Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Borodane said:

It was still the club that handled the negotiations and they were obviously pretty bad at that. That's on the club. I don't think we will be getting any money out of it. But it still doesn't change the fact that Monk and his agent is running a shady scheme, when it's something the club explicitly told Monk not to do. In the end it apparently was a contributing factor to him losing his job and subsequently also losing his job at Birmingham.

Well the Birmingham bit is even more complicated.  That agent was helping to bring in players to Birmingham while one of the previous managers was in charge apparently (might have been Zola).  The Birmingham hierarchy had no issue with his involvement then.  I suspect his existing relationship with the club is one of the ways that Monk got the job there.  Then at some point the agent's involvement suddenly becomes an issue.  It's possible that they tried to push their luck but it's also possible that the club wanted rid of Monk and used this as an excuse to terminate his contract.

Edit - I heard the above story about the Birmingham stuff on the radio from someone in the media down there.  I don't have the agent's biography at hand or anything.

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, Duvel said:

Whoever decided that we should bid 7m for Fletcher should be banned from football. It was pretty obvious after watching Fletcher a handful of times that we'd massively overpaid for him. 

It was obvious before we signed him that we'd overpaid.  I think this forum was discussing that very subject at the time.  Afterwards it was suggested that the deal was half of that with lots of add ons if I remember correctly, which seemed to make the deal look a bit better from our perspective.  Unless Monk was conducting the negotiations then the person responsible is almost certainly still employed at the club.

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

It was obvious before we signed him that we'd overpaid.  I think this forum was discussing that very subject at the time.  Afterwards it was suggested that the deal was half of that with lots of add ons if I remember correctly, which seemed to make the deal look a bit better from our perspective.  Unless Monk was conducting the negotiations then the person responsible is almost certainly still employed at the club.

I agree and if Monk was conducting negotiations (which I don't believe) then that's equally embarrassing. 

Either way the club look completely stupid. 

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

Yes I know that's what we'd pursue but in order to get financial recompense we'd have to show how they actually cost us money and that is going to be difficult if the agent couldn't actually get involved in the deals.  That's the point I'm making.  We would have to prove definitively that the only reason Monk wanted us to sign those players is because they were trying to make some money between the pair of them.  I don't think that will be possible based on the information in that article.

I think some of the agents actions indicate quite strongly that they were trying to gain financially. The fact that he only became directly involved in the Christie deal a mere 24 hours after we decide to pursue him, is the biggest one. I know you are trying to say that beside the Christie deal it seems that Monk or his agent have not actually gained financially. But the club may argue that Monk only pursued certain targets with the intention of gaining financial hence the "best interests" quote.

If the club are taking a legal route they must feel strongly about it, and there must be other information that they know of or have evidence of to take it this far forward. The articles I have read all mention similar things, but I can't imagine that would be the only information relating to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Duvel said:

I agree and if Monk was conducting negotiations (which I don't believe) then that's equally embarrassing. 

Either way the club look completely stupid. 

Precisely.  Do we think that Monk negotiated all of the deals that summer?  I just don't believe for a second that he negotiated even one of them.  The bigger issue for me is that we spent £30m on Assombalonga, Braithwaite and Fletcher that summer, 6 months after spending £12m on Bamford and Gestede.  That's £42m on five forwards in the space of 6 months, which is completely ridiculous and I'm pretty sure I said this at the time on the transfer window thread.  We still have the same Chairman, we still have the same Chief Executive and we still have the same Head Scout.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I heard the above story about the Birmingham stuff on the radio from someone in the media down there.  I don't have the agent's biography at hand or anything.

When he was sacked it all seemed to be insinuated in their very strangely worded club statement. Then a few days later one of the board members came out with more details in the local Birmingham press.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I think some of the agents actions indicate quite strongly that they were trying to gain financially. The fact that he only became directly involved in the Christie deal a mere 24 hours after we decide to pursue him, is the biggest one. I know you are trying to say that beside the Christie deal it seems that Monk or his agent have not actually gained financially. But the club may argue that Monk only pursued certain targets with the intention of gaining financial hence the "best interests" quote.

If the club are taking a legal route they must feel strongly about it, and there must be other information that they know of or have evidence of to take it this far forward. The articles I have read all mention similar things, but I can't imagine that would be the only information relating to this.

Proving that will be next to impossible unless they have some actual evidence beyond that stated in the article.  Even with the Christie transfer Monk will say that Christie wasn't our first or second choice but once we missed out on those targets we had to move on to other players.  So his argument will be that if we were intending to get more money out of the club then why didn't I insist on signing that player from the beginning.  On top of that, it seems that the club suggested the name to Monk not the other way around so even then he will say that he wanted other players.  Even if we have a fair idea of what they were doing it will be very difficult to prove intent.

The club aren't taking the legal route as it stands.  They sent the pair of them a legal letter a year ago apparently and nothing has happened since.  Maybe they are still trying to build a case but the article itself says that no FA or FIFA regulations have been broken so again I think unless we find out a lot more stuff then it's not going to go anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Duvel said:

I agree and if Monk was conducting negotiations (which I don't believe) then that's equally embarrassing. 

Either way the club look completely stupid. 

