They missed the brown envelope!

Opinions =/= Facts

The facts are the only claim made about bribery was to a newspaper and was then refused to be backed up, and was in fact denied by someone on the other side. The facts are that the police and FA investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing.

 

Word. eh ?

 

Except that's far from the only claim and the investigations found evidence. There was a large file of evidence presented to the authorities that resulted in a life time ban for Revie.

 

Today's word of the day.

Vituperative adj

Using, containing, or marked by harshly abusive censure.

 

No, the Mirror claimed to have submitted a large file of evidence to the FA. The FA denied receiving any such file. Don had already long since left the English game, there was no lifetime ban. Basically this is a case of the Mirror vs. Everyone else.

 

Is just one version of just one of the numerous claims. Revie was banned for life. Before that, Revie was challenged to sue and declined. I think that says enough in itself.

It doesn't matter what I say, you can't accept the bungs exist because you need to hang on to that short lived blip in TWS history as the rest of it is demonstration of gross underachievement.

You see, the rest of us live our own lives so we don't need the vicarious joy of associated 'success'.

 

True, but Bremner did and won. Why didn't Sprake and the Wolves player testify in court. Where are these "numerous" other claims?

 

There wasn't enough evidence against Bremner because his offers were made on the pitch and to individuals out of earshot of others, so it resulted in one word against another. not enough to support the allegations, but the numbers leave all but the desperate comfortable that something happened.

The reasons for Sprake and the Wolves players actions as well as some of the other allegations are on-line now. Other stories have come directly and indirectly from players on the receiving end.

TWS were hardly unique, that's why the authorities preferred no evidence to be found as it would open the whole can of worms, but do you seriously believe Revies ban for a miss-timed press release was reasonable if that's all it was for? Do you not think him and his friends would have appealed it had they been squeaky clean?


At the end of the day, I've read, seen and heard enough to satisfy myself for my opinion. It'd never stand in a court, which is what you choose to hang on to. When people like you defend it, I do try to look for evidence for the angle they're offering but so far, all that's done is confirm my opinion. I don't see too many tws fans looking at it with an open mind.

Ultimately neither of us will convince the other they're wrong. That will bother you far, far more than it'll bother me.

 

No it won't, because I'm right, and therefore have facts and evidence to back me up, you have opinion and conjecture.

 

But you don't have all the facts, as you've shown on here with comments alluding to just one allegation when clearly there were many more. You don't have all the facts in the reporters dossier. You in fact have far, far more conjecture and less answers than I do. It would seem you have been brought up to toe the party line. I stumbled into TWS's bung allegations as a side issue to something else I was looking at. I had no preformed agenda other than idle curiosity.

To believe TWS weren't offering inducements at a time when it would see mother clubs were is as blind as believing East German athletes were all natural.

The elephant in the room is the lack of appeal to the length of Revies ban.

 

Provide me with proof of the other allegations and this supposed dossier of evidence. Don did appeal the ban and had it overturned.

 

Don't be silly. Asking for them shows your lack of knowledge.

What does interest me is your claim that Revie appealed the ban and had it overturned. Do you have a link so I could read that as it's news to me? As I posted earlier, I've quite an open mind on it and I'm happy to check up on things if they differ from my understanding.


Edit. Found it. I had read it before but it slipped my mind because even the judge at the time confirmed he was out of order and the football world still shunned him, so the point still stands IMO. Sex offenders and killers have been welcomed back into the football fold but an early press release is supposed to leave someone ostracised?

 

Jump to around 4 min 30.


[video=youtube;hxZPmua0JHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxZPmua0JHA&feature=related[/video]

 

For me, it was Sprake's evidence that convinced me and his ex team mates' embarrassed reaction to the truth coming out.

If that wasn't enough, Revie doing a runner to the UAE was the clincher.

