The Daily Telegraph's investigation

We're promised some truly amazing revelations about the extent of corruption in football and true to their word on Day 1 there's an exposé on the England manager. Wow, this is big. Can't wait for day two, they've probably got a top Premiership manager bang to rights. Maybe something is finally being done to get football back on track after it has lost its way so spectacularly. Maybe it's someone within the FA. Maybe a top agent. Who is it, who is it, who is it...

Barnsley's assistant manager. Not Barnsley's manager, but Barnsley's assistant manager.
Eh?

He must have been taking hundreds of thousands out of the game then?
Nope, an handful of used tenners, allegedly.

Must be a terrible crime he committed?
Well, he allegedly told a couple of blokes that a couple of players that everyone already knows are good players are, indeed, good players.
Right. Is that it?
Pretty much.
Is that all they've ******* got?

If the fall in significance is as dramatic next time around as it was between the England manager and our assistant manager then they will have fitted up Accrington Stanley's bus driver.

If I were Patrick Cryne I'd be furious about such an alleged lack of loyalty from one of our employees. We've acted swiftly and decisively which was exactly the right thing to do. But let's put this in some kind of context. £Millions, maybe £Billions, is being taken out of the game by hugely rich and highly influential people. But on the second day of The Telegraph's extensive investigation, a secondary employee at a small provincial club is accused of accepting an envelope of cash. It's a minor scandal that has been blown out of all proportion and instead of being a revelation in to the corruption in football, it's actually acting as a smoke screen to hide what's really going on. As the country gets its knickers in a twist over a small bung, powerful individual are making deals involving £millions, laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm not going to try to defend Tommy Wright, he was stupid (if he actually did what has been alleged). I know very little about the bloke and couldn't tell you if he's usually a decent sort or not. But I can sort of understand his position. I'm not saying what he did can be excused, but I'm a human being, miles away from perfect and I know that doing something wrong doesn't necessarily make you a terrible person. Football is awash with money. Tommy Wright played at a time when players didn't see an awful lot of that. He must curse his luck that he wasn't born ten our twenty years later. He's involved in transfer deals where agents get far more than he earns never mind the players. He's in a business where corruption is common place. He allegedly fancied a small slice of that himself. That doesn't make it right, it just makes him human. He didn't hurt anybody, he just told a couple of people that Barnsley have some good players. Information that every one of us reading this board already know. Money for old rope. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he took them for a couple of suckers, pocketed the brass without ever having any intention of contacting them again. Turns out he's the sucker, he got caught, he's lost his job. He did summat daft, but he's not the devil.

 

The worst thing about this is that it exposes the gap between Legal compliance and moral / ethical standards in the game. Right now BFC have acted swiftly to disconnect itself from this terrible fiasco and tried to focus on the game TW has gone due to what looked like naive, stupid involvement and taking money for it. In law you can be guilty of bribery and corruption for negotiating not just money or goods taking hands.

yet we have many others now using the 'nothing illegal' arguments to defend their position. We maybe we give Sam his job back when we look at some of the people clinging on to theirs.

The moral and ethical arguments seem to be 'non issues' and no story, just ask Cellino

 

You're all over the place here. You start by saying it was a handful of tenners when it was £5,000. Then you say it was alleged, ignoring the fact that it was caught on film. Then, having questioned Wright's guilt, you say we were right to sack him. Then you go back to saying it was only alleged after saying it was right to sack him.

You need to make your mind up. Wright was caught bang to rights. He's guilty. There's no alleged.

 

All we can assume from the Telegraph's investigations is that any 'corruption' is at Championship level and below. The Premiership is a paragon of virtue... Apart from Eric Black who said that some people who didn't earn a lot could be influenced by money. Shocking.

 

Tommy wright didn't just tell some people that a few players were good. He offered to try to con the players who work under him to change their agents to bent ones who would then exert power over the players and control them.

The telegraph hasn't just focused on him either, they've got harry redknapp on camera admitting he will put a few quid in with third party ownership and have got an admission on camera that he knew players were betting on games

 

Think you're way off the mark with Wright. He was corrupt and willing to corrupt players, manager and chairman to make a quick buck. He deserves everything he's got.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Exactly this. Taking the bribe was the illegal part.

Actively being willing to throw our players under the bus is the bit far worse for us as a club. What they were suggesting was an illegal payment of £100k to the likes of Mawson, to change agents, then Mawson wouldn't ever be able to leave that agency as they had bribed him. And would hold that against him. Wright was ok with this! Which is the part I imagine the players will find hardest to stomach.

 

Until he's found guilty in a court of law it's alleged. You might want to be up in court for defamation of character, but I don't.

 

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

 

You've stated the club was right to sack him but I'm the one defaming him?

 

In fairness I've only watched it once because I'm really not that interested but isn't it the undercover reporters who suggest giving a player a lump sum for joining their agency, and then they explain they'll make that back in transfer money when they have a big money transfer? I kind of assumed that's exactly how agents work. And then they ask Wright who are our best players and he tells them?

Not defending him. Deserves to be sacked. But I don't think it should be made out he's done something he's not.

 

It's pretty reprehensible that. Except he didn't actually do it. He said he would, so they'd give him some cash, but he didn't. The investigation didn't go that far. He may well have done, I don't know, he may have been well up for it.
Or
ring, ring
"Hello"
"Hello, Mr Wright, it's Mr %$^%$"
"Who?"
"Mr %$^%$"
"Sorry, I've never heard of you."
"Mr Wright, we paid you £5,000 in order for you to help us sign up players."
"£5,000? What £5,000? I haven't a clue what you're talking about!"
*click*

In such a case, when no one can be hurt, I'd prefer to judge someone as guilty for what they've actually done rather than what they say they will do. Give me half a dozen pints of Stella and I'll tell you I can do owt. For free, never mind 5 grand. What