City in court again

[Mad as a fish]

Yea we will ignore gunnar etc.....

He fookwit I have looked at your posts and you do nothing but slate everyone at the club including Neil calling him Grandad. I can guarantee you wouldnt call him that to his face. Keyboard warrior you may be but not clever enough by half for some people in here.Where do you sit in the Stadium ? What is your name on the other board? Do your trousers back up and have an early night and colour a few pictures in.

[chepstow]

[QUOTE=Mad as a fish;4701553]He fookwit I have looked at your posts and you do nothing but slate everyone at the club including Neil calling him Grandad. I can guarantee you wouldnt call him that to his face. Keyboard warrior you may be but not clever enough by half for some people in here.Where do you sit in the Stadium ? What is your name on the other board? Do your trousers back up and have an early night and colour a few pictures in.[/QUOT


I will say this slow so it sinks in. Ive spent a couple of wasted hours trying to remind dimwits like you MM has been found guilty of nothing and is the best manager we have ever had. FACT
I obviously dont slate everyone or why would i support MM.
Understand??

[jon1959]

Yes he was but MM started with next to nothing in the squad and in relative terms spent next to nothing to get us up. FACT
Perhaps somebody on here could reminds us all of his acquisitions during the period leading up to our promotion?

That is not a FACT.

[TH63]

Yea we will ignore gunnar etc.....

So you accept that he DID spend money on players to get us promoted then.
Glad we managed to clear that up.

[Baloo]

He's there defending the un-defendable not having it his own way so starts posting the facebook quotes and using his multis to back himself up

Shouldn't we let Malky actually defend himself before we decide it's indefensible? Let's see how it pans out before the message board jury delivers its verdict.

[Mad as a fish]

[QUOTE=chepstow;4701569]

He fookwit I have looked at your posts and you do nothing but slate everyone at the club including Neil calling him Grandad. I can guarantee you wouldnt call him that to his face. Keyboard warrior you may be but not clever enough by half for some people in here.Where do you sit in the Stadium ? What is your name on the other board? Do your trousers back up and have an early night and colour a few pictures in.[/QUOT


I will say this slow so it sinks in. Ive spent a couple of wasted hours trying to remind dimwits like you MM has been found guilty of nothing and is the best manager we have ever had. FACT
I obviously dont slate everyone or why would i support MM.
Understand??

Nearly correct apart from the word "FACT" wipe your hands and your keyboard and go back to bed. You are making a coont of yourself.....still.

[giddyblue]

utter rubbish

tan should **** off

[giddyblue]

he will die a bitter old man

[stan butler]

he will die a bitter old man

Go back to the other board LeAdEr

[giddyblue]

Go back to the other board LeAdEr

what are you talking about you ****ing fruit

[stan butler]

what are you talking about you ****ing fruit

GrangeEnd1927? The multi back up?
What fruit am i?

[giddyblue]

GrangeEnd1927? The multi back up?
What fruit am i?

youve lost it muppet

[the other bob wilson]

I don't think we should judge until we get the outcome. For me, I think this sort of thing is rife in the game and hope that this smashes it open once and for all. Agents and their massive fees take the piss out of us all. However, nothing has been proven yet.
It will be a shame for me if Malky is proven dodgy ( less sympathy for Moody), as it will further tarnish one of our biggest achievements and it won't be great if Tan is shown to be vindictive and just doing this to spoil Malkys career, but this needs to be brought out in the open and sorted one way or another.

I agree with you - if Mackay and Moody are guilty of these charges then I'm fairly sure that there are plenty in the game who'll be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".

I'm still not completely clear about this though. City paid what was reported as Spurs' asking price for Caulker and were largely reckoned to have got most, if not all, of their money back when they sold him a year later. Also, I can clearly remember it being reported that Odemwingie would could us £2.5 million when the rumours about him coming here first broke and, then, when he left a few months later it was in a swap deal where it was reported that there had been no cash adjustment between us and Stoke or vice versa - effectively we got a player valued at £2.5 million for nothing when Odemwingie left.

So, how were City defrauded to the tune of £10 million when we got a year from Caulker (he may not have been perfect, but we would have stayed up if all of our players had performed to the same level as Caulker did that season) and Odemwingie and then Kenwyne Jones for a total of three seasons? Surely, the club were only conned to the tune of the fees paid to those agents the City claim were not involved in the transfers?

