Big Sam back in as manager poll

Status
Not open for further replies.


Hes left us now I think 3 times including as player and assistant.I say fuck him.Weve had enough shite to put up with the last five year to last a fuckin life time.
 
I couldn't give a fuck if he's a dishonest or dodgy bloke, he's a good football manager and I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

Moyes doesn't fill me with much confidence like.

I love how people are saying give Moyes time, yet in a short amount of time he has taken us backwards :lol:
 
There's no doubt he Allardyce is a good football manager and appeared to be right for us.

However 2 months ago he left us and there was evidence of dodgy dealings, and unwritten promises as soon as he'd gone.

Allardyce and the agents concerned, probably the McKays, will hopefully get what they deserve, which could mean curtains for them all.

I fear that if Allardyce gets back in to management with the likes of us or Bolton and is allowed to deal with his fellow crooks, he will bankrupt the club.

Be careful what you wish for!
 
No. He chose to leave, was desperate to take the England job. Moyes appears to want to be here and to want to get it right. We have to support Moyes.

I wish Sam had never left, and none of this happened. But it has, we have to live with it, and so does Sam, the daft oaf has blown his dream job.
 
No.

I think we dodged bullet. If he'd been caught misbehaving as Sunderland manager we could well face a large fine and points deduction.
 
I have called the sports editor of this newspaper a fool. I have described my wife as unreasonable. I have gone after the Dalai Lama, too.

That is what happens in private. We let off steam. We release tension. We say things that have little to do with what we might say in public, after mature reflection. A private life is such precisely because it acts as a safety valve.

It is not just mistaken, but morally egregious, therefore, to take private words spoken in a Mayfair hotel, to people who pretended to be businessmen — a few moments in a four-hour chat where you are being covertly incited to say anything that might look bad on the front page of a newspaper — and say: "He must be sacked."

Sam Allardyce left his job as England manager last night by "mutual consent" but it looks as if he was pushed. He should not have even been censured. Not according to any reasonable interpretation of a conversation with people to whom he had been introduced by a close friend. They were not "strangers", as has been claimed, as if Allardyce bumped into them in a bar. They had cultivated Allardyce as a close contact.

The court of public opinion is a fickle thing, entirely unattached to due process. Is this the world we wish for? Where every chat has to be censored in case they end up on the front page of a newspaper? Where public figures are required to clarify every sentence, or provide legal notes as pre-emptive mitigation, in case it is dissected on national TV? The "incriminating" conversation was, when you step back from the furore, conspicuous by its blandness. By talking about the "psychological barrier" of England players, Allardyce said what many thousands felt when they watched the national team play against Iceland in Euro 2016. When he said that the redevelopment of Wembley was a "stupid" mistake, he was repeating the view of a majority of those who have looked at the issue.

When he had a go at Gary Neville and his influence over the England set-up, he echoed what Matt Hughes wrote on these pages just a few weeks ago. When he made mildly negative comments about Roy Hodgson, Prince William and Prince Harry, well, what is there to say, frankly? This was not an accumulation of embarrassing misjudgments. It is tittle tattle.

The assertion that "he should have known better" is particularly egregious, for it inverts the relevant logic. It was the same when people called for the resignation of Max Mosley after he was filmed taking part in an orgy. Everyone agreed the sex was consensual. Everyone agreed that it had taken place in a private home.

Everyone agreed that Mosley was doing a good job as head of the FIA, motor racing's governing body, and that he had never used his personal life as a way of furthering his career.

Indeed, Mosley was an intensely private man. But when these facts were clearly laid out, there was still a vocal group claiming that he should go because he had exercised "poor judgment". They felt that he should somehow have been wise to the fact that his legal, consensual, private behaviour might one day end up on the front cover of a newspaper. Can you glimpse the paradox in such a claim? It is hypocrisy masquerading as realism.

Let me say loud and clear that I am in favour of journalistic stings. When The Sunday Times offered bungs in 1994 to 20 MPs (ten Conservative, ten Labour) to ask parliamentary questions, it was a legitimate story. One MP agreed, took the money and asked a question; the other agreed to a consultancy project for money but when he received the £1,000 cheque for tabling a question he immediately returned it. The story shone a light into the murky world of lobbying and corruption. We would never have found out unless journalists had set out to expose avaricious backbenchers.