I said this last night, even if it was Monk that was negotiating the deals, why on earth did Bauser and Gibson not step in and veto certain deals namely Johnson and Fletcher. We overpaid on those two players hugely, for someone who runs a very successful global business you'd expect better financial sense from Gibson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Precisely.  Do we think that Monk negotiated all of the deals that summer?  I just don't believe for a second that he negotiated even one of them.  The bigger issue for me is that we spent £30m on Assombalonga, Braithwaite and Fletcher that summer, 6 months after spending £12m on Bamford and Gestede.  That's £42m on five forwards in the space of 6 months, which is completely ridiculous and I'm pretty sure I said this at the time on the transfer window thread.  We still have the same Chairman, we still have the same Chief Executive and we still have the same Head Scout.  

I was probably the most critical poster on here of Monk but I don't think for a minute that he negotiated on any transfer. 

I've been banging the same drum all summer (and before) about the way the club is run. While we have the same people behind the scenes then nothing will change in my opinion, all the positive Gazette stories in the world won't make me change my mind. 

If it turns out that we've been stitched up by a dodgy agent and manager then we need to ask ourselves why. 

 

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

When he was sacked it all seemed to be insinuated in their very strangely worded club statement. Then a few days later one of the board members came out with more details in the local Birmingham press.

Yeah I remember that.  It was that statement that prompted the chat I heard on the radio I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Maybe they are still trying to build a case but the article itself says that no FA or FIFA regulations have been broken so again I think unless we find out a lot more stuff then it's not going to go anywhere.

I think that is the stage we are at, we must have more information available to us than what the press have. As as you said in your previous post it would be very difficult to discern any wrong doing, due to the nature of the deals. His Birmingham sacking seems to have opened it all up again.

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

I think that is the stage we are at, we must have more information available to us than what the press have. As as you said in your previous post it would be very difficult to discern any wrong doing, due to the nature of the deals. His Birmingham sacking seems to have opened it all up again.

I might be misreading but just because no FA or FIFA rules have been broken doesn't necessarily mean no contract laws etc have been breached right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also very confused by what we're trying to prove here. Beyond Monk breaking clauses in his own contract, I don't get it? Like CT said, Featherstone trying and failing to make any money out of us in all but one case is not much to shout about and it really begs the question why, if we're so bothered by that, why have we only tried to do something about it now? Funny how it's happening after our income channels have been reduced, huh?

Obviously there is some issue there with Monk and we're not the only ones complaining about him, it seems like it may have lost him his current job too. But come on, Monk didn't spend the money we spent, he shouldn't even have anything to do with how much money we spend during negotiations beyond begging for a player. £6.5m for Fletcher shocked Bilic at the time we spent that, KM is right, it was bloody mad. But Monk didn't sign that cheque, Gibson did. Considering we've still spent money after Monk has gone on players who've hardly been successful yet, it hardly comes down to Monk to take a huge chunk of responsibility here, it is like others have said probably on the shoulders of someone who is still at the club and stealing a living.

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

I might be misreading but just because no FA or FIFA rules have been broken doesn't necessarily mean no contract laws etc have been breached right?

No that's entirely correct mate, they are different things.

  • Like 1
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

    • 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. 
    • Thats exactly what it is, if you are negotiating with someone you need to be in a strong enough position to walk away and move onto an alternative.  I think this proposal is just that at the moment, these big European clubs will be prepared to start this alternative format if they can get away with it but I think the ultimate goal is to have more power and control within the current structure. And obviously more share of the financial pie as well.  They are acting like a cartel and its up to the governing bodies and other clubs to make sure they don't get away with it.  I made a point yesterday that this isn't a sudden thing, this balance of power has been gradually tipping since the Billionaires started getting involved with clubs in 2003. Wouldnt it be brilliant if other clubs declared all out war on these big super clubs?  I'd love to see the other 86 clubs in the football league threaten to break away from the current system. Start things up again and have a new league without the big 6, if they want to apply to join they'll have to start at the bottom of the pyramid and I mean the very bottom.  Let's rid football of FIFA and have a new, open and transparent organisation that gets rid of the corrupt scumbags there now. Have fan owned clubs like they have in Germany to prevent things like this happening in the future and have a domestic scene similar to Germany with realistic ticket prices and sensible kickoff times.  Part of me hopes this super league happens because that might be the catalyst for the bubble to burst and return the game to the fans.  Even if it means clubs having to start from scratch again.  I don't want a global super league where clubs are franchised from Liverpool to Singapore and I don't think fans in our country want that either. I think Liverpool fans for example would rather get behind a new team at an amateur level and watch them climb through the leagues again. It would be like a version of AFC Wimbledon but on a much larger scale. If it was a choice as well I think I'd rather the Boro went to the wall than be sucked into this new version of football. 
    • Completely see your point, but I don't think that's true. The reputational damage these clubs have suffered will endure for years. Share prices might have jumped yesterday on the back of overseas stock market traders who regard football clubs as nothing more than tradeable commodities, but these clubs will be viewed with suspicion in future by many players and managers. They might struggle to attract the same levels of attendance/merch sales/marquee signings in the coming years as clubs untainted by this scandal like Bayern, PSG, et al. I'm not suggesting Burnley or the Skunks will do well out of this, but my best friend has been a Man City fan for a quarter of a century and now wants nothing to do with them. That's not just him lost to them, but me (as his matchday companion), any kids he has, etc. These things take time to percolate through, but in the long term, I doubt the 'big six' PL clubs are going to win whatever happens.

×
×
  • Create New...