Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Take what Sam said in two different viewpoints. The video actually starts without context, but from the conversation you can glean two understandings....Firstly, Sam is talking about TPO (Third party ownership) from the position of the buyer, and secondly as the seller/agent.

In the first instance of buying a player, he says that "TPO is not a problem". He uses the example of Enner Valencia's transfer to West Ham to back that point up that "people do it all the time". There is literally nothing he has done wrong here, West Ham purchased 100% of the player as per the rules, and there is no suggestion of any "bending of rules". The rule states a UK club can buy a player if 100% ownership is made to the new club.... and that literally happens all the time. Take for instance Man City paying only 55% of Mangala's transfer to Porto, with something like 10% to his former club and 35% to a sports management company. TPO in a lot of countries is a norm, so if you assume clubs dont buy or pay agents and TPO's, then you also assume they dont sign Belgians, Brazilians and Portuguese... where its extremely common.

The second instance when talking about selling a player as a TPO, he says that TPO can contract with agents while taking a percentage cut on the agent fee, and that this means in essence you still own the player. So, for example, a player has an agent who negotiates a 10% fee on a £1 mill transfer, the agent will then subcontract 50% of that to the TPO in a seperate contract, and the TPO gets 500k as a result.

Sounds dodgy? Not really. When you think about it an agent can be employed under a sports management company he works for, and in those situations the sports management company will also have an agent to third part agreement as to the value percentage of any given deal. And once again thats common and legal.

In fact, the existance of such contracts are actually contained in the FA's rules on intermediaries. Far from bending the rules, Big Sam is actually simply clarifying what is possible as part of the rules. In fact, the FA rules actually seem to state a subcontracted Third Party can have an dual agreement that is not a conflict of interest so long as the stake does not exceed 5%...And Big Sam states in his interview that magic 5% number.....

sussexpob wrote:Take what Sam said in two different viewpoints. The video actually starts without context, but from the conversation you can glean two understandings....Firstly, Sam is talking about TPO (Third party ownership) from the position of the buyer, and secondly as the seller/agent.

In the first instance of buying a player, he says that "TPO is not a problem". He uses the example of Enner Valencia's transfer to West Ham to back that point up that "people do it all the time". There is literally nothing he has done wrong here, West Ham purchased 100% of the player as per the rules, and there is no suggestion of any "bending of rules". The rule states a UK club can buy a player if 100% ownership is made to the new club.... and that literally happens all the time. Take for instance Man City paying only 55% of Mangala's transfer to Porto, with something like 10% to his former club and 35% to a sports management company. TPO in a lot of countries is a norm, so if you assume clubs dont buy or pay agents and TPO's, then you also assume they dont sign Belgians, Brazilians and Portuguese... where its extremely common.

The second instance when talking about selling a player as a TPO, he says that TPO can contract with agents while taking a percentage cut on the agent fee, and that this means in essence you still own the player. So, for example, a player has an agent who negotiates a 10% fee on a £1 mill transfer, the agent will then subcontract 50% of that to the TPO in a seperate contract, and the TPO gets 500k as a result.

Sounds dodgy? Not really. When you think about it an agent can be employed under a sports management company he works for, and in those situations the sports management company will also have an agent to third part agreement as to the value percentage of any given deal. And once again thats common and legal.

In fact, the existance of such contracts are actually contained in the FA's rules on intermediaries. Far from bending the rules, Big Sam is actually simply clarifying what is possible as part of the rules. In fact, the FA rules actually seem to state a subcontracted Third Party can have an dual agreement that is not a conflict of interest so long as the stake does not exceed 5%...And Big Sam states in his interview that magic 5% number.....

Then from what you are saying Allardyce has done nothing wrong and has been wrongly forced out of his job.

I guess he'll be taking the FA to court then.

Aidan11 wrote: The bits in bold are quite clear. The England manager is telling these guys how you can bend the rules relating to TP ownership. These are Sam's actual words. Now Sam may not have done these kind of deals himself but the fact he knows about them and is telling people about them is conduct unbecoming of any manager, let alone the England manager.

He may have just been a bloke trying to be clever shooting his mouth off after a few drinks but the damage is done and there was no way he could continue.

So, lets say if I am a Crown Prosecution lawyer and my friend walks into a pub....

