Jump to content

Confusion Over Management Team's Future


spanther22

Recommended Posts

Sussed this clown out months ago,and got shot down

also said his daughter dealt with most of our transfers

barton told him he was a shit manager

the players don't like training

one player said that garner was the worst player he's played with

and MacLeish will be the next manager (if he wants it) King wanted him instead of warburton

i will continue to post despite the your talking shite standard replies,from the usual suspects

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Young Bob said:

Who was the agent for Eustace?

Who is the player who changed agents and why?

Eustace's agent is the same agent as Zelalem, Tav, Waghorn, Garner. The company MW's daughter works for.

Garner changed agent when we signed him. We wouldn't sign him unless he changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, willygers4life said:

John eustace. And the other player was garner, supposedly we only went ahead with his transfer if he changed agents to McParlands mate

Ah ok, still not sure where the problem would lie in taking Eustace on trial tbh. 

Can't comment on the Garner thing, not sure what the source or what it would mean if true.

I remain unconvinced there was any corruption, seems more likely just a shite scouting "network".

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Amazing that there are actually still people in Warburtons corner.

Not anyone I have noticed on here yet but on social media I have noticed it this morning 

The bigger concern for me is that If we don't have a written resignation letter, the law will be in Warburtons corner. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Amazing that there are actually still people in Warburtons corner.

Not anyone I have noticed on here yet but on social media I have noticed it this morning 

People really need to look at how it is and not how it might make the board look bad

You can still have massive doubts about the board yet back them on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Amato said:

Not sure who you're referring to? 

Re the injured player, if it's a trial where is the corruption... He wouldn't be getting a wage

Eustace on trial for months being paid expenses. A client of an agency where MW's daughter works. Where we signed a bunch of players.

Never kicked a ball again and went into management.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement released by the board is as open an statement as we've ever received off them, they've told us that all 3 offered to resign on Wednesday, that they asked the club to waive compensation so they could go to another club (Forrest) which the board done and then tried to backtrack on Thursday when that deal fell through. 

If they had gone to Forrest and we got nothing out of it I'd have been more pissed. 

For once I'm in the boards corner, everything they've said makes complete sense, Warburton will blame his agent but at the end of the day all 3 had some communication with Forrest, asked to resign from here and when that job fell on its arse they came back with their tales between their legs, tried to backtrack and are now denying it

Warburton and McParland are snakes, Weir, as a Rangers legend is a disgrace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, willygers4life said:

John eustace. And the other player was garner, supposedly we only went ahead with his transfer if he changed agents to McParlands mate

I got shit for posting this story previously, leopard spots Etc.

 

David Conn

Monday 7 November 2016 23.14 GMTLast modified on Friday 10 February 2017 15.37 GMT

A high court judgment in which the current England assistant manager, Sammy Lee, was found to have knowingly given false evidence has been upheld by the court of appeal. Lee, when manager of Bolton Wanderers for a short period in 2007 having taken over from Sam Allardyce, was found to have lied about his club’s involvement in signing the midfield player Gavin McCann, who had been poached by the agents SEM.

The Football Association has never taken any action against anybody involved in the case, despite findings revealing that Bolton and SEM then backdated the contract for McCann, and that Lee and other witnesses gave false evidence. Following the upholding of the judgment’s findings on appeal, the FA declined to comment.

Tony McGill, the agent who had an agreement with McCann to represent the player, succeeded in September 2014 with his accusation that SEM, whose then chief executive was the well-known agent Jerome Anderson, had poached McCann at the last minute with the Bolton deal already agreed. Bolton paid SEM a £300,000 fee for doing “little or nothing,” the judgment stated. Lee and Frank McParland, Bolton’s then general manager, were found to have lied about two meetings they claimed had taken place with McCann in a restaurant in Liverpool, designed to show that they had discussed McCann with SEM earlier than they did.

Gareth Southgate backs Luke Shaw against José Mourinho’s injury jibe

 

Read more

His honour Judge Waksman QC, in his 2014 judgment, said he did not accept that any such meetings took place and stated of Lee’s, Bolton’s and SEM’s evidence: “Their accounts do not stack up and are riddled with inconsistencies and different versions over time.”

In a later ruling on legal costs Waksman recorded that Lee’s and McParland’s evidence about the meetings was “unreliable” and “false”, saying: “The events attested to by the Bolton witnesses concerning these meetings simply did not happen. True, I did not use the word ‘dishonesty’ [in his first judgment] but plainly, if their evidence on the facts on this issue was false, they must have known it to be so.”

Waksman also found that Bolton, then chaired by the late Phil Gartside, an FA board member, backdated the contract signed by McCann, to make it look as if SEM had been involved earlier than they were. The judge found that Gartside’s evidence was also unreliable and said he “became visibly uncomfortable” under questioning about the contract, before finally admitting that he signed it at a later date than the one written on the contract.

Bolton and SEM presented their commercial relationship as if SEM had acted for the club and not McCann, who was said to have resented paying tax when an agent’s fee was paid on his behalf by a club. This practice, of stating that an agent was acting for a club and not a player, was known as “switching.” Bolton, though, did record the £300,000 fee paid to SEM as a benefit for McCann anyway, the court was told, because Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were conducting “an increasing number of investigations” into football transfers.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Gavin McCann in action for Bolton in 2008. The agent Tony McGill had a deal for the midfielder to join Bolton in 2007, but the player was then poached by the agency SEM, who earned £300,000 from the deal for doing ‘little or nothing’, the appeal court judgment stated. Photograph: Shaun Botterill/Getty Images

Waksman found that when McCann called McGill to tell him SEM were going to do the deal with Bolton, McGill had said: “Don’t do this, Gavin, we have an agreement, what about that?” McCann had replied: “I am sorry, I feel shit”.

