• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Telegraph Entrapment Scheme

I have long despised Fat Sam. This is no secret here. Anyone knocking The Telegraph should ask themselves a question; is it a sting if there's nothing to be stung over? Furthermore, anyone asking what BFS has 'done wrong' might wish to consider that as a national team manager, having grubby side-deal meetings where you boast about being able to get around certain player rules, ridicule ex-peers and generally walk it like the big 'un do not make you the most reliable and trustworthy person. What I cannot figure out is why the due diligence was so poor? The thin stench of turd has followed him for years and years...at a certain point, if you keep smelling it, then there must be some on the man somewhere! The fact he went so easily speaks volumes - we will never know if part of the deal was to do with the fact there was more to know.
 
He slagged off the FA - that's why he has gone IMO. Everything else although dodgy is also a bit circumspect

But he clearly criticises the FA and then joins them!!! Not good for him or them even if what he said was correct in that instance
 
Sting operations like this one and the one that caught the Pakistani cricketers are essential to journalism and in these cases in the public interest. Well done Telegraph, but at the same time I can't imagine it was difficult to entrap a greedy arrogant taco like Sam anyway.
 
i think the story as the telegraph saw it was the seminars and the 400k, the talk of third party ownership fixes (from his time at west ham) was thrown in to sex it up a bit

the story rides the current British distaste of people making money
 
LutonSpurs said:
Sting operations like this one and the one that caught the Pakistani cricketers are essential to journalism and in these cases in the public interest. Well done Telegraph, but at the same time I can't imagine it was difficult to entrap a greedy arrogant taco like Sam anyway.
Click to expand...

the downside to entrapment is that its use has an adverse effect on any ensuing criminal case

if you really want to bring about change you have to catch people in the actual act

all this story has done is get one man fired, it's not going to fix the underlying problem
 
LutonSpurs said:
Sting operations like this one and the one that caught the Pakistani cricketers are essential to journalism and in these cases in the public interest. Well done Telegraph, but at the same time I can't imagine it was difficult to entrap a greedy arrogant taco like Sam anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry not for me it's snide and far more sordid and venal than anything Sam did which was nothing IMHO.

If we are going to sack people for talking about their predecessor etc we have lost the plot.

And the overreaction from the FA is pompose in the extream.
 
StephenH said:
Sorry not for me it's snide and far more sordid and venal than anything Sam did which was nothing IMHO.

If we are going to sack people for talking about their predecessor etc we have lost the plot.

And the overreaction from the FA is pompose in the extream.
Click to expand...

I don't believe for a minute that he was sacked for that. If that is all he had done then he would have had to make a public apology and that would be it.

It was discussing being paid to advise on breaking FA rules on third party ownership that made his position untenable.
 
milo said:
I don't believe for a minute that he was sacked for that. If that is all he had done then he would have had to make a public apology and that would be it.

It was discussing being paid to advise on breaking FA rules on third party ownership that made his position untenable.
Click to expand...

Its all about opinion. Mine is he was talking over possible options for a paid lecture tour at a 'private' meeting and was not aware he was being taped. He like many said things that IF he had known it was going to be broadcast, he may or may not have said, but he was not given that common courtesy. But we live in a media fudge fest now, with reality TV addicts lapping this stuff up. As for the FA they are rank amature at best unfit to goven the game. England manager should have ALL there meeting vetted by a FA appointed PA to safeguard against the predatory media and this now should be mandatory for all top clubs.

It could be easily be our manager caught with hi guard down at a private function, luckily I hope Levy will be on this.

This was done to sell newspapers nothing else. These so called "reporters" are venal tripe hounds.
 
StephenH said:
Its all about opinion. Mine is he was talking over possible options for a paid lecture tour at a 'private' meeting and was not aware he was being taped. He like many said things that IF he had known it was going to be broadcast, he may or may not have said, but he was not given that common courtesy. But we live in a media fudge fest now, with reality TV addicts lapping this stuff up. As for the FA they are rank amature at best unfit to goven the game. England manager should have ALL there meeting vetted by a FA appointed PA to safeguard against the predatory media and this now should be mandatory for all top clubs.

