reasons.
My gut feeling is that he should fall on his sword and quit now, but also think that some form of due process should be carried out by the club. The whole affair leaves a nasty taste, and **** sticks (whether he's ultimately proved innocent or not) - he's not come across well, it will be interesting if the club release the full video. Think the biggest problem the club are going to have is recruiting another "Dream" manager to replace JFH......
I am sure some people voted out because of team performance, but 99%? Bit of an insult to your fellow fans, many of whom are just, like me, sick of this seedy, grubby **** and want it over and done with now. I am no fan of the Torygraph or the press, though I am almost past caring, hate the manager merry-go-round at our club. The newspaper hasn't accused JFH of anything. It has just put film and a transcript of parts of conversations into the public realm. Even in the edited form the content is enough to show me that, though he may not have committed any crimes or breached any rules because the transaction wasn't completed, JFH is a greedy idiot who I have no respect for. The newspaper would, of course, taken expert legal advice on the libel situation before releasing any of this stuff, it would be very expensive for them to cock it up. There are 4 possible outcomes - the club exonerates Jimmy and he sues the Telegraph. - the club censures Jimmy for his actions, but he stays in place. Most likely in my view (he will of course be sacked anyway, they all are) - the club concludes he is not a fit and proper person to be manager and sacks him - JFH resigns - he can claim he has done nothing wrong but can no longer do the job properly, whatever Anything but the first outcome and Jimmy is tainted, placing an extra shedload of **** on the club. In my view he is tainted already, get rid.
I thi From the atmosphere around the club at the moment (videos, tweets,etc)...I am guessing the club is thinking that Stan's option 1 is what will happen..... "the club exonerates Jimmy and he sues the Telegraph" This has given JFH a lease of life at the club that he didn't have last Monday. I am getting really fustrated with the posters on here who think that this is a way to get rid of him because we don't like his team and tactics. IT IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE!!!. I really feel we will be stuck with him for months longer than we should be because of this.. and although I was undecided about whether he should stay or go last week...I now think we have been put in a corner where we cannot get rid of him without risking legal problems ourselves.
I think the club, from the Les and Lee interview 9s posted, are making the right supportive noises about an employee but all their options are open. They will either be furious that he has put them in this position or uncomprehending of what all the fuss is about because this kind of seedy crap is indeed standard and accepted practice in football. On the basis of what has been released I don't see what JFH could sue the Telegraph for. The haven't accused him of anything, just shown him trying to line his pockets and avoid paying U.K. tax. As I said to KPD, I don't think you can assume that a lot of people want to use this as an excuse to get rid because of the crap football. At least a few, like me, just think his behaviour stinks. I am sick of being associated with a club which is a rolling tornado of ****.
As one of the 4%, I simply answered the question. The context was about the Telegraph allegations and specifically excluded the crap football. Been to most home games. I don't like the way the media trap folk. They create a problem where there wasn't one before except in theory.
What happens if, by some miracle, we get a great manager who is taking us places and something similar happens? We then have to sack the good bloke regardless - a precedent will have been set.
