'Other Boro stuff'

[Duvel 1,106]

15 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

TBF, after the last couple of seasons, the club was probably expecting to lose a lot of season ticket holders anyway, so that was probably in mind when increasing the price to try and balance it out. Given what most have said in response to their fan surveys when not renewing (going by on here anyway), the price was a much less significant factor than the manager so it doesn't seem like they were far wrong. In expecting to lose a large percentage anyway, they'd want to try and ensure they made up some of those losses through a price increase, in the hope that an extra £23+ wouldn't sway the 'hardcore customers'. And as mentioned before, the post-early bird period was always going to see a huge hike for anyone who did want to come back and it seems that also worked as there are probably a few of those lost in early-bird who will look to renew now that Pulis is gone and the club is talking the talk that people want to hear.

With that logic we'd be putting up prices for every bad season we have. It's a slippery slope. 

[Changing Times 3,180]

But yeah I know what their thinking is and why they are doing it.  They want people to commit as much funds up front as they can via season tickets so they try and 'encourage' people to buy them.  From a business point of view they'd rather it that way so they can more easily plan budgets etc and of course they are worried that if most people purchase tickets on a match by match basis then attendances could tumble if we're not playing well - what would our attendances have been during last season if the majority of people weren't season ticket holders?  That still isn't justification for it and what's worse is that we've made a big deal of being a community club for ages.  This absolutely demonstrates that we aren't in my opinion.

[Dan1234 228]

Is the match tomorrow streamed anywhere?

[Smogzilla 924]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7214509/Middlesbroughs-new-bombshell-accusations-Garry-Monk.html

Some pretty dodgy looking stuff here. Wonder what will come of it.

[Mr_Maz 372]

4 minutes ago, Smogzilla said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7214509/Middlesbroughs-new-bombshell-accusations-Garry-Monk.html

Some pretty dodgy looking stuff here. Wonder what will come of it.

yeah, sounds like it all comes down to whether the courts beleive they acted in "bad faith"

[Brunners 2,407]

Well...that's potentially pretty huge...

[Smogzilla 924]

Get the feeling we might be hearing about this for awhile

[DanFromDownSouth 1,063]

23 minutes ago, Mr_Maz said:

yeah, sounds like it all comes down to whether the courts beleive they acted in "bad faith"

I'd think they'd look at it in a similar vein to insider trading potentially. Monk was informing his agent of our interest in players and his agent was then acting either for the players or their clubs to gain a slice of the fee.

Very bad for Monk going forward. Hopefully we can get some of that wasted cash back off him and his agent!

[Changing Times 3,180]

18 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I'd think they'd look at it in a similar vein to insider trading potentially. Monk was informing his agent of our interest in players and his agent was then acting either for the players or their clubs to gain a slice of the fee.

Very bad for Monk going forward. Hopefully we can get some of that wasted cash back off him and his agent!

Except that he wasn't acting for the players or their clubs unless I'm missing something?  The only one he was involved in was the Cyrus Christie transfer and I'm really struggling to understand how we conducted negotiations with someone without knowing it was them?  If he wasn't part of the negotiations then what does it matter whether Derby paid him or not and just because we wanted to pay a certain amount doesn't mean that Derby were willing to sell for that amount.  I suppose if the club can prove that Derby were willing to settle for a lesser amount and that this guy's actions directly lead to them holding out for more than there might be some kind of case there but that's about it.  The other transfers he would seem not to have been involved in whether he wanted to be or not.

The rules and regulations around agents are a shambles obviously and that's intentional on the part of the footballing authorities because agents wield so much clout nowadays and wherever there is money you'll find opportunists and that includes within the authorities themselves.   Agents trying to get in on deals is unfortunately happening all over the place and has been for ages.

I'd love to see how we as a club do business and negotiate various things because we sound absolutely inept.  We don't want to spend much on a player but then we do anyway?  We appear to know that this fella has attempted to get involved in deals and we carry on with them regardless?  Did you really need to be an expert to form an opinion that £6.5m is way too much for Fletcher and £3m or whatever was too much for Johnson?  Also it would appear that we really did spend £6.5m on Fletcher and not the lower amount with add ons that it was claimed some time afterwards when it turned out he wasn't very good.

I think the reality is that clubs turn a blind eye to all kinds of things when it suits them.  Conflicts of interest come in different forms, such as paying a manager a percentage of transfer fee sales and then wondering why he seems to want to alienate some of the most valuable players at the club.  Not to worry though, in Gibson we trust.

