Eric Black, the next to be named by the Telegraph

[Missing Lambo]

In any case you always need the full transcript. You could talk about corruption and bribery in a conversational way and have it cut to sound like you are condoning it or joining in. Black's real problem is Southampton's stance of siding with the angels....we will give him a fair hearing, whilst carefully making sure that no dirt can stick to us. Les and Ralph will have already picked up their skirts and run for the hills.

In my view, we are not on the side of the angels, but we do seem to be a well run ethical business. For that reason, I believe that if Black is going to be handed his P45 it could be that he has a clause in his contract that forbids him making statements to the press without consent from the club. If so, he is banged to rights but could be not guilty of the sleaze of which he is accused. In which case "arsehole" springs to mind!

BTW. All this talk of Black speaking French. Aye, laddy. But can our manager understand him?

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Just seen the footage, it's hardly conclusive but at the same time dosent do him any favours.

He has been invited to a meeting with the possibility of a job in the offing...he would have been trying to impress (we are all capable of gilding the lily when out with strangers). This is why we need the whole conversation...was he clear what was being discussed or were they talking in general terms and leading him to show off about his inside knowledge on football.

I think it should be made clear to people at Saints that they can't have jobs on the side without clearing it with the club....perhaps they already do and he took no notice. A lot of people in football do other stuff...easy to register it with the club so it is on the record.

 

[Missing Lambo]

I think it should be made clear to people at Saints that they can't have jobs on the side without clearing it with the club....perhaps they already do and he took no notice. A lot of people in football do other stuff...easy to register it with the club so it is on the record.

Good point. Well made. Most jobs have a "declaration of interests" type register. Not sure whether you must do under employment law, but it is certainly good practice. Breaching this might be considered a straight red card offence anyway.

Anyway, he should consider himself fortunate. In Nicola's day he might have found himself testing his swimming prowess in the Solent while wearing concrete wellies!

 

[Libby]

I think the focus should be on the wrong doing, not whether or not a newspaper is making money from Reporting it.

I'm pretty sure the focus is on that?

I'd already said everything regarding the information we have so far, was just agreeing that a lot of people (not on here) seem to think this is being done for the good of the game which clearly isn't the case.

I personally think it's a bit twattish to report all of this and not hand over all the information to the accused employers but maybe that's just me.


On another note I'd expected us to act by now, concerning.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

We have acted....we have spoken to the FA and EPL and asked the Telegraph for full disclosure. Could put Black on gardening leave, but can't sack him without seeing evidence that may or may not clear him. That wouldn't be fair either.

 

[Libby]

We have acted....we have spoken to the FA and EPL and asked the Telegraph for full disclosure. Could put Black on gardening leave, but can't sack him without seeing evidence that may or may not clear him. That wouldn't be fair either.

Yeah I know we can't sack him and wouldn't expect us to. Thought we would have suspended him / put him on gardening leave though.

 

[sotonsaint]

They have released about 50 seconds of a conversation that was likely an hour or longer. Hardly gives us an idea on context or even what was actually said in the majority of the conversation.

Ah yea agreed, he'll be packing his bags though I would imagine either way.

 

[ImpSaint]

At least Pulis managed to squeeze in his 1000th game.

And has been speaking out this morning about how the authorities must deal with this.............

 

[AberdeenSaint]

Treble embarrassment - he`s in Saints employ, he`s Scottish and he scored in the ECWCF for Aberdeen. Infamy, infamy !

 

[Beef]

That list of managers is made up btw.

 

[ImpSaint]

It seems that in a lot of these cases targets are invited to attend a meeting to discuss something completely innocent and then they make throw away comments during discussions they thought would be about something else. The telegraph then sell the story as if this whole dodgy meeting was set up to discuss bribery etc. My issue is that the press exaggerate and dramatize stories to make more money rather than simply presenting the information as it is. So although they do expose some details, we get sold a story rather than told the truth as to what happened.

I don't see that at all. They went after the agents first and got names and then went after the names. Who cares if the meetings were set up as something else. They have gone after people that they had been informed had history. They haven't gone after anyone waving cash and hoping to catch a few first timers.

 

[ImpSaint]

That list of managers is made up btw.

It might be made up but a couple of them we already suspected and marry the cryptic list we saw. I definitely suspected 2 former Saints managers.

 

[Puck]

I'd love them to release a list of people that they tried to ensnare who told them to piss off.

That would be equally revealing. Who are the good guys?

I doubt there are many names. I vaguely know someone who knows someone involved (don't really want to be more specific than that) and I don't think they went fishing to see who would bite. It seems like they heard names and rumours and tried to give those people the chance to hang themselves. The journos have a lot more information (or heard a lot more rumours if you prefer) than they can publish.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

I doubt there are many names. I vaguely know someone who knows someone involved (don't really want to be more specific than that) and I don't think they went fishing to see who would bite. It seems like they heard names and rumours and tried to give those people the chance to hand themselves. The journos have a lot more information (or heard a lot more rumours if you prefer) than they can publish.

Fair point, and sounds about right.

If Eric has such a reputation, then I'd rather he wasn't associated to us.

 

[VVD]

I'm pretty sure the focus is on that?

I'd already said everything regarding the information we have so far, was just agreeing that a lot of people (not on here) seem to think this is being done for the good of the game which clearly isn't the case.

I personally think it's a bit twattish to report all of this and not hand over all the information to the accused employers but maybe that's just me.


On another note I'd expected us to act by now, concerning.

I'm not sure how you can say it's clearly not being done for the good of the game? It's their investigation into corruption, which is good for the game.

 

[Libby]

I'm not sure how you can say it's clearly not being done for the good of the game? It's their investigation into corruption, which is good for the game.

I'm saying that's not their main motivation. If it was why haven't they provided the FA/us/QPR full details yet?

 

[Beef]

I'm saying that's not their main motivation. If it was why haven't they provided the FA/us/QPR full details yet?

Because the police are now involved.

 

[VVD]

I'm saying that's not their main motivation. If it was why haven't they provided the FA/us/QPR full details yet?

They've given their info to the police. We have no idea what's going on behind the scenes so I think you may be jumping to conclusions a bit soon.

 

[Schad]

They have released about 50 seconds of a conversation that was likely an hour or longer. Hardly gives us an idea on context or even what was actually said in the majority of the conversation.

But no matter what preceded that snippet, it's hard to imagine what innocent statements led him to condone them approaching an individual with a bribe, while reassuring them that said individual would take it.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

But no matter what preceded that snippet, it's hard to imagine what innocent statements led him to condone them approaching an individual with a bribe, while reassuring them that said individual would take it.

I agree with your interpretation, but it could also be part of a general discussion. He could easily mean that X would take a bribe and would get involved....but without meaning that he expected them to go ahead with it. Need the full conversation.