Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Smogzilla said:

bullshit GIF

In this case it appears to be correct as the article quite clearly states that Featherstone wasn't involved in any other deals (even though he tried to be) but people on here seem to be unable to understand that fact.  Crack on though ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/neil-warnock-obvious-choice-manage-18614026.amp?__twitter_impression=true "Gibson is a hands-on owner and Bausor is a hands-on chief exe

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

In this case it appears to be correct as the article quite clearly states that Featherstone wasn't involved in any other deals (even though he tried to be) but people on here seem to be unable to understand that fact.  Crack on though ?

You're ignoring the fact that although featherstone might not have been directly involved, monk was. The case is against both. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Can you explain to me how that would make us pay £6.5m for him because I can't see any link whatsoever?

In the article it explains we are looking at both of them for not acting in the clubs interests. True Featherstone did not become involved in the deal, but Monk was still heavily involved. It seems in this transfer it is Monk who is being looked at for "wrong doing".

Why would Monk knowing he could get Fletcher for £3 Million due to a deal he struck at Leeds then spend £6.5 Million on him? Is it because he hoped Featherstone would be able to get himself involved and thus a slice.

The most baffling thing about this, is why we as a club let this happen? Everyone with a pair of eyes and a brain cell could tell you Marvin Johnson was not worth £2.5 Million. Why didn't Bauser or Gibson step in and say we aren't paying that?

 

21 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

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?

I can't say for certain but I'm sure that I was not overly keen on Mendes getting involved. Personally I feel agents need to be heavily regulated and their earnings capped per deal but as you said previously they have too much sway these days for anything to effectively change.

Think the difference with that is the agent is simply passing around his own clients. Almost like a professional networking group. Not actively getting involved in deals with players that aren't his clients.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neverbefore said:

You're ignoring the fact that although featherstone might not have been directly involved, monk was. The case is against both. 

Ok, so how did Monk benefit from us overpaying for Fletcher then?  I'm not ignoring it mate, it just has nothing to do with it.  The case against both is that using supposedly private knowledge, Featherstone attempted to involve himself in some of our transfer deals.  What I'm saying is that if the article is correct and he wasn't able to get involved in them then what's our case going to be exactly?  They tried to do something and they failed but as we messed up on the transfers we're going to try and get some money back?  We'd have to be able to link either Featherstone and Monk to West Ham in the case of Fletcher with either or both of them benefiting in some way.  I don't see what that is if all we're accusing him of is trying to represent Fletcher and failing to do so?  If we're trying to get them both banned from football then fair enough.  I'm just not seeing anything of interest to us in this, as a club I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

In the article it explains we are looking at both of them for not acting in the clubs interests. True Featherstone did not become involved in the deal, but Monk was still heavily involved. It seems in this transfer it is Monk who is being looked at for "wrong doing".

Why would Monk knowing he could get Fletcher for £3 Million due to a deal he struck at Leeds then spend £6.5 Million on him? Is it because he hoped Featherstone would be able to get himself involved and thus a slice.

The most baffling thing about this, is why we as a club let this happen? Everyone with a pair of eyes and a brain cell could tell you Marvin Johnson was not worth £2.5 Million. Why didn't Bauser or Gibson step in and say we aren't paying that?

 

I can't say for certain but I'm sure that I was not overly keen on Mendes getting involved. Personally I feel agents need to be heavily regulated and their earnings capped per deal but as you said previously they have too much sway these days for anything to effectively change.

Think the difference with that is the agent is simply passing around his own clients. Almost like a professional networking group. Not actively getting involved in deals with players that aren't his clients.

As I've already replied to NB4, what is it that Monk is supposed to have done wrong?  He didn't spend £6.5m on him, we did and I'd be staggered if that fee was negotiated by Monk.  In fact it seems clear from the article that it wasn't so that's one point.  The second point is in what way did they benefit from what we claim is an inflated fee?  If Featherstone couldn't get himself involved in the deal then we could have paid West Ham £100m and he still wouldn't have gotten a penny from it so what does it matter?  If there's some smoking gun somewhere that suggests Featherstone got a chunk of the money from West Ham then game on, let's get em.  But if he didn't then we just overpaid for a player and that's down to us.  I wholeheartedly agree with you on why Bauser or Gibson didn't step in and say we aren't paying that but then again we throwing money around left, right and centre.  I also agree with you about agents getting involved, I think it's wrong and in the end they are only in it for what they can get out of it.  I understand why you feel it's different but if you have a manager and his agent is finding players for your club to sign then that would appear to be a clear conflict of interest to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, if it's more than trying and failing to do stuff then yeah it's a completely different story.  But if all it comes down to is that he wanted to get involved in some deals and he couldn't then it doesn't really sound all that substantial to me.  So did he represent Fletcher at all?  Did he receive any payments regarding that transfer or in relation to the contract negotiations?  If the answer is no then what does it matter if we overpaid for him, that's entirely on us as a business and whoever negotiated it is responsible.  The same goes for the other deals except the Christie one where he clearly was involved as he was listed by Derby as the agent acting on their behalf. 

