Big Sam investigation

[silkyman]

Not sure about this. It very much looks like a string operation, which is precisely how tabloids such as the Mirror and Sun obtain their scoops. The Telegraph will claim that, having uncovered something murky, their actions were justified (especially if they possessed prima facie evidence), but I think it might still be said to be fairly ethically dubious and a bit of a journalistic grey area.

He's a bloody fool but I do feel a bit for him.

SSN were saying that at least 10 managers had been having meetings with the same people but hadn't done anything incriminating, and one outright walked out when they mentioned bungs.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

SSN were saying that at least 10 managers had been having meetings with the same people but hadn't done anything incriminating, and one outright walked out when they mentioned bungs.

Which makes me even more inclined to question the journalistic integrity. Sounds like a bit of an ethically dubious fishing exercise to me. Quite happy to accept he's an idiot and a bit of a WRONG UN though.

 

[GodsGift]

It's absolutely superb journalism. But as a sports journalist myself I'm probably bound to say that.

The only way the journalists were to garner this information was through subterfuge. Of course that's always going to be a grey area because it looks like you're setting them up, but when there's no other means of gathering the information (which they certainly will have suspected was there, he has previous after all) then they would have had no other choice. There's a huge public interest in this which justifies the Telegraph's actions, so they've done absolutely nothing wrong. In terms of the editor's code of practice they've played this by the book. They would have cast their net out far and wide because no doubt they have evidence Big Sam is not the only one at it, as proven by their latest revelations in tomorrow's paper.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

Got what he deserved and hope FA have a clause in there so he gets nothing.

Regardless of the legal aspects of it all he deserves this for being so greedy after having his dream job and a massive pay packet.

Maybe its as I am on a low wage but I get amazed at the sheer greed of people who already earn millions yet must still want even more........try living on 16 000 a year wages

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's absolutely superb journalism. But as a sports journalist myself I'm probably bound to say that.

The only way the journalists were to garner this information was through subterfuge. Of course that's always going to be a grey area because it looks like you're setting them up, but when there's no other means of gathering the information (which they certainly will have suspected was there, he has previous after all) then they would have had no other choice. There's a huge public interest in this which justifies the Telegraph's actions, so they've done absolutely nothing wrong. In terms of the editor's code of practice they've played this by the book. They would have cast their net out far and wide because no doubt they have evidence Big Sam is not the only one at it, as proven by their latest revelations in tomorrow's paper.

You keep talking about this like they've uncovered something - they haven't, they created this situation and are now reaping the rewards with zero benefit to the general public. You offer a load of people a few hundred grand to do something morally dubious but legal and of course some of them will bite, that's hardly news. The only winners in this scenario are them

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Got what he deserved and hope FA have a clause in there so he gets nothing.

Regardless of the legal aspects of it all he deserves this for being so greedy after having his dream job and a massive pay packet.

Maybe its as I am on a low wage but I get amazed at the sheer greed of people who already earn millions yet must still want even more........try living on 16 000 a year wages

As far as I can tell he didn't accept any money, and maintained throughout that he would need to run all of this by the FA before accepting anything.

 

[claret50]

Got what he deserved and hope FA have a clause in there so he gets nothing.

He leaves with a 7 figure pay off - unbelievable.

 

[Aber gas]

He leaves with a 7 figure pay off - unbelievable.

Why's that " unbelievable "?

 

[claret50]

Rewarding greed?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

He was giving people advice on how to circumvent his employer's own rules.

Not sure many of us would stay in a job after that. Certainly not a high profile one.

The FA have spent the last few years criticising FIFA for unethical practices. It had to act if it wanted to maintain any sort of credibility (!).

Totally agree. It would have been an even bigger farce if he had been allowed to stay.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

As far as I can tell he didn't accept any money, and maintained throughout that he would need to run all of this by the FA before accepting anything.

But why the hell need to?

He grabs a job he wants, gets an enormous pay rise..........why risk all that for yet more money when you now have everything.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

But why the hell need to?

He grabs a job he wants, gets an enormous pay rise..........why risk all that for yet more money when you now have everything.