The same goes for the sting on Pakistan cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif by the News of the World. It is difficult to prove that sports stars have taken money to fix matches, but we can learn a great deal by putting up a "fake" offer. This is what the investigative team did, the bowlers took the bait, bowled no-balls as promised, and the world was alerted — graphically and conclusively — to a clandestine problem. It led to a number of reforms, and was clearly in the public interest.

And that brings us back to Allardyce. He did nothing wrong in anything like the same sense. The only possible evidence of wrongdoing is twofold. The first is that he was prepared to take a £400,000 cheque for making speeches and offering advice. This is not a crime. Indeed, he explicitly stated that he would have to run it past the FA before accepting any such proposal. People are uneasy about his apparent "greed", but this is another red herring. It would have been up to his employer to determine whether any additional work might have distracted him from his day job and Allardyce had agreed to check with the FA. When an individual may be sacked for discussing a hypothetical contract which he never signed, and which would anyway have been vetoed by the FA, you are in the territory of a witch-hunt.

Allardyce was also asked about third-party ownership and said that the ban on it was "ridiculous" which, whether you agree or disagree, is fair comment. It is not a crime to disagree with your employer. He explained how you could get around the ban, which is a conversation I have had with at least a dozen managers, and probably 50 agents. The crucial point, however, is that Allardyce didn't break the rules. He merely stated how they could be circumvented, which isn't the same thing at all.

As for those who claim that he was "encouraging" others to break these rules, this doesn't stack up, either. For the allegation now seems to be that Allardyce incited a company, which didn't actually exist, to break a rule during a conversation that was itself specifically designed to incite Allardyce to offer such encouragement. This wasn't a smoking gun; it was smoke and mirrors.

For all we know (we have only seen edited highlights), he may have gone on to say that they should not break such rules. Unless we see the full video or transcript, we have no valid basis by which to assess what Allardyce said, because so much of what is said, by anyone, only makes sense in the relevant context.

The one occasion when Allardyce was put in a position to incriminate himself and utter words that would have led straight to the exit door, he was emphatic. Asked about taking bungs, he said: "You daren't even think about it ... you can't go there any more. You can't pay a player, you can't pay a manager, you can't pay a CEO." One wonders how many other times during a long conversation Allardyce made comments that demonstrated his probity.

There is undoubtedly a great deal of corruption in football. You hear whispers all the time, including about high-profile individuals, but we need probative evidence, not hearsay. There may be more to come out in the investigation by The Telegraph, if not about Allardyce, then about other managers. I very much hope so. Investigative journalism is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.

The Allardyce affair represented a test case.

People should be sacked for what they say in private only if they breach a high bar of wrongdoing. The England manager didn't come close. That he has gone says little about football, but much about the arbitrary nature of mob rule. The FA should have stood by its man.





From The Times, spot on
 
johnson said:
From The Times, spot on

I have called the sports editor of this newspaper a fool. I have described my wife as unreasonable. I have gone after the Dalai Lama, too.

That is what happens in private. We let off steam. We release tension. We say things that have little to do with what we might say in public, after mature reflection. A private life is such precisely because it acts as a safety valve.

It is not just mistaken, but morally egregious, therefore, to take private words spoken in a Mayfair hotel, to people who pretended to be businessmen — a few moments in a four-hour chat where you are being covertly incited to say anything that might look bad on the front page of a newspaper — and say: "He must be sacked."


Sam Allardyce left his job as England manager last night by "mutual consent" but it looks as if he was pushed. He should not have even been censured. Not according to any reasonable interpretation of a conversation with people to whom he had been introduced by a close friend. They were not "strangers", as has been claimed, as if Allardyce bumped into them in a bar. They had cultivated Allardyce as a close contact.

The court of public opinion is a fickle thing, entirely unattached to due process. Is this the world we wish for? Where every chat has to be censored in case they end up on the front page of a newspaper? Where public figures are required to clarify every sentence, or provide legal notes as pre-emptive mitigation, in case it is dissected on national TV? The "incriminating" conversation was, when you step back from the furore, conspicuous by its blandness. By talking about the "psychological barrier" of England players, Allardyce said what many thousands felt when they watched the national team play against Iceland in Euro 2016. When he said that the redevelopment of Wembley was a "stupid" mistake, he was repeating the view of a majority of those who have looked at the issue.

