Channel 4 better not get rights to the PL anytime soon.
SAF will ignore them like he does the BBC <haha>
SAF will ignore them like he does the BBC <haha>
Tonight
- Thread starter NSIS
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Then why not make a condition of taking over a club that you pay the costs of any investigation undertaken by the FA? Surely this is tax deductable as a business expense? It would keep away the likes of the "characters" on Dispatches for a start. This may sound undoable for smaller clubs, but the investigation would be correspondingly smaller. Also it would encourage bidders not to bury ownership in layers of crap that need wading through, as they would be paying for the (very expensive) wading. It would be in their interests to make things as transparent as possible. Thus investigations are done and the FA can do what they are supposed to. Protect our game.
Whatever happens, I can see old baconface staying away from Thai restaurants for a while! As for Robson, he never had any respect for himself, his recovery from numerous injuries was always hampered by a liking for the hard stuff. His behaviour was not really that surprising.
He did rejoin the club as their global ambassador in 2008.
Whether he ever left that position is unclear.
Whether he ever left that position is unclear.
Exactly. Is Robson Utd's global ambassador - or not? Simple question, really. Unless, and until, I hear Man Utd issue a disclaimer, I will have to assume that what Robson claimed is true.
What are the motives of football club owners?
The American owners at Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are there to make money. They are raking off an income and will sell when there is a good profit to be made.
Chelsea and City's owners want the kudos, but there is also a strong business motive. Their profiles are raised by the global publicity they get. They could pull out leaving the club in financial crisis.
Spurs are owned by an investment company, which has its fingers in many pies.
Those are the top six clubs in England and the fans of each are beholden to the whims of the owners, who have no personal connection to those clubs.
What are Venkys doing at Blackburn?
Nobody knows who owns Leeds.
Sheff Wed are owned by Milan Mandaric
Perhaps Wigan are in safe hands with Dave Whelan. Who knows?
How many Football clubs actually make a profit, Luke? Very few, if any, at the moment, is the answer. In which case, why this rush by foreign "businessmen" to buy an English club?? Is the asian world truly filled with kindly philanthropists who feel that they should share their good fortune with some dowdy spinster of a northern town? Or do you think perhaps that they see a weak, and underfunded, governing body? A regulatory system full of loopholes, that they can use as a conduit for whatever nefarious money laundering activities that they wish to conduct, with minimal interference?
I think I know which one I would plump for!
The way in which these deals were being touted was every bit about buy cheap, flog off the profitable bits and screw the clubs and their fans. The fact that a former England captain was trying to help engineer these deals and openly break the FA rules to do so, should mean that his name is mud forever more.
I agree with that. Also, there is a lot of actual cash floating around in league football. Most of it taken at the turnstiles, programmes, in the club shop, etc. Wherever there is a business with those kinds of casflows, there are opportunities for laundering the proceeds of ill gotten gains. Which is why you see so many people of dubious provenence looking to own an English football club.
As mentioned earlier, the current regulatory system is woefully inadequate to deal with these kinds of activities.
I was shocked mate, at how little teeth the FA and Football league have actually got to combat these dubious business practices. Even Lord Triesman admitted that they could have easily got away with multiple club ownership because the rules are so hard to enforce and the Football league chief admitting that they just haven't got the money to investigate such practices.
It's shocking to see the game we love, which has taken the best part of 150 years to get to where it is, simply picked off for profiteering by unscrupulous businessmen from Asia - aided and abetted by a former England captain.
Robson was given his status and credibility by the same fans and organisations that he is now complicit in running roughshod over. In my opinion, it's the ultimate act of betrayal.
I'm not very surprised: in law a football club is a business and any rules the FA bring in could be challenged as anti-competitive unless there is a very good reason for it. If money-laundering in going on then the police need to be involved anyway.
Given the huge increase in money in the game following the Sky deal it was bound to attract a few dodgy characters, but I'm not sure the fans are any worse off than they were before really. I'm not sure they were ever the main source of cash for the bigger clubs: my impression was that their Boards were usually composed of some rich fans who often shelled out their own money to buy players etc. In fact so little of the cash comes directly through the turnstiles now, it is hard to see why the fans who actually attend matches ought to have any particular say in what goes on compared to the sposnsors etc. It is illogical to complain about the club not spending money at the same time as complaining about admission prices.