I find the fees allegedly paid to those agents disgusting, but, although I'm no expert on this, they are around what I would expect from a pair of transfers that amounted to something like £11 million - by the look of it, the issue is not how much they were paid, but more what did they do to earn it?

One other thing, if I were on a jury trying this case, I would certainly not be convinced by an argument that "The club’s concern was heightened by the fact Manasseh was in Spain overseeing Bale’s move to Real Madrid on the day the Odemwingie transfer was completed" - I feel uneasy about sounding like I'm on a football agent's side, but I would have thought there are plenty of them for whom it would be physically impossible to be there on the scene of every deal they were involved in on any given transfer deadline day.

If it is found eventually that the five men charged are guilty then I'll say that Vincent Tan and the club have done football a favour and they should be praised, not vilified, but, for now, it doesn't look good that these stories by the same writer on the same paper keep on popping up whenever Malky Mackay is on the brink of getting a job.

Providing the story is accurate, there's a revealing sentence right at the end of it where it says that the club hold "Mackay and Moody responsible as two principal officers of the club overseeing transfer business.". This would appear to prove what seemed obvious anyway, Mackay and Moody were given carte blanche when it came to transfer dealings that summer.

By appointing a CEO who was not involved in the transfers in the way that others doing the same job at other clubs would be in Simon Lim and then letting the situation develop to the stage it did (don't forget that these two deals went through some time after the Cornelius transfer, with it's exorbitant fees and wages, was completed), I still feel Vincent Tan brought a lot of this on himself.

[Charlie]

My reading is that it has nothing to do with the transfer fees involved, which i agree were reasonable, but more that agents were getting paid for doing nothing, maybe not being involved at all. And that Malky and Moody knew this and possibly had some arrangement with the agents in question.
This is something that can be easily exploited if you let the 2 apparent football men have complete control over transfer dealings,especially if they have a bit of deviousness about them.
Tan seems to have learnt his lesson since then, but we as a club have had to pay the price with managers having less money to spend and maybe somewhere down the road it being involved in FFP and our transfer embargo, as we were playing catch up.

[blue matt]

My reading is that it has nothing to do with the transfer fees involved, which i agree were reasonable, but more that agents were getting paid for doing nothing, maybe not being involved at all. And that Malky and Moody knew this and possibly had some arrangement with the agents in question.
This is something that can be easily exploited if you let the 2 apparent football men have complete control over transfer dealings,especially if they have a bit of deviousness about them.

maybe they knew the people running a " company " and that company was also collecting " consultancy fee's " for not doing anything allegedly, perhaps, maybe

[Cleve van Leef]

My reading is that it has nothing to do with the transfer fees involved, which i agree were reasonable, but more that agents were getting paid for doing nothing, maybe not being involved at all. And that Malky and Moody knew this and possibly had some arrangement with the agents in question.
This is something that can be easily exploited if you let the 2 apparent football men have complete control over transfer dealings,especially if they have a bit of deviousness about them.
Tan seems to have learnt his lesson since then, but we as a club have had to pay the price with managers having less money to spend and maybe somewhere down the road it being involved in FFP and our transfer embargo, as we were playing catch up.

Exactly.
Seems to be the way things are panning out

[Bobby Dandruff]

The issue is why now? He's showing himself to be vindictive and unforgiving. They are very unpleasant character traits.

I have to agree - the timing of each of these claims makes Tan (and therefore the club) look spiteful and vindictive.

[bluethrough]

I have to agree - the timing of each of these claims makes Tan (and therefore the club) look spiteful and vindictive.

As the case seems to have been ongoing for some time, I would guess the "why now" is due to MM being in the news again. If this had been a Chelsea/Jose story it wouldn't have left the news, but with it just being a Cardiff story, the interest ran out long ago. Now however with MM getting this job the story is deemed newsworthy again and im sure most sports journalists would be aware of the ongoing case, hence a good time to rehash it.
Having said that I guess VT isn't to upset that its all been dug up again.

[Bobby Dandruff]

I agree with you - if Mackay and Moody are guilty of these charges then I'm fairly sure that there are plenty in the game who'll be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".