[Brunners 2,407]

12 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Except that he wasn't acting for the players or their clubs unless I'm missing something?  The only one he was involved in was the Cyrus Christie transfer and I'm really struggling to understand how we conducted negotiations with someone without knowing it was them?  If he wasn't part of the negotiations then what does it matter whether Derby paid him or not and just because we wanted to pay a certain amount doesn't mean that Derby were willing to sell for that amount.  I suppose if the club can prove that Derby were willing to settle for a lesser amount and that this guy's actions directly lead to them holding out for more than there might be some kind of case there but that's about it.  The other transfers he would seem not to have been involved in whether he wanted to be or not.

The article states it was Fetherston that told Derby to hold out for more. You would have to think there's some evidence to back that up.

Furthermore, it's not just that he was involved in that one (which btw is weird because he happened to be involved in that one just after Monk decided he was okay with signing Christie) but that he tried to get involved in many more, even with the club repeatedly telling him to stop and go away. 

I will say CT that you're true to form with your post on the topic, always taking the other side to the majority of posters ?

The bit about the other transfers you're either not understanding or wilfully ignoring because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't seem to be whether the agent was involved, more that Monk repeatedly kept telling his agent about club targets despite being under strict orders to do no such thing.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Brunners

[Will 887]

The fact that Derby flagged it up to us says they think it’s dodgy. Will be interesting to see how/if it develops.

[DanFromDownSouth 1,063]

34 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Except that he wasn't acting for the players or their clubs unless I'm missing something?

No but Featherstone actively tried to become involved with the transfers in order to act on behalf of the players and clubs. That's what the article states, but it is the daily mail. There is a Times article on all this too (which looks like it may go into more detail), but you need a subscription to read that. 

It's also pretty telling that we asked Derby about the deal and about Featherstone and they were happy to oblige and tell us about when and how he became involved. Which very coincidentally was less than 24 hours after we decided to pursue him.

Plus once we decided to go after Fletcher, Featherstone once again crops up and trys to muscle in on the deal. Only to be told by us to fo one.

[Changing Times 3,180]

I guess that's because I read and understand facts better than the majority of posters it would seem.

The article does state that about the Christie transfer and as I said if he was responsible then we'd clearly have a case there but if that's just the newspaper or God forbid ourselves jumping to a conclusion then I guess it would come down to what Derby valued him at the time.  Maybe Boro already have that information from Derby, I have no idea, which is why I said there might some kind of case there.

The furthermore bit means what exactly?  He tried to do something but didn't so are we going to sue him for intent?  Let's say that he wanted to get involved in those transfers so he could coin it in but he wasn't able to.  If we feel we've overpaid for those players then how exactly would we hold him responsible for that when he wasn't involved?  That's the bit I'm trying to work out from our point of view unless he was involved but the article seems to suggest that he wasn't and his efforts were thwarted on each occasion other than the Christie transfer.  Coming back to that I'm again struggling to understand how he acted on behalf of Derby but we didn't know about it.  Who were we negotiating with would seem to be an obvious question and why did they list him as acting on their behalf if he actually wasn't.

If the club can claw back some money then great but all I see is Gibson employing people who can't do their jobs properly while he has clearly taken his eye completely off the ball for the past couple of years.  Maybe we'd be better off hiring capable people and not putting ourselves in a position where we can get potentially get done over?  I would guess we're now looking for anything that can tie this fella to the other transfer deals beyond the fact that he wanted to be involved.  Him trying to represent Fletcher wouldn't have made us pay West Ham £6.5m, I'm sure you can see that?  So he would have had to involve himself on the selling club side of things as with the Christie transfer.   But anyway, when we stop sending them letters and actually take them to court we'll know we are serious and Gibson can begin another crusade against all of the people who are keeping us down.

[Smogzilla 924]

1 minute ago, Changing Times said:

I guess that's because I read and understand facts better than the majority of posters it would seem.

 

[Changing Times 3,180]

4 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

No but Featherstone actively tried to become involved with the transfers in order to act on behalf of the players and clubs. That's what the article states, but it is the daily mail. There is a Times article on all this too (which looks like it may go into more detail), but you need a subscription to read that. 

It's also pretty telling that we asked Derby about the deal and about Featherstone and they were happy to oblige and tell us about when and how he became involved. Which very coincidentally was less than 24 hours after we decided to pursue him.

Plus once we decided to go after Fletcher, Featherstone once again crops up and trys to muscle in on the deal. Only to be told by us to fo one.

It says he tried to represent Fletcher in the deal and was told to do one.  Can you explain to me how that would make us pay £6.5m for him because I can't see any link whatsoever?  If he'd managed to represent Fletcher and then somehow he and we negotiated a crazy contract then that might be something but that's not what the article says. 

It's a funny thing but when Karanka was appointed lots of people on here were excited at the idea of Mendes sending us some players.  What's the difference other than we'd have been complicit in it?  Wouldn't that have been the agent of the manager sourcing players for us and benefiting from it?