Advertisement

McGill complained first to the Football Association in 2007, even before McCann signed for Bolton, that SEM had poached McCann from him, in breach of an oral agreement they had made for McGill to represent the player, but the FA took no action and he began court proceedings. Despite Waksman’s findings of poaching, false evidence given by several senior football figures including Sammy Lee and the backdating of the contract, the FA still took no action in 2014. Waksman ruled that despite his findings about the conduct of the Bolton and SEM defendants, McGill could not in fact receive any damages, because he did not have a written agreement with McCann so could not prove he definitely would have ultimately concluded the Bolton deal for him.

McGill appealed, and two court of appeal judges have now ruled that in fact he was the victim of an “unlawful means conspiracy” and should be entitled to damages for having lost the opportunity to conclude the deal for McCann to sign for Bolton. That issue, of how much damages McGill is entitled to from SEM, has been referred back to Waksman to be decided.

The appeal court judges, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mr Justice Henderson, upheld all the factual findings made by Waksman in his 2014 judgment, noting that although he did not grant McGill’s claim for damages: “The judge was very critical, however, of much of the evidence given by the defendants and their witnesses, and he concluded that they had fabricated some key events in a misguided attempt to improve their position.”

McGill, who has spent nine years fighting to prove his case, told the Guardian that he informed the FA in May 2007 just after McCann was poached away from him, and had always kept the governing body informed.

Football insiders claim world game is ‘endemically corrupt’ in player transfers

 

Read more

“They now know Bolton submitted a false and backdated contract, that Sammy Lee and Frank McParland gave evidence in court the judge dismissed as untrue, but the FA have done nothing,” he said.

Lee, the former Liverpool and England midfielder, left Bolton in October 2007, then worked in senior coaching roles at Liverpool, back at Bolton and Southampton, before the FA appointed him to rejoin Allardyce, as the Englandteam’s assistant manager, in July this year.

After Allardyce, after taking charge of just one game, left by mutual consent following the undercover sting by the Daily Telegraph last month, Lee has been retained, and is currently working with the squad preparing for the forthcoming matches against Scotland and Spain.

Asked if following the appeal the FA would now be taking action against Lee or any of the other defendants in the McGill case, a spokesperson said: “We understand there are still matters to be decided by the court and therefore it would not be appropriate to comment”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Who said Garner is the worst player they played with? :lol:

Im not saying it wasn't said I just think it's funny that there's a player in our team that rates themselves enough to have an opinion of others.

Unless it was Kenny said it, that would be fair enough.

The poll for worst player would have a lot of entrants!

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Young Bob said:

Backline is our problem with any formation you optimist you.

Some of the problem with the backline is Warburton's insistance that we play out from the back every time and that we play high up the pitch. Right now only Aberdeen and Celtic have conceded fewer goals so maybe the defence isn't the weakest part of the team. Without Warburton's tactics you could argue that we would concede even less. Just off the top of my head we've lost goals to Kiernan passing straight to the opposition a couple of times, Hodson getting caught in possession once at the RB area, Halliday getting caught in possession a couple of times. These things won't happen with different tactics.

Our real problem lies at the other end. We've only scored 4 more goals than the team at the very bottom of the league. 4-4-2 could help there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Lance1697 said:

The statement released by the board is as open an statement as we've ever received off them, they've told us that all 3 offered to resign on Wednesday, that they asked the club to waive compensation so they could go to another club (Forrest) which the board done and then tried to backtrack on Thursday when that deal fell through. 

If they had gone to Forrest and we got nothing out of it I'd have been more pissed. 

For once I'm in the boards corner, everything they've said makes complete sense, Warburton will blame his agent but at the end of the day all 3 had some communication with Forrest, asked to resign from here and when that job fell on its arse they came back with their tales between their legs, tried to backtrack and are now denying it

Warburton and McParland are snakes, Weir, as a Rangers legend is a disgrace. 

 I want Warbs out as soon as possible.

But mark my word this will cost Rangers a lot of money if we don't have a piece of paper saying they formally resigned. It sounds as if the board have fecked this up from an employment law perspective so in that respect the board are once again showing incompetence even although they have our backing on the overall outcome.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, going455 said:

"I haven't resigned. Rangers' website must've been hacked. Why would I leave? Gutter press, anyone who reports that." - Mark Warburton

 

For fuck sake someone tell me the truth !!!  is it too much to ask ???

He's exactly like Green , a barefaced lying sleazy bastard of a man..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, going455 said:

"I haven't resigned. Rangers' website must've been hacked. Why would I leave? Gutter press, anyone who reports that." - Mark Warburton

 

For fuck sake someone tell me the truth !!!  is it too much to ask ???

That's fucking ridiculous,he has been found out trying to get another job at Forrest and when Fawaz pulled a fast one on him he comes out with this shite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dlydon81 said:

 I want Warbs out as soon as possible.

But mark my word this will cost Rangers a lot of money if we don't have a piece of paper saying they formally resigned. It sounds as if the board have fecked this up from an employment law perspective so in that respect the board are once again showing incompetence even although they have our backing on the overall outcome.

 

 

I agree, that's my only worry. You'd like to hope everything was agreed on Wednesday for them to go? The deal with the other club has fell but we've accepted the original resignation.

The benefit of having an extra 48 hours they've surely checked themail legality of it all....or is this wishful thinking?

As it stands, from what we know, I think the board have played an absolute blinder in this regard, the trio shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our club if they've been sniffing around Forrest  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...