I'm still not completely clear about this though. City paid what was reported as Spurs' asking price for Caulker and were largely reckoned to have got most, if not all, of their money back when they sold him a year later. Also, I can clearly remember it being reported that Odemwingie would could us £2.5 million when the rumours about him coming here first broke and, then, when he left a few months later it was in a swap deal where it was reported that there had been no cash adjustment between us and Stoke or vice versa - effectively we got a player valued at £2.5 million for nothing when Odemwingie left.

So, how were City defrauded to the tune of £10 million when we got a year from Caulker (he may not have been perfect, but we would have stayed up if all of our players had performed to the same level as Caulker did that season) and Odemwingie and then Kenwyne Jones for a total of three seasons? Surely, the club were only conned to the tune of the fees paid to those agents the City claim were not involved in the transfers?

I find the fees allegedly paid to those agents disgusting, but, although I'm no expert on this, they are around what I would expect from a pair of transfers that amounted to something like £11 million - by the look of it, the issue is not how much they were paid, but more what did they do to earn it?

One other thing, if I were on a jury trying this case, I would certainly not be convinced by an argument that "The club’s concern was heightened by the fact Manasseh was in Spain overseeing Bale’s move to Real Madrid on the day the Odemwingie transfer was completed" - I feel uneasy about sounding like I'm on a football agent's side, but I would have thought there are plenty of them for whom it would be physically impossible to be there on the scene of every deal they were involved in on any given transfer deadline day.

If it is found eventually that the five men charged are guilty then I'll say that Vincent Tan and the club have done football a favour and they should be praised, not vilified, but, for now, it doesn't look good that these stories by the same writer on the same paper keep on popping up whenever Malky Mackay is on the brink of getting a job.

Providing the story is accurate, there's a revealing sentence right at the end of it where it says that the club hold "Mackay and Moody responsible as two principal officers of the club overseeing transfer business.". This would appear to prove what seemed obvious anyway, Mackay and Moody were given carte blanche when it came to transfer dealings that summer.

By appointing a CEO who was not involved in the transfers in the way that others doing the same job at other clubs would be in Simon Lim and then letting the situation develop to the stage it did (don't forget that these two deals went through some time after the Cornelius transfer, with it's exorbitant fees and wages, was completed), I still feel Vincent Tan brought a lot of this on himself.

What I find utterly amazing in this and the recent Palace / Pulis fiasco is that clubs are seemingly able to spend millions of pounds with so few checks and balances in place.

In every company that I have ever worked for, and with, big right through to small, spending money is tightly controlled regardless of the amount (er, isn't that what the FD is ultimately responsible for?), and in fact, the larger the sum (millions here!) the greater the level of scrutiny.

How can any organisation i.e. a football club in this case, authorise a payment of millions of pounds WITHOUT multiple sign offs, and therefore more than one 'officer of the company' approving the transaction? Pulis asked for £2m (2 weeks early!) and got the money the next day! I wouldn't trust Malky and the other bloke, and very few people in fact, to be spending millions of pounds on anything, without some strict governance in place.

I wonder if a successful business man like Tan runs all of his multi-million dollar empire like this?

[blue matt]

You may well find you have hit the nail on the head. Consultancy fees / commission payments paid from a signing on fee to some 'unknown' company abroad. The people involved would not sign the player unless the 'arrangement' was in place.

HAs been going for years I think with other managers / agents and various 3rd parties and difficult to prove - as what the agent does with the signing on fee is up to them. Like any accountants advice the one worth noting is "Dont get caught" , I dont think the people involved in the case are out of the woods at all.

maybe it was always about that

maybe people at the club knew what was going on, but Tan didnt, maybe someone notified Tan and that is when relationships broke down allegedly, perhaps, maybe

[Mad as a fish]

Yes he was but MM started with next to nothing in the squad and in relative terms spent next to nothing to get us up. FACT
Perhaps somebody on here could reminds us all of his acquisitions during the period leading up to our promotion?

Facts are what pedantic, dull people have instead of opinions.

[Lawnmower]

I agree with you - if Mackay and Moody are guilty of these charges then I'm fairly sure that there are plenty in the game who'll be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".