I think most people in his position would for an extra £400,000 a year. I don't suppose it even crossed his mind that he could be talking to undercover journalists.

 

[Aber gas]

Rewarding greed?

The FA wanted him gone without a legal battle so a severance package was always going to be negotiated. Failed or " disgraced " managers are continuously being compensated. It's not unusual or unbelievable.

 

[claret50]

What's that you say? £1m to walk?

Oh, alright then.

 

[GodsGift]

You keep talking about this like they've uncovered something - they haven't, they created this situation and are now reaping the rewards with zero benefit to the general public. You offer a load of people a few hundred grand to do something morally dubious but legal and of course some of them will bite, that's hardly news. The only winners in this scenario are them

Well, why should it stop them running the story if they're the only winners? I don't understand that logic. That's not a newspaper's job to make everyone a winner, as you surely know.

And if journos under-covering the most prominent member of the FA talking about accepting great deals of cash to circumvent the FA's own rules isn't a story, then I really don't think you have much of a grasp of what a story is.

 

[ColB]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke.

He should never have been given the job anyway. A bang average manager in every respect.

 

[George Reilly's Hairpiece]

Sam was naive, Gareth won't be quite so easy to trap...

 

[Pagnell]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke.

He should never have been given the job anyway. A bang average manager in every respect.

But what was the alternative if we wanted to stick with an English manager, which the FA appear to want to do? I can't think of a single manager who could be categorically be stated as better. Eddie Howe perhaps but he has a lack of experience and the jury is still out on him. Southgate? Pardew? Bruce? Nah, at best they're of similar quality.

 

[Renegade]

I think most people in his position would for an extra £400,000 a year. I don't suppose it even crossed his mind that he could be talking to undercover journalists.

You believe that most people in Sam's financial position (have to assume multi-millionaire) would risk everything after receiving their dream job for 400K? Something they've worked their entire career to achieving? OK.

It didn't cross his mind that he could be the target of undercover journalists as the England manager when they are directly asking him about profiteering off players and indirectly about bungs? After being named in a Panorama documentary for accepting bungs? After another manager allegedly walked out of a meeting when bungs were implied? OK.

He cannot be this stupid.

 

[Pagnell]

Sam was naive, Gareth won't be quite so easy to trap...

I wonder how many people on here remember those adverts? Or given the age of a lot of the members, even saw them in the first place.

 

[GodsGift]

His house isn't quite as nice as I was expecting. Maybe he did need the money after all...

 

[George Reilly's Hairpiece]

No need for Hodgson to be taking his picture though.

 

[DarkSithLord]

There are very good foreign managers avaliable. Hiddink, Manuel Peligrini..

Why do we have to look to a British Manager

 

[Pagnell]

There are very good foreign managers avaliable. Hiddink, Manuel Peligrini..

Why do we have to look to a British Manager

I agree, but it would appear the FA want to go down the English route.

When Hodgson left Hiddink was my choice and still is.

 

[smat]

Is it five other English managers that are implicated in this thing? Good luck, FA

 

[GodsGift]

Since when was Pellegrini considered "very good"? He's managing in China anyway.

 

[ColB]

But what was the alternative if we wanted to stick with an English manager, which the FA appear to want to do? I can't think of a single manager who could be categorically be stated as better. Eddie Howe perhaps but he has a lack of experience and the jury is still out on him. Southgate? Pardew? Bruce? Nah, at best they're of similar quality.

I'm not saying he wasn't the best option available if we're going down the must be English route. Though I don't think Pardew or Howe would do any worse. But he's an average manager at the end of the day - I don't see many top foreign clubs going in for him.

 

[AnimoEtFide]

Calls for him to be sacked are certainly a bit hysterical. It'll blow over in a couple of days.

Spot on as ever.

 

[silkyman]

I wonder how many people on here remember those adverts? Or given the age of a lot of the members, even saw them in the first place.

Remember it well. And the press (and some early internetters) moaning about it.

 

[Blitzballer]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=746394582191277