When he had a go at Gary Neville and his influence over the England set-up, he echoed what Matt Hughes wrote on these pages just a few weeks ago. When he made mildly negative comments about Roy Hodgson, Prince William and Prince Harry, well, what is there to say, frankly? This was not an accumulation of embarrassing misjudgments. It is tittle tattle.

The assertion that "he should have known better" is particularly egregious, for it inverts the relevant logic. It was the same when people called for the resignation of Max Mosley after he was filmed taking part in an orgy. Everyone agreed the sex was consensual. Everyone agreed that it had taken place in a private home.

Everyone agreed that Mosley was doing a good job as head of the FIA, motor racing's governing body, and that he had never used his personal life as a way of furthering his career.

Indeed, Mosley was an intensely private man. But when these facts were clearly laid out, there was still a vocal group claiming that he should go because he had exercised "poor judgment". They felt that he should somehow have been wise to the fact that his legal, consensual, private behaviour might one day end up on the front cover of a newspaper. Can you glimpse the paradox in such a claim? It is hypocrisy masquerading as realism.

Let me say loud and clear that I am in favour of journalistic stings. When The Sunday Times offered bungs in 1994 to 20 MPs (ten Conservative, ten Labour) to ask parliamentary questions, it was a legitimate story. One MP agreed, took the money and asked a question; the other agreed to a consultancy project for money but when he received the £1,000 cheque for tabling a question he immediately returned it. The story shone a light into the murky world of lobbying and corruption. We would never have found out unless journalists had set out to expose avaricious backbenchers.

The same goes for the sting on Pakistan cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif by the News of the World. It is difficult to prove that sports stars have taken money to fix matches, but we can learn a great deal by putting up a "fake" offer. This is what the investigative team did, the bowlers took the bait, bowled no-balls as promised, and the world was alerted — graphically and conclusively — to a clandestine problem. It led to a number of reforms, and was clearly in the public interest.

And that brings us back to Allardyce. He did nothing wrong in anything like the same sense. The only possible evidence of wrongdoing is twofold. The first is that he was prepared to take a £400,000 cheque for making speeches and offering advice. This is not a crime. Indeed, he explicitly stated that he would have to run it past the FA before accepting any such proposal. People are uneasy about his apparent "greed", but this is another red herring. It would have been up to his employer to determine whether any additional work might have distracted him from his day job and Allardyce had agreed to check with the FA. When an individual may be sacked for discussing a hypothetical contract which he never signed, and which would anyway have been vetoed by the FA, you are in the territory of a witch-hunt.

Allardyce was also asked about third-party ownership and said that the ban on it was "ridiculous" which, whether you agree or disagree, is fair comment. It is not a crime to disagree with your employer. He explained how you could get around the ban, which is a conversation I have had with at least a dozen managers, and probably 50 agents. The crucial point, however, is that Allardyce didn't break the rules. He merely stated how they could be circumvented, which isn't the same thing at all.

As for those who claim that he was "encouraging" others to break these rules, this doesn't stack up, either. For the allegation now seems to be that Allardyce incited a company, which didn't actually exist, to break a rule during a conversation that was itself specifically designed to incite Allardyce to offer such encouragement. This wasn't a smoking gun; it was smoke and mirrors.

For all we know (we have only seen edited highlights), he may have gone on to say that they should not break such rules. Unless we see the full video or transcript, we have no valid basis by which to assess what Allardyce said, because so much of what is said, by anyone, only makes sense in the relevant context.

The one occasion when Allardyce was put in a position to incriminate himself and utter words that would have led straight to the exit door, he was emphatic. Asked about taking bungs, he said: "You daren't even think about it ... you can't go there any more. You can't pay a player, you can't pay a manager, you can't pay a CEO." One wonders how many other times during a long conversation Allardyce made comments that demonstrated his probity.

There is undoubtedly a great deal of corruption in football. You hear whispers all the time, including about high-profile individuals, but we need probative evidence, not hearsay. There may be more to come out in the investigation by The Telegraph, if not about Allardyce, then about other managers. I very much hope so. Investigative journalism is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.

The Allardyce affair represented a test case.