I'm still not completely clear about this though. City paid what was reported as Spurs' asking price for Caulker and were largely reckoned to have got most, if not all, of their money back when they sold him a year later. Also, I can clearly remember it being reported that Odemwingie would could us £2.5 million when the rumours about him coming here first broke and, then, when he left a few months later it was in a swap deal where it was reported that there had been no cash adjustment between us and Stoke or vice versa - effectively we got a player valued at £2.5 million for nothing when Odemwingie left.

So, how were City defrauded to the tune of £10 million when we got a year from Caulker (he may not have been perfect, but we would have stayed up if all of our players had performed to the same level as Caulker did that season) and Odemwingie and then Kenwyne Jones for a total of three seasons? Surely, the club were only conned to the tune of the fees paid to those agents the City claim were not involved in the transfers?

I find the fees allegedly paid to those agents disgusting, but, although I'm no expert on this, they are around what I would expect from a pair of transfers that amounted to something like £11 million - by the look of it, the issue is not how much they were paid, but more what did they do to earn it?

One other thing, if I were on a jury trying this case, I would certainly not be convinced by an argument that "The club’s concern was heightened by the fact Manasseh was in Spain overseeing Bale’s move to Real Madrid on the day the Odemwingie transfer was completed" - I feel uneasy about sounding like I'm on a football agent's side, but I would have thought there are plenty of them for whom it would be physically impossible to be there on the scene of every deal they were involved in on any given transfer deadline day.

If it is found eventually that the five men charged are guilty then I'll say that Vincent Tan and the club have done football a favour and they should be praised, not vilified, but, for now, it doesn't look good that these stories by the same writer on the same paper keep on popping up whenever Malky Mackay is on the brink of getting a job.

Providing the story is accurate, there's a revealing sentence right at the end of it where it says that the club hold "Mackay and Moody responsible as two principal officers of the club overseeing transfer business.". This would appear to prove what seemed obvious anyway, Mackay and Moody were given carte blanche when it came to transfer dealings that summer.

By appointing a CEO who was not involved in the transfers in the way that others doing the same job at other clubs would be in Simon Lim and then letting the situation develop to the stage it did (don't forget that these two deals went through some time after the Cornelius transfer, with it's exorbitant fees and wages, was completed), I still feel Vincent Tan brought a lot of this on himself.

Bob, my understanding on this is it isn't the headline transfer fees he's got the issue with, but the extras- mainly agents fees.
Remember his rant when Malky said he needed 3 more players in Jan about having gone way over budget due to 'extra costs', well it's my guess, that it was this he was on about.

[Toadstool]

Wasn't this in motion some time ago- it's just got to court now?

[the other bob wilson]

Bob, my understanding on this is it isn't the headline transfer fees he's got the issue with, but the extras- mainly agents fees.
Remember his rant when Malky said he needed 3 more players in Jan about having gone way over budget due to 'extra costs', well it's my guess, that it was this he was on about.

You mean Tan, not Mackay, was talking about these extra costs? I can remember Tan's response to Mackay's talk about new players in January - I'd say it was the thing that set in motion Mackay's dismissal and I wouldn't be surprised if that was when the investigations started. I still can't these costs amounting to £10 million though and I can't help thinking that Tan, Lim and the City Board are going to be made pretty stupid and naive if Mackay and Moody do get convicted, because it seems ridiculous that two transfers which were reported to have cost the club £11 million, actually cost them £21 million - I'm with Bobby Dandruff on this.

[Since62]

You mean Tan, not Mackay, was talking about these extra costs? I can remember Tan's response to Mackay's talk about new players in January - I'd say it was the thing that set in motion Mackay's dismissal and I wouldn't be surprised if that was when the investigations started. I still can't these costs amounting to £10 million though and I can't help thinking that Tan, Lim and the City Board are going to be made pretty stupid and naive if Mackay and Moody do get convicted, because it seems ridiculous that two transfers which were reported to have cost the club £11 million, actually cost them £21 million - I'm with Bobby Dandruff on this.

Paul

The issue in the case appears to be two transfers where the club made substantial payments to football agents and now claim that they have evidence that said agents did no work on those deals. If true, then the club is either looking to pursue the agents for billing the club for work not done or is asking for evidence of where the money went if the agents say they weren't the recipients of the money.

I believe the amounts involved are £600k in the case of the Stephen Caulker signing and £300k in the case of the Peter Odemwingie signing.Neither player was subsequently sold at a loss, so I am unclear where a claim quoted in the media at £10m comes from.