
Originally Posted by
TaffsWellThatEndsWell
Just because the club were willing to proceed with the transfer doesn't mean that they were happy with the state of play with intermediaries (even if Neil Warnock was accepting flights from McKay to go and watch Sala play).
Also, surely the death of two people was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the club engaging with an intermediary. That must be enough of a reason for the club to change their position, from "I don't like them, but that's the only way to do business in football" to "the use of shady intermediaries in football is wrong". And that's before you even think about whether the club were aware that the intermediaries were "illegal" (or if it was McKay's son that was legally acting).
It's not unreasonable that when presented with a significant financial outlay, without the club benefitting, that they are motivated to investigate the circumstances under which Sala was unable to play for us. It's also not unreasonable that in doing so, the club want to shine a light on some of the practices of intermediaries - especially if they were acting with a level of criminal negligence that resulted in the death of two people.
I'm not sure I quite see the hypocrisy. Sure, the club engaged with a legal agent whose father was banned, but that doesn't mean they condone the actions of the father (and it seems, another illegal agent) acting on behalf of another club cutting corners to further their own interests does it?
Metaphorically speaking, you don't have to be a fan of capitalism to enjoy a coffee from Starbucks. If that is the only way to get the coffee you want, you aren't a hypocrite for buying one whilst maintaining an anti-capitalist stance. Also, buying a coffee from Starbucks does not mean that you condone the actions of Starbucks or all of the people they employ.