People should be sacked for what they say in private only if they breach a high bar of wrongdoing. The England manager didn't come close. That he has gone says little about football, but much about the arbitrary nature of mob rule. The FA should have stood by its man.
Click to expand...
If this is correct, I agree
 
Paxton said:
I couldn't give a fuck if he's a dishonest or dodgy bloke, he's a good football manager and I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

Moyes doesn't fill me with much confidence like.

I love how people are saying give Moyes time, yet in a short amount of time he has taken us backwards :lol:
Click to expand...
remember di canio

meeowdam said:
There's no doubt he Allardyce is a good football manager and appeared to be right for us.

However 2 months ago he left us and there was evidence of dodgy dealings, and unwritten promises as soon as he'd gone.

Allardyce and the agents concerned, probably the McKays, will hopefully get what they deserve, which could mean curtains for them all.

I fear that if Allardyce gets back in to management with the likes of us or Bolton and is allowed to deal with his fellow crooks, he will bankrupt the club.

Be careful what you wish for!
Click to expand...

to my mind though, at this stage, all he has said are his thoughts.

it is said that the whole dossier has been handed over to the FA, so perhaps need to wait and see what that will reveal. If the FA use this as a way of dealing with corruption (not necessary handing over brown envelopes), which most of us suspect is going on, then perhaps, this is a good thing.

Most of us wonder why clubs cant approach a player but its ok to approach the players agent. In reality it is the same thing. the agent has even more power and a greater will to gain.

I totally agree with being careful in what you wish for
 
Last edited:
johnson said:
I have called the sports editor of this newspaper a fool. I have described my wife as unreasonable. I have gone after the Dalai Lama, too.

That is what happens in private. We let off steam. We release tension. We say things that have little to do with what we might say in public, after mature reflection. A private life is such precisely because it acts as a safety valve.

It is not just mistaken, but morally egregious, therefore, to take private words spoken in a Mayfair hotel, to people who pretended to be businessmen — a few moments in a four-hour chat where you are being covertly incited to say anything that might look bad on the front page of a newspaper — and say: "He must be sacked."

Sam Allardyce left his job as England manager last night by "mutual consent" but it looks as if he was pushed. He should not have even been censured. Not according to any reasonable interpretation of a conversation with people to whom he had been introduced by a close friend. They were not "strangers", as has been claimed, as if Allardyce bumped into them in a bar. They had cultivated Allardyce as a close contact.

The court of public opinion is a fickle thing, entirely unattached to due process. Is this the world we wish for? Where every chat has to be censored in case they end up on the front page of a newspaper? Where public figures are required to clarify every sentence, or provide legal notes as pre-emptive mitigation, in case it is dissected on national TV? The "incriminating" conversation was, when you step back from the furore, conspicuous by its blandness. By talking about the "psychological barrier" of England players, Allardyce said what many thousands felt when they watched the national team play against Iceland in Euro 2016. When he said that the redevelopment of Wembley was a "stupid" mistake, he was repeating the view of a majority of those who have looked at the issue.

When he had a go at Gary Neville and his influence over the England set-up, he echoed what Matt Hughes wrote on these pages just a few weeks ago. When he made mildly negative comments about Roy Hodgson, Prince William and Prince Harry, well, what is there to say, frankly? This was not an accumulation of embarrassing misjudgments. It is tittle tattle.

The assertion that "he should have known better" is particularly egregious, for it inverts the relevant logic. It was the same when people called for the resignation of Max Mosley after he was filmed taking part in an orgy. Everyone agreed the sex was consensual. Everyone agreed that it had taken place in a private home.

Everyone agreed that Mosley was doing a good job as head of the FIA, motor racing's governing body, and that he had never used his personal life as a way of furthering his career.

Indeed, Mosley was an intensely private man. But when these facts were clearly laid out, there was still a vocal group claiming that he should go because he had exercised "poor judgment". They felt that he should somehow have been wise to the fact that his legal, consensual, private behaviour might one day end up on the front cover of a newspaper. Can you glimpse the paradox in such a claim? It is hypocrisy masquerading as realism.