Given the huge increase in money in the game following the Sky deal it was bound to attract a few dodgy characters, but I'm not sure the fans are any worse off than they were before really. I'm not sure they were ever the main source of cash for the bigger clubs: my impression was that their Boards were usually composed of some rich fans who often shelled out their own money to buy players etc. In fact so little of the cash comes directly through the turnstiles now, it is hard to see why the fans who actually attend matches ought to have any particular say in what goes on compared to the sposnsors etc. It is illogical to complain about the club not spending money at the same time as complaining about admission prices.
The Premier League is a club, as is the Football league. O.k. these are clubs wholly owned by their members. If you wish to belong to this club, you subscribe to their rules, or join another club. Trying to challenge F.A. rules through legal channels would be very risky business when you're standing on shaky ground.
The simple fact is that Football has vastly outgrown the current regulatory system, which needs far better funding, and a far more in-depth acceptance process of who is, or is not, fit and proper.
The simple fact is that Football has vastly outgrown the current regulatory system, which needs far better funding, and a far more in-depth acceptance process of who is, or is not, fit and proper.
While this is true, some FA/PL rules could themselves be illegal to the extent of being a criminal offence (eg a requirement for a minimum ticket price which would be a cartel) so you can be sure that the lawyers look over them in depth before they are published. So the FA can't do impose many things beyond normal company law.
I think that they have every right to thoroughly investigate the provenence of any money being used to attempt to join their club. I think it was Chirpy who had the idea that these potential owners/members should have to meet the cost of this investigation themselves. Therefore the more obscure they choose to make the actual ownership of the club, the more it will cost them to fund the due dilligence. I think that's an excellent idea, particularly if it were tax deductible.
Luke, you're going to have severe difficulty convincing me, that Sim has not spoken to SAF about Robson and what goes on in the ManU restaurant...in the other ManU restaurant!. The bloke just can't keep his trap shut! SAF's reaction today, is that Sim's portrayal of their relationship is exuberant shall we say!...then why would you take a call from a strangers phone...with another stranger on the end of it!...or did you miss that bit?
If he was that shrewd, Luke, he would have avoided such an overtly dubious character as slippery Joe. The true depth of the relationship between the two, may, or may not, be yet proved to be improper.
Luke, the simple fact is, Robson was part of offering ways of deceiving the FA, and breaching of one their rules about club ownership. Yes he was there as a carrott if you like, I agree, and its also not his job to solve the issue either, but he could have walked away from the situation. He could then have taken advice on what he'd seen, unless of course its in his interest not to!
I'm not saying SAF did anything, in fact, yes I am, I'll bet he knew, but has chose to keep quiet and do nothing, knowing what was going on...on a ManU premises
...very bad publicity Luke, very bad.
I'm not saying SAF did anything, in fact, yes I am, I'll bet he knew, but has chose to keep quiet and do nothing, knowing what was going on...on a ManU premises
...very bad publicity Luke, very bad.
For me too. I was a huge admirer of Bryan Robson, I was there with everyone back home watching him being nursed off with his injured shoulder in the mexico 86 world cup, their captain gone, that team fought in that tournament for him.
Robson only had status and admiration because the fans gave it to him, and that's what he has betrayed.
In March 2008, 14 years after he had last played for them, Robson returned to Manchester United to work as an ambassador, for an initial period of 12 months. He works alongside Bobby Charlton to help United 'promote its commercial and charitable aims'.[67]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Robson
Is he still a Man Utd employee? He certainly said that he was still performing this role in the documentary.
So what is this then? Poor management from within Man Utd, being oblivious to these operations by their employees - or worse, being aware and doing nothing about it.?
For Fergie (or his lawyers) to claim that he didn't know about these antics either makes him look stupid or dishonest
It doesn't reflect well on Utd one bit