Skip to content

I've had a long car journey today

Which means I have had to the odious sh1t that is Steve McClaren defend his kin every 30 minutes.
I had contempt for this fool before. Now I actively hate him and everything he represents. Trying to tar the whole of football with greedy scum that haunt the Premiership is just loathsome. Apologists like McClaren have no idea that real football exists outside the poisoned bubble they inhibit. Clubs like ours starve whilst these money grabbing crooks just suck the game dry of every penny they can get.

And breath....

The other thing that came out of the Fat Sam debacle that I could not avoid thinking - would have thought he would have had a better house. Don't know why.



  • Probably because you are used to seeing Redknapp coming out of his Sandbanks mansion to defend allegations against him.

    I found McClaren a decent man the couple of times I've spoken to him but you are certainly right about not knowing about life outside the big money bubble. The bung culture is surely so ingrained it isn't considered a problem in the game.

    It would be interesting to know how far down the game this runs. Would anyone at Wycombe ever have been involved?

    My opinion on Big Sam is that is was a very stupid man working in a world of very stupid men. I'm not sure if he deserved the sack but he's not really any loss to the job.

  • The Big Sam issue is going to be the tip of the iceberg for him I would suggest. Already further dealings surrounding Ravel Morrison at best calls into question his judgement at worst makes him look a total crook.
    I sincerely hope HMRC are also going to be asking a couple of questions.

  • Barnsley have been dragged into it. I think it filters all the way down. It's funny though that the corruption is apparently most rife amongst those who need the money the least.

  • Come on, who hasn't tried to boost their paltry three million a year up a bit? We've all done it.

  • @bill_stickers said:
    Barnsley have been dragged into it. I think it filters all the way down. It's funny though that the corruption is apparently most rife amongst those who need the money the least.

    That may be true, but I don't think there's necessarily a causal link there - most people don't have the opportunity to be corrupt on that scale. The three drivers of fraud are opportunity, rationalisation and pressure. The first two are clearly present in this case. There are plenty of opportunities for corruption because of a lack of transparency around transfer payments, and football finances in general; and the rationalisation is that a lot of other managers are doing it too so it's OK.

  • Has anyone seen the secret film showing Tasslebank flirting with the female entrapment officer, while she offers him ever increasing amounts of loot? Unbelievable. At least Barnsley have shown their embarrassment the door; while QPR want to have a few more days to see if they can "polish the turd" (to coin an oft used Gasroom expression). YCMIU.

  • Surely this has got to see the end of the "undisclosed" transfers? I hope being a Trust-owned club we can lead the way on this.......

  • I've mentioned this before, but wouldn't it be excellent if Wycombe took the lead in making the game's dealings more transparent by committing to no more "undisclosed fee" deals?

    As for whether we've been involved in any murky deals in the past, who knows? But Lesley Green was massively supportive of the club's plans to build a new stadium at Booker

  • Beat me to it Andy!

  • I think it would be a bad idea for Wycombe to go it alone, as it would give us a further financial disadvantage; although I support greater transparency through regulation.

  • So, only do the right thing if you have to?

  • It's a choice that could potentially cost the club millions, although tens of thousands is probably more likely. Every decision you have to weigh up the pros and cons. For me the balance is with continuing with undisclosed transfers as long as it's within the rules, and what other clubs are doing.

  • You could have just answered "yes"

  • You could have not phrased the question in such a self-righteous way. We both know it's not black or white, we both know there's arguments on either side.

  • If thinking something is the right thing to do, and therefore being in favour of doing it is self righteous then yeah, hands up

    I don't think it is though

  • I voluntarily pay my full tax, even though I could legally claim for a whole load of things that I don't believe I should be able to claim for, and effectively pay a fraction of what I do. This, I believe is the right thing to do. I have no expectations that Amazon and Starbucks will follow where I lead though, and obviously I would like to see better regulations that close the loopholes.

    Similarly, I think there is scope for Wycombe to take a stand. It's not like we ever actually pay a transfer fee, and if someone wants one of our players badly enough they'll pay the same regardless of whether we publicise the fee or not.

  • Well said Dr C

    It's a no brainer really

  • The chances of football dealings becoming transparent is zero regardless. It takes 'a Portsmouth' or 'a Leeds' to lift the lid on what it takes in the modern game to sign a player. If anyone thinks a £1million transfer involves a cheque for that amount and a paying in slip for the same they need to wake up.
    I do find it a little surprising that West Ham are at the centre of a handful of dodgy transfers again. Will they every learn?

  • Maybe we can start another campaign to beg money from fans in order to cover the potential costs of not selling players (or indeed buying them from) clubs who insist on undisclosed transfers. We aren't in the position of financial luxury to make that kind of stand. I don't believe it's true that a club would pay the same for an undisclosed or disclosed fee. If it didn't matter to them then they wouldn't want it. And it's not true that if one club values a player at £x amount then other clubs must do too. How many other clubs would have signed Keith Scott for £250k in 1999?

    @drcongo Why don't you voluntarily pay another £500 to the taxman this year? It would be the right thing to do after all, that money could be spent on public services.

    We all have to draw a line somewhere, and I think the club have drawn it in the best place for Wycombe Wanderers. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise by further information or a change of circumstances.

  • @Chris why is £500 extra the right thing to do?

  • @chris I'm sure you know that the tax man will just give it back if you overpay, so not quite sure what you're getting at.

  • Classic Eric. A bit like his stance on the disabled parking - it is 100% black and white, he's always right, and its totally abhorrent to even discuss alternative viewpoints.

  • @drcongo you can voluntarily pay more than you have to, there was an article in the Guardian about it a few years ago. Some, not many, people do.

    My point is paying taxes and not using tax avoidance measures is the equivalent of WW not themselves asking for transfers to be undisclosed (which I think should be the policy) - doing what you should and not actively being a dick about things. But going beyond that is something different, and not something we are obliged to do. It's something we might consider, alongside other possible options for our resources. Definitely not a no brainer though.

    @peterparrotface because if it's admirable to pay the taxes you should (which it is) then presumably it would be even more admirable to pay extra (which it would be) - ultimately because those taxes are used for the public good by the government.

  • That's hardly a fair criticism Bill. People can take whatever view they want to. It's just that by his own admission, Chris believes that disclosing transfer fees is the right thing to do, so I was rather disappointed that he feels we should only do so if forced to by the authorities. No big deal, I'm sure we're both more than capable of going about it normal lives amidst the crippling disappointment of this disagreement.

    The disabled parking thing by the way, 'was' a black and white issue

  • There's one aspect that seems to be forgotten - and that transfers are from two parties. Wycombe could make a stand and have a "no undisclosed fee's" policy but if there other side doesn't than that means one of two things:

    Either we refuse to do any transfers with all other clubs
    Or we break the policy.

    For some it still may be a "no brainer" to go with the first option but that will ultimately result in us ever only signing out of contract players.

    I would prefer there to be a no undisclosed policy but it would need to be done in conjunction with other clubs doing the same.

    If the question is "should Wycombe spearhead the campaign to get rid of undisclosed fee's" then yes, no brainer. If it's "should Wycombe have a policy where we only work with disclosed fee's" then I think it's a good but ultimately unworkable policy.

  • @TheDancingYak nothing to disagree with there.

  • But we're always the selling club. So it's either disclose the fee or you're not buying our player

    We never buy players

  • But if we do then yeah, we should make it clear that we'll be publishing how much the player cost. Can't really see it ever being a problem with the small fees we could ever afford

    If a deal does fall through, then so be it

  • But a buying side can just as easily be the one asking for an undisclosed fee.

Sign In or Register to comment.