Guest johnson293 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Apologies if this has been posted.... http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2007/06/15/bungs-clubs-are-named-89520-19300180/ BUNGS CLUBS ARE NAMED By Martin Lipton 15/06/2007 NEWCASTLE, Portsmouth and Middlesbrough are among five Premiership clubs set to be named and shamed today for breaches of transfer regulations. And agents Pini Zahavi, Willie McKay and Barry Silkman will also be in the spotlight when the findings of Lord Stevens' 14-month inquiry into illegal payments are outlined. Premier League chiefs spent yesterday in talks with lawyers over which details could be made public after promising the findings would be published. It is understood Pompey, Boro and Newcastle will be named as facing a further FA investigation. Zahavi, who is under investigation by FIFA over the Ashley Cole tapping up, will head the list of eight agents who failed to give information demanded by Stevens and his team. No formal charges will be brought today, but the Premier League will announce a joint inquiry with the FA, whose compliance unit will head the next stage of the process. Wonder if this relates solely to the Boumsong transfer, or if there are others we are being investigated over? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 How come it says 5 clubs but leaves 2 out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 How come it says 5 clubs but leaves 2 out? Because 2 of those are Chelsea and Man U probably! And you know how much the media like those two! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Newcastle Willie McKay did not see that coming Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nufcandy Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Newcastle Willie McKay did not see that coming me either, wonder how one of our ex managers spent his payoffs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guinness Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 How come it says 5 clubs but leaves 2 out? Probably because the allegations against the other two are less serious than they are against us . Would be just our luck to get hit with this just as things start to look up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 New board, new management. We'll get off pretty lightly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 At least after the West Ham farce there should be no chance of a points deduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nufcandy Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 How come it says 5 clubs but leaves 2 out? Probably because the allegations against the other two are less serious than they are against us . Would be just our luck to get hit with this just as things start to look up. we wouldve got away with it if it wasnt for those meddling kids... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 guilty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Newcastle Willie McKay did not see that coming me either, wonder how one of our ex managers spent his payoffs? By having a long break out of management and commenting on us as a club with big problems.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie jamie Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I think it will be like last time they wont name and shame becasue they dont have enough evidence to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nufcandy Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Newcastle Willie McKay did not see that coming me either, wonder how one of our ex managers spent his payoffs? By having a long break out of management and commenting on us as a club with big problems.. hes a nob, especially when sitting next to mr dreadlocks watching the champs league final....then theres jamie redknapp, god i think hes a total prick....i could say what he does every week on the super sunday! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lebowski Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 How come it says 5 clubs but leaves 2 out? Probably because the allegations against the other two are less serious than they are against us . Would be just our luck to get hit with this just as things start to look up. we wouldve got away with it if it wasnt for those meddling kids... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 If the agents have their licences revoked at least we'll never have another Willie McKay player here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nufcandy Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 If the agents have their licences revoked at least we'll never have another Willie McKay player here. serious question here, isnt joey bartons agent willie mckay? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 If the agents have their licences revoked at least we'll never have another Willie McKay player here. serious question here, isnt joey bartons agent willie mckay? Yep, he is also Babayaro's agent as well, I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucaAltieri Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 If the agents have their licences revoked at least we'll never have another Willie McKay player here. serious question here, isnt joey bartons agent willie mckay? Yes he is. Chimbonda is also a client. Seems he deals in cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I'm surprised only three agents are named. Where is Rune Hauge? http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=21921.0 There were some irregularities in his work with Gamst Pedersen to Blackburn, at least, like the agent representing both the selling club and player. I'm not sure it's illegal, but it should be. Then again, Hauge is allegedly a great business partner of Souness, so he probably represented him as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 If you read this article about Pini Zahavi, its probably a good job we didn't get Yakubu when we were after him... http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/01/17/how_zahavi_made_contact_sport.html The revelation that Middlesbrough agreed to pay Pini Zahavi £3m on top of the £7.5m they were spending to sign his client player, Yakubu Aiyegbeni, from Portsmouth in July 2005 shines a little further light on the extraordinary career which Zahavi has developed in football over nearly 30 years. Also, this artcile about Barton signing his last contract at Man City - was held up when McKay initially demanded £100,000 for himself! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/5195524.stm Wonder how much he made from Barton's move here then? About £300,000? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 How come it says 5 clubs but leaves 2 out? Because 2 of those are Chelsea and Man U probably! And you know how much the media like those two! Aye, that must be it. When this story began to break, "the media" all got together around a great big table and agreed -- national papers, local papers, news agencies, TV stations, websites, uncle tom cobbley and all -- and agreed that not one of them would mention Man U or Chelsea because, from the Carlisle Courier to the Hastings Herald-Tribune, they all loved those clubs so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I have no problem with agents charging large amounts for attaining footballers for clubs, BUT I do have a problem when there is a lack of transparency in their dealings... If you sold an entity worth 5.5 million you would be looking to make at least 200.000 (2-3%)... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I keep reading this as Bong Clubs. Dope on the brain tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guinness Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 A bit more on the bung report from the Express: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/9954/Named+and+shamed LORD STEVENS’ Quest team have named some of England’s highest-profile managers in their final “comprehensive" report on transfer irregularities. It will be up to Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, and his board to decide if those names will appear when the League go public this afternoon with Quest’s core findings. There will be surprises in the report. It will rock football if the Premier League dare to name some of the high-profile managers linked to agents who have been involved in the 17 transfers Lord Stevens has failed to sign off. But if they stay silent the whole Quest exercise will be condemned as a whitewash and cover-up. Two Premiership managers, in particular, one in a very high-profile post, are among those who have cause to worry about Quest’s findings and whether they are publicly named by the League today. Both have been interviewed in connection with the 17 deals involving six clubs, and, by association, they have been part of the probe. Let it be clear, there is no evidence of bung taking involving either of those managers. Another Premiership boss, famed for his cute buying, could also be named. But the agents, at least for now, are the prime targets for the Premier League, who have handed over their report to the FA. The Premier League and their lawyers have been studying the report for two weeks. They know the media and fans will berate a bland report containing no names. The statement, for certain, will name and shame eight leading agents who have either refused to co-operate fully or who are still under suspicion of breaches of the rules. It is the managers’ links to those agents that is sure to be the most contentious issue of the entire 18-month investigation by 28 forensic financial experts delving into 362 transfers. Lord Stevens has uncovered sufficient evidence to lead him to believe there has been a degree of corruption. Although small, it is still a significant number of rule breaches and now the Premier League, together with the FA, must decide whether to bring charges. The Premier League lawyers were last night still in contact with the Quest lawyers, fine-tuning one of the most important documents in the Premiership’s history. There are further complications with the involvement of the City of London police’s investigation into football corruption. The Fraud Squad would not deem it helpful if the Premier League go public with too much information. Equally the Premier League have an obligation to the clubs who are not involved to finally clear them of any irregularities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Whether named or not, I'd be very surprised if Souness isn't one of them. He has had very close associations with both McKay and Zahavi. As well as transfer <s>scams</s> dealings, rumours are that Zahavi was the backing behind Souness' proposed takeover at Wolves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now