Bung Clubs are Named

[Mr Logic]

What wouldn't help lower league footballers? I never suggested an actual alternative.

 

----------

 

(Barry) Silkman added: "It is an absolute total lie. A complete lie. Whoever he is, Lord Stevens, he is a liar. The people who have done this are liars.

 

There speaks a calm and rational man.

[SUPERTOON]

It seems simple if we have done nothing wrong we have nothing to worry about.

 

What does it mean saying conflicting interest between sam and his son?

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Absolutely nothinng to worry about. The club has been exhonerated of any wrong doings. The club itself therefore cannot be touched.

 

Big Sam has been found innnocent of all wrong doing, Stevens only concerned about the father son relationship he had. Souness on the other hand is a sneaky prick, and it sounds as though him and K Shepherd could have a problem

[Guest Guinness]

Maybe a stupid question but at the minute with current findings are we in any trouble as a club??

 

Possible bans fines points deductions??

 

The club seems to be in the clear, we've co-operated fully with the investigation. The action likely as a result of the investigation will be against agents and perhaps Souness and Kenny Shephered.

[Tisd09]

Without reading everything out there, is there too much to worry about in all of this. Seems that the reports says we fully co-operated so should be no chance of anything bad happening.

[Guest optimistic nit]

Well Me and invicta both think that this has completely exonerated the club of any wrong doings. If there had been any misguided actions by the club, they would have found them, but because they didn't we both think that the club has done nothing wrong in the past few years

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

some people in this thread need a fucking wake up call sharpish - 'the club's done nothing wrong'

 

eh? what exactly did they think the inquiry would find regarding the club? irregular payments on official club accounts?

 

why exactly do you think all our agents are witholding information/bank statements? why exactly do you think souness and shepherd are implicated?

 

'none of the club officials have been found guilty of anything' - possibly because Stevens isnt allowed to look under their mattresses?

 

silly billys

[Dave]

some people in this thread need a fucking wake up call sharpish - 'the club's done nothing wrong'

 

eh? what exactly did they think the inquiry would find regarding the club? irregular payments on official club accounts?

 

why exactly do you think all our agents are witholding information/bank statements? why exactly do you think souness and shepherd are implicated?

 

'none of the club officials have been found guilty of anything' - possibly because Stevens isnt allowed to look under their mattresses?

 

silly billys

 

Agree.

 

Mark your diary.

[Teasy]

some people in this thread need a f****** wake up call sharpish - 'the club's done nothing wrong'

 

eh? what exactly did they think the inquiry would find regarding the club? irregular payments on official club accounts?

 

why exactly do you think all our agents are witholding information/bank statements? why exactly do you think souness and shepherd are implicated?

 

'none of the club officials have been found guilty of anything' - possibly because Stevens isnt allowed to look under their mattresses?

 

silly billys

 

Bollocks, if Souness or Kenny Shepherd have done wrong that's there look out.  But as far as the club goes there has been no wrong doing found despite full disclosure of club documentation including bank statements.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

some people in this thread need a f****** wake up call sharpish - 'the club's done nothing wrong'

 

eh? what exactly did they think the inquiry would find regarding the club? irregular payments on official club accounts?

 

why exactly do you think all our agents are witholding information/bank statements? why exactly do you think souness and shepherd are implicated?

 

'none of the club officials have been found guilty of anything' - possibly because Stevens isnt allowed to look under their mattresses?

 

silly billys

 

You're talking utter bollocks, as usual:

 

Again we have found no evidence to suggest any irregular payments by or to Club officials relating to the above transfers and Newcastle United officials co-operated fully with the Inquiry and gave full access to documentation (including bank statements) as requested.

 

can you even read?

 

are you honestly expecting the clubs bank statements to detail IRREGULAR payments?

 

are you expecting club officials to confess to the money under the bed when it isn't even a criminal investigation?

[Optimistic Nut]

And do you honestly think it's only the clubs "caught" who does this? It happens from the Real Madrid's down to the Shepshed Dynamo's man.