 

1. Sprake was the odd one out in the group of players, he was eventually dropped from the team was possibly the only player pleased at his exit.
2. Embarrassed reaction? Bremner sued for libel and won.
3. This was all cooked up by the Mirror after Don had already left the England job to go to the UAE.

 

ARTICLE FROM THE GUARDIAN:

"Why has Mirror scoop on Don Revie been airbrushed from history?


Comments (111)
There was a remarkable piece about Don Revie, the former Leeds and England football manager, in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph by the usually excellent Henry Winter.

It was remarkable for what it did not say, omitting from what Winter called Revie's controversial life story the most controversial episode of all.

For those of you who don't know, Revie made an enormous success of managing Leeds from 1961 until 1974, winning league titles, several cups and European trophies.

He then became the England manager, where his record was anything but spectacular, and in 1977 he suddenly resigned - the first man to do so from that post - to manage the United Arab Emirates team.

Revie angered the Football Association by selling the news of his resignation to the Daily Mail, before the FA received his formal resignation letter.

The FA then suspended Revie from football for 10 years on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. All this is recounted by Winter but - as with Revie's Wikipedia entry - the real reason for Revie's downfall is airbrushed from history.

For the true situation we have to turn to the Daily Mirror cuttings library and the memoirs of the late Richard Stott, a former editor who, in 1977, was one the paper's senior reporters.

With evidence from the former Leeds goalkeeper, Gary Sprake, he exposed Revie as a match-fixer. In fact, it was when Revie discovered that Sprake was about to spill the beans that he vanished to the UAE.

It's all there in Stott's book, Dogs and Lampposts (memo to Henry: turn to pages 173-181).

Once Revie had taken up his job with UAE for £340,000 a year (a colossal sum in those days), other witnesses came forward. One of them, a respected player and manager, Bob Stokoe, told how Revie tried to bribe him to lose a match.

By the time Stott had completed his investigation he was able to present the FA with a 315-page dossier cataloguing Revie's long period of corruption.

Revie sued the Mirror for libel, but he did not pursue his legal action. The FA simply swept it all under the carpet, though it did issue the ban on Revie.

I just can't understand how, in a piece of more than 1,500 words, Winter managed to overlook this key incident, the real reason for Revie's downfall."


EDUCATE YOURSELF.

 

Have you been paying any attention to the discussion that's been going on on this thread? All of that has already been talked about. Sprake and the Wolves player involved both refused to back up their stories in court, however a different Wolves player did; denying any attempt at match-fixing took place. The FA also denied receiving any dossier of evidence from the Mirror, which, surprisingly since you're so sure it exists, no evidence has leaked from. Revie also appealed his FA ban (for selling his resignation story to the Mail) and won. The only "evidence" of match-fixing is from stories sold to those most reputable of papers the People and the Mirror which have never been backed up in court.

 

Where do you get your info from?

That airbrushed Wikipedia entry ?

 

I researched it the same as you. The difference is I didn't use a biased newspaper article which leaves out half the story.

 

That's not strictly true. Apart from Stokoe's repeated claims, off the top of my head Forest and some other clubs as well as another lesser Leeds player have all come out and admitted these things happened. There's not just the match fixing Alan Ball got fined £3k for receiving inducements to sign from Revie, even though he still chose to go elsewhere. Lorimar talks of the same inducements. He was all but a Man U player after they bought his parents a house only to be outbid by Leeds.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Bremner was found innocent in court. What he won was case of libel for bribe allegations because the evidence amounted to one word against another. There was no proof that cash changed hands to prove the bribe, but there's very little doubt the offers were made.

I said before the players had nothing to gain and everything to lose by presenting their evidence. The football authorities certainly didn't want that coming out into the open.

Revie can hardly be described as winning an appeal that left the judge condemning his behaviour and assigning him to pay the bulk of the costs. He was still shunned by the football world. Look what some others are known to have done, but they still get knighthoods and their deaths were marked with black arm bands minutes silence and dignitaries at the funeral. Revie had some ex-players but no officials.