Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
LukeR

'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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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 ?

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.



  • Latest Posts

    • You say that, but we'd be 6 points better off if the referee had been competent in yesterday's game and in the Blackburn one. Ignoring butterflies, that would have us in joint 7th and a point off the play-offs. We'd also be 2 points behind Swansea without the dodgy decisions in their last 2 games. We've been done over in more than just those two matches too.
    • Sadly Boro are not just relying on Barnsley losing more games than them, Bournemouth and Cardiff have to as well. Full marks to die-hard fans for optimism  but it looks like 8th at best. And for all Warnock's complaints, it is 46 games that will give us our final position. I can still remember his rant about Tevez and Mascerano's suspicious appearance for West Ham which sent Sheff Utd down. Seemingly nothing to do with Sheff Utd were there because they had been crap all season. 
    • Probably where my confusion lies as i recall he got praise for one season. Either way he can leave as I feel he is preventing the progress of Brynn by being 2nd or 3rd choice here.
    • Congrats to Rangers on winning the Scottish Premiership I know it’s a Micky mouse competition and just shows how easy Celtic have had it for 10 years 
    • He did get it in the season before, in League One, but he imploded at the end of the Championship play-off push season.
×
×
  • Create New...