[Teasy]

some people in this thread need a f****** wake up call sharpish - 'the club's done nothing wrong'

 

eh? what exactly did they think the inquiry would find regarding the club? irregular payments on official club accounts?

 

why exactly do you think all our agents are witholding information/bank statements? why exactly do you think souness and shepherd are implicated?

 

'none of the club officials have been found guilty of anything' - possibly because Stevens isnt allowed to look under their mattresses?

 

silly billys

 

You're talking utter bollocks, as usual:

 

Again we have found no evidence to suggest any irregular payments by or to Club officials relating to the above transfers and Newcastle United officials co-operated fully with the Inquiry and gave full access to documentation (including bank statements) as requested.

 

can you even read?

 

are you honestly expecting the clubs bank statements to detail IRREGULAR payments?

 

are you expecting club officials to confess to the money under the bed when it isn't even a criminal investigation?

 

What a load of sensationalist claptrap.  I don't see Freddy Shepherd named here, nor any other Newcastle United officials.  As a club there is no wrong doing claimed at all.  There is a suggestion of wrong doing on a the part of some agents and two people who were once connected to the club, that's it.  There's obviously no evidence linking anything Souness or Kenny Shepherd might have done to Newcastle as a club.  The report stresses that point repeatedly.  Or do you have some undisclosed report that says different?

[Dave]

Keep it friendly please folks.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

And do you honestly think it's only the clubs "caught" who does this? It happens from the Real Madrid's down to the Shepshed Dynamo's man.

 

what's your point? everyones' bent so even if we get caught we should get off?

 

if everyone's doing it, isnt it a tad annoying that it is this club that comes out with the most suspect questions?

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

some people in this thread need a f****** wake up call sharpish - 'the club's done nothing wrong'

 

eh? what exactly did they think the inquiry would find regarding the club? irregular payments on official club accounts?

 

why exactly do you think all our agents are witholding information/bank statements? why exactly do you think souness and shepherd are implicated?

 

'none of the club officials have been found guilty of anything' - possibly because Stevens isnt allowed to look under their mattresses?

 

silly billys

 

You're talking utter bollocks, as usual:

 

Again we have found no evidence to suggest any irregular payments by or to Club officials relating to the above transfers and Newcastle United officials co-operated fully with the Inquiry and gave full access to documentation (including bank statements) as requested.

 

can you even read?

 

are you honestly expecting the clubs bank statements to detail IRREGULAR payments?

 

are you expecting club officials to confess to the money under the bed when it isn't even a criminal investigation?

 

What a load of sensationalist claptrap.  I don't see Freddy Shepherd named here, nor any other Newcastle United officials.  As a club there is no wrong doing claimed at all.  There is a suggestion of wrong doing on a the part of some agents and two people who were once connected to the club, that's it.  There's obviously no evidence linking anything Souness or Kenny Shepherd might have done to Newcastle as a club.  The report stresses that point repeatedly.  Or do you have some undisclosed report that says different?

 

whatever you say, totally clean obviously

 

[Incognito]

West Ham want us relegated!!

[Optimistic Nut]

And do you honestly think it's only the clubs "caught" who does this? It happens from the Real Madrid's down to the Shepshed Dynamo's man.

 

what's your point? everyones' bent so even if we get caught we should get off?

 

if everyone's doing it, isnt it a tad annoying that it is this club that comes out with the most suspect questions?

 

Blame two individuals for that...Shepherd's son & Souness.

[Optimistic Nut]

West Ham want us relegated!!

 

Seriously?

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

And do you honestly think it's only the clubs "caught" who does this? It happens from the Real Madrid's down to the Shepshed Dynamo's man.

 

what's your point? everyones' bent so even if we get caught we should get off?

 

if everyone's doing it, isnt it a tad annoying that it is this club that comes out with the most suspect questions?

 

Blame two individuals for that...Shepherd's son & Souness.

 

aye, those two 'individuals'

 

not club officials, let's be clear on that, individuals

 

[Incognito]

West Ham want us relegated!!

 

Seriously?

 

Ha ha-i know its late like.

[Unlucky Luque]

So now that Faye, Boumsong, Emre and Luque have been named, what did we actually do wrong in the transfers, except for spending silly money??