Let me say loud and clear that I am in favour of journalistic stings. When The Sunday Times offered bungs in 1994 to 20 MPs (ten Conservative, ten Labour) to ask parliamentary questions, it was a legitimate story. One MP agreed, took the money and asked a question; the other agreed to a consultancy project for money but when he received the £1,000 cheque for tabling a question he immediately returned it. The story shone a light into the murky world of lobbying and corruption. We would never have found out unless journalists had set out to expose avaricious backbenchers.

The same goes for the sting on Pakistan cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif by the News of the World. It is difficult to prove that sports stars have taken money to fix matches, but we can learn a great deal by putting up a "fake" offer. This is what the investigative team did, the bowlers took the bait, bowled no-balls as promised, and the world was alerted — graphically and conclusively — to a clandestine problem. It led to a number of reforms, and was clearly in the public interest.

And that brings us back to Allardyce. He did nothing wrong in anything like the same sense. The only possible evidence of wrongdoing is twofold. The first is that he was prepared to take a £400,000 cheque for making speeches and offering advice. This is not a crime. Indeed, he explicitly stated that he would have to run it past the FA before accepting any such proposal. People are uneasy about his apparent "greed", but this is another red herring. It would have been up to his employer to determine whether any additional work might have distracted him from his day job and Allardyce had agreed to check with the FA. When an individual may be sacked for discussing a hypothetical contract which he never signed, and which would anyway have been vetoed by the FA, you are in the territory of a witch-hunt.

Allardyce was also asked about third-party ownership and said that the ban on it was "ridiculous" which, whether you agree or disagree, is fair comment. It is not a crime to disagree with your employer. He explained how you could get around the ban, which is a conversation I have had with at least a dozen managers, and probably 50 agents. The crucial point, however, is that Allardyce didn't break the rules. He merely stated how they could be circumvented, which isn't the same thing at all.

As for those who claim that he was "encouraging" others to break these rules, this doesn't stack up, either. For the allegation now seems to be that Allardyce incited a company, which didn't actually exist, to break a rule during a conversation that was itself specifically designed to incite Allardyce to offer such encouragement. This wasn't a smoking gun; it was smoke and mirrors.

For all we know (we have only seen edited highlights), he may have gone on to say that they should not break such rules. Unless we see the full video or transcript, we have no valid basis by which to assess what Allardyce said, because so much of what is said, by anyone, only makes sense in the relevant context.

The one occasion when Allardyce was put in a position to incriminate himself and utter words that would have led straight to the exit door, he was emphatic. Asked about taking bungs, he said: "You daren't even think about it ... you can't go there any more. You can't pay a player, you can't pay a manager, you can't pay a CEO." One wonders how many other times during a long conversation Allardyce made comments that demonstrated his probity.

There is undoubtedly a great deal of corruption in football. You hear whispers all the time, including about high-profile individuals, but we need probative evidence, not hearsay. There may be more to come out in the investigation by The Telegraph, if not about Allardyce, then about other managers. I very much hope so. Investigative journalism is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.

The Allardyce affair represented a test case.

People should be sacked for what they say in private only if they breach a high bar of wrongdoing. The England manager didn't come close. That he has gone says little about football, but much about the arbitrary nature of mob rule. The FA should have stood by its man.





From The Times, spot on
Click to expand...

All very plausible and I agree that on the face of it he did little wrong ........ In the Sting. However I can only believe that the " discussion" with the FA was not so much around the sting but what may allegedly follow. Given the serious accusations being made by agents ( and quoted in the Telegraph today) there will undoubtedly be a rigorous investigation. I can only imagine that the FA were more interested in what may allegedly emerge as they start to dig and no doubt Allardyce does not have their support.
No gloating boys and girls as any enquiry will involve us.
 
Shuggy said:
All very plausible and I agree that on the face of it he did little wrong ........ In the Sting. However I can only believe that the " discussion" with the FA was not so much around the sting but what may allegedly follow. Given the serious accusations being made by agents ( and quoted in the Telegraph today) there will undoubtedly be a rigorous investigation. I can only imagine that the FA were more interested in what may allegedly emerge as they start to dig and no doubt Allardyce does not have their support.
No gloating boys and girls as any enquiry will involve us.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced it does, I think they had every right to sack him just for talking that openly, I don't agree with it, but that is why they sacked him IMO

I don't mind people having a view one way or the other, people the majority of people on here have just condemned him without reading the actual transcript.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top