However, it amazes me how unaware clubs are of things that they are involved in at times.  Derby clearly had no idea that he was Monk's agent and couldn't have possibly seen the potential to make a few quid more out of the situation and we seemingly had no idea he was acting on behalf of Derby for this transfer until it came time to do the paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fletcher one is really dodgey. Could have signed him for £3m at Leeds but refused then for £6.5m at Boro! Even the West Ham manager was astonished with the fee at the time if I remember correctly. I can’t believe we didn’t realise at the time that we were having our pants pulled down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

CT, you have made one assumption on the Fletcher deal. That we negotiated!

If our first offer was £6.5m and West Ham accepted, that isn't a negotiation.

Monk knew that Leeds had a loan deal with a permanent deal agreed for £3m. He has a legal obligation under his contract to Boro to make them aware of this and that they were overpaying.

Fault also lies at the feet of our senior management team - surely negotiations should always start with... 'we're interested in X, is he available and how much?'... Then go proceed with negotiations if the valuation is a reasonable point to start such negotiations.

The agent seems to have been trying to get his fingers into a lot of pies financially and in my thinking even just the Cyrus Christie deal is bad enough. Agents are the scourge of the modern game!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

CT are you ignoring certain parts of this article just for fun or do you not really understand what you have read?

You claim to understand facts better than others and yet seem to be wilfully ignoring at least half of what this article is stating.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brunners said:

CT are you ignoring certain parts of this article just for fun or do you not really understand what you have read?

You claim to understand facts better than others and yet seem to be wilfully ignoring at least half of what this article is stating.

He's ignoring it because it's a Daily Fail article. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

He's ignoring it because it's a Daily Fail article. 

It is also in the Times. And iirc the daily mail sports section is actually meant to be pretty highly regarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it does all smell a bit fishy, knowing you can do a loan to buy at £3m then paying double that seems very wrong.
Even if we don't get it to court hopefully shedding some light on Monk/Featherstone's dealing will stop others employing them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Changing Times said:

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.

Calm down, Narcissus ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of the article is the Monk is too close to his agent to the detriment of the club that employs him. That was also something Birmingham apparently discovered. Monk shares priviledged information with his agent, even though the club advises him not to, and the agent then tries to represent the counterpart. That's a huge red flag. We may not be able to get any money but such behaviour needs to get out to the football community.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • Can’t see Akpom being in the squad. 
    • Its hard to know fully what the consequences of something like that would be. The Premier league product without the big 6 would not be as desirable to TV companies especially overseas, there's no doubt about that.  Obviously then the income of every other club would drop and big name players would move on.  Commercially it would probably be a bad idea but wouldn't it be great if sporting competition and integrity were put above that.   
    • I certainly think it's an interesting thing to consider, if we broke off from them or simply banned them from competing alongside us until they put this stupid idea to bed, how the broadcasters would react. Who would they follow? Sky, for example, right now are protecting the Premier League with all the power they can. It's beneficial for them to do that. But if we split from those 6 and they had the opportunity of buying into what those clubs do next or just sticking by the Premier League and the EFL, what would they do? It seems like it should be an easy answer, follow the clubs with the money, follow the potential viewing figures they would generate. But is it as simple as that? I'm not so sure.
    • 1. Was it Malley that was highly rated a year or two ago? If it was I'd give him a go alongside Howson. I'd also give Coulson a run a leftback, we know what Bola is all about, and under JW Coulson seemed to be on an upward trajectory. If he puts in 5 good performances maybe we can keep him as cover for Bola and not worry about needing to sign leftback cover in the summer. Archer Fisher, Hall, McNair ,Coulson Howson, Malley Kebano, Watmore, Bolasie Akpom 1a. No idea, pesky Romans. 2. Negredo purely because at the time he seemed the perfect striker for Aitor's system (that he used during the promotion season). Valdes is worth a shout just because of his previous experience in the game and what he had won. 3. Who knows, but if we finish lower than 9th next season, that would be pretty bad.
    • Amber list countries then, if he has to quarantine. 

×
×
  • Create New...