[Colos Short and Curlies]

So now that Faye, Boumsong, Emre and Luque have been named, what did we actually do wrong in the transfers, except for spending silly money??

 

From what I've read there's not even anything 'wrong' with the Emre and Luque transfers. Just that Quest could not get access to the agents documents and therefore can not clear the transfers - i.e not concluding on them wither way

[ChezGiven]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2105028,00.html

 

 

Zahavi could sue over Quest allegations

 

Jamie Jackson

Sunday June 17, 2007

The Observer

 

Ehud Shochatovitch, Pini Zahavi's solicitor, last night told Observer Sport that the so-called super agent was 'seriously considering legal action' against Quest, the company headed by Lord Stevens that carried out the Premier League investigation into 'bungs' in football transfers. Zahavi himself told Observer Sport: 'I was expecting this. I knew they would target me to justify it. But where is their proof?'

The FA, British police and Fifa must now decide whether to pursue any perceived evidence of impropriety uncovered by the inquiry. A Quest spokesman, who last week said he expected arrests to be made, said: 'We're satisfied that this is bigger and more thorough than any previous investigation into football transfers.' Chelsea, Newcastle, Bolton, Middlesbrough and Portsmouth were named as having been involved in transfers with which Quest were unhappy, as were managers Sam Allardyce and Graeme Souness and 15 agents, with Zahavi most prominent among them. There is no suggestion that any of them is guilty of an offence.

 

Zahavi was involved in fi ve of the 17 transfers Quest called into question and was criticised for not allowing checks on some of his bank accounts. The Israeli points to inconsistencies in Quest's work, however, saying several other transfers in which he was involved had been given the all-clear. According to his lawyer, Zahavi believes the Quest team had 'made up their minds about him' before they even started work.

Chelsea's signings of Didier Drogba and Petr Cech were two of the deals involving Zahavi that Quest refused to sign off because of 'outstanding issues' , but there were no problems with seven other deals, including the moves of Mateja Kezman and Robert Huth to Stamford Bridge. According to a source close to Zahavi, the agent was also angry that Lord Stevens had failed to carry out a promise to meet him. 'He feels he was specifically targeted from the outset of the inquiry by Nigel Layton [the Quest chief executive, who led the investigation],' said the source.

 

'Pini was at a charity event at the Grosvenor Hotel a few months ago. He was introduced there to Lord Stevens and the two agreed to meet to discuss the investigation. Lord Stevens promised to call the next morning to arrange a time and place, but he never rang. Instead, Layton called and said, "Lord Stevens can't make it. So we should meet." Lord Stevens is just the fi gurehead at Quest. Layton did the work. And he, Layton, was scared that if Pini and Lord Stevens met, Pini would tell him that this Quest investigation would fi nd nothing - which it hasn't - and that a secretary could do what Layton and his colleagues have been doing.

 

'Of course Pini declined to meet Layton. This is because he knew from the beginning that he'd been targeted by him. Every time Layton or one of his team made inquiries they would always ask about Pini. Bill Kenwright [the Everton chairman] is one of many who said, "Why are you asking about Pini Zahavi? He is one of the honest men in football." But Pini understands that he was always a target because Quest had to find something to justify their existence and ensure the Premier League were seen to be acting. 'There is no doubt that Quest's findings are unfounded and arbitrary and that Quest misused its powers, exceeded its authority and over-stepped the scope of the inquiry. I am seriously considering my client's position and legal action could follow.'

 

Graham Bean, the FA's compliance officer from 1999 to 2003, described Quest's work as 'a ludicrous, pointless £1.3million PR exercise' that had no relevance and would lead to no charges being laid. 'This [naming clubs and individuals in the investigation] might be a way of trying to justify the large payment he's received,' Bean said. 'If he had evidence, he should have produced it. Fifteen months later, he still can't bring charges and that tells its own story.'

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

much like Sam Allardyce seriously sued Panorama I guess

[ewerk]

All Quest have said was that he didn't let them look at his bank accounts and that they couldn't sign off on a few of his transfers, hardly grounds to sue them for anything.