It could be easily be our manager caught with hi guard down at a private function, luckily I hope Levy will be on this.

This was done to sell newspapers nothing else. These so called "reporters" are venal tripe hounds.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with Big Sam being the figurehead for the FA and meeting business investors to tell them how they can get round the FA's (i.e. his employer) rules regarding 3rd party ownership of players?
 
galeforce said:
i think the story as the telegraph saw it was the seminars and the 400k, the talk of third party ownership fixes (from his time at west ham) was thrown in to sex it up a bit

the story rides the current British distaste of people making money
Click to expand...

This is spot on.

Sam was guilty of playing to a gallery after a few bevvies...........:cool: I've got the tshirt. These days if I have a few bevvies and im in the loo:(
 
glorygloryeze said:
So you have no problem with Big Sam being the figurehead for the FA and meeting business investors to tell them how they can get round the FA's (i.e. his employer) rules regarding 3rd party ownership of players?
Click to expand...

He a football manager not the CEO of a FTSE 500 company.........stop being so pompous.
If he wrote a FAQ on "3rd party ownership" and published on his web site after being told not by the FA. Then by Sam, but all this is OTT and I understand it common knowledge how these can be circumvented.
 
Last edited:
glorygloryeze said:
So you have no problem with Big Sam being the figurehead for the FA and meeting business investors to tell them how they can get round the FA's (i.e. his employer) rules regarding 3rd party ownership of players?
Click to expand...
I haven't read the article so sorry if I'm picking this up wrong, but he not say, yes I can do this but I have to check with the F A first.
If so who's to say that he was not just stalling them, and then go back say sorry can't do it the F A have blocked it.
 
glasgowspur said:
I haven't read the article so sorry if I'm picking this up wrong, but he not say, yes I can do this but I have to check with the F A first.
If so who's to say that he was not just stalling them, and then go back say sorry can't do it the F A have blocked it.
Click to expand...
Why would he need to stall them? Just say no, he couldn't possibly do that given his position, it's blindingly obvious that this would run contrary to what his employers would want.

I don't think the public, generally, have any issue with people making money, they'd just rather it was for doing your job well, and maybe for doing what you're already being paid a fortune to actually do, you know, manage England (his Robbie Keane style dream job, apparently), a job he'd had for about a month at the time. But no, a quick dangle of the carrot of a few extra quid and the fat tosser walks right into it.

As someone said earlier, that these guys are still so fudging stupid that they don't smell this one a mile off beggars belief. I know football isn't exactly The Brains Trust but really.
 
Seedy Ron said:
Why would he need to stall them? Just say no, he couldn't possibly do that given his position, it's blindingly obvious that this would run contrary to what his employers would want.

I don't think the public, generally, have any issue with people making money, they'd just rather it was for doing your job well, and maybe for doing what you're already being paid a fortune to actually do, you know, manage England (his Robbie Keane style dream job, apparently), a job he'd had for about a month at the time. But no, a quick dangle of the carrot of a few extra quid and the fat tosser walks right into it.

As someone said earlier, that these guys are still so fudgeing stupid that they don't smell this one a mile off beggars belief. I know football isn't exactly The Brains Trust but really.
Click to expand...
Again I've not really paid a great deal of attention to it, so if I'm picking it up wrong apologies, but was he not their guest? I know some people would be reluctant to straight out no in that situation.
Not that I think bfs would be mind you, but I just think that the posters who are saying entrapment stings like this are wrong have a point. It's a crummy way to set someone up.
 
How do you find out about your dodgy employees without these stings? The FA prove themselves utterly useless at keeping on top of things at every turn, so if the press don't do it, who does? Or should a blind eye just be turned?

I felt sorry for him at first, but he really does only have himself to blame. It's very, very easy to not get caught out by these things, you just have to not be a bit of a clam.
 
galeforce said:
i think the story as the telegraph saw it was the seminars and the 400k, the talk of third party ownership fixes (from his time at west ham) was thrown in to sex it up a bit

the story rides the current British distaste of people making money
Click to expand...


British dislike of working class people making money, never saw any investigations into the Duke of Westminster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back