"Last night I got into the car after a pint, and I was stopped and charged for drink driving without having a breath test.... anyway I can get off this one"......

"You only had one pint. Was it more than 5% in strength"....

"Yes, I had one Carlsberg, thats what, 4.4%"....

"Well the limit is 80mm of alcohol. As long as you can prove you were in the pub and only had one pint, then you should be well under that limit, by nearly half"...

"Really"

"Well yeah. And you know, the police cant actually charge you without taking a blood test back at the station.... you can get off"...

"thanks. Ill get the next one in, good advice"....

In your view I have used my incredible legal skills to bend the rules, and in doing so have created a conflict of interest in my job as a public prosecutor which is immoral, while accepting a free pint?

Or have I literally just told a friend what his legal rights are?

Aidan11 wrote: Then from what you are saying Allardyce has done nothing wrong and has been wrongly forced out of his job.

I guess he'll be taking the FA to court then.

Well there is an element of "wrong" in trying to sell that advice to a third party while contracted to another employer in the same industry. That in itself could be seen as a reason to sack him, but in my view, it didnt. My point is the advice he was giving has been misrepresented as dodgy, when it really isnt. When he was asked about bungs and dodgy stuff, he was VERY strong on the point that he wanted no further discussion or involvement.

And other comments he made are just pub talk and opinions he is fine to hold. Alot of people hardly loved Roy Hodgson, the press refer to him as Woy all the time, and Prince Harry is a huge nob....

Again though, should an England Manager be saying this to people he doesnt really know in public? Maybe not, but hardly sackable offences.

IMO he gets a slap on the wrist and learns a lesson. The press twisted the story and got the blood they wanted.

All the world claiming English football is in crisis.

Not really, the fans pretty much made their choice a while back that it's all about club football and no one really cares about the national team. Let's face it everyone hates an international break and it represents an annoying distraction from the league season.

Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool's statures in the world game in terms of popularity for English football says it all really.

RIP the national team!

The wording is key.

He is telling them how 'to get around' something which for a person in his position referring to his employer's rules is wrong. The role holds a lot more prestige than most and you are the face of the FA - and probably the highest paid employee.

It's murky and ultimately murky enough for it to be something to go for.

Ralf Rangnick eh?

Might be a good appointment. Comes in with no preconceived ideas, may not be frightened to drop players and I've alwats admired German coaching methods.

Aidan11 wrote:Ralf Rangnick eh?

Might be a good appointment. Comes in with no preconceived ideas, may not be frightened to drop players and I've alwats admired German coaching methods.

Im more interested in the fact that the press are now touting this guy as some genius, based on some horrible misconceptions and lack of knowledge.

Got Hoffenheim promoted from non-league to the top division in back to back seasons? Sounds impressive until you realise that he was being bankrolled by one of Europe's richest men, Dietmar Hopp, who smashed down more money than everyone but Bayern Munich. Not sure many managers would struggle to win in the Vanarama Conference with Champions League Premier Team budget. I think he was eventually sacked for doing nothing when he got to the Bundesliga, despite having money and a wage structure that meant they should have been near the top.

Schalke... pretty sure he left because he got stress and couldnt handle the pressure of a Champions League team. And they sacked him quickly first time.

Hannover.... huge club for the 2nd division which he won. After he left they have done well in the UEFA Cup I believe, as testament to that.

RB Leipzig have also been in the mix at the top of the league for a while I believe, so getting them promoted was hardly a notable acheievement worth of mention for the England job.

I saw David Davies say on breakfast that Wenger would take the job if asked... yet they asked him before Allardyce, and he told them to ssip off

nice to know that a former FA chief still has his finger on the pulse

Aidan11 wrote:Ralf Rangnick eh?

Might be a good appointment. Comes in with no preconceived ideas, may not be frightened to drop players and I've alwats admired German coaching methods.

Would rather have Ralf Little in charge of England tbh

Heard that Mancini was in the frame.

The Chuckle Brothers have put in a late bid.

To me, to you, to me, to you.

Sounds spot on.

have the chuckle brothers not been in charge since 1996?

it feels as though they have

Southgate names his first England squad later.

I wonder if he will freshen it up a little or stick with the same players.

Reckon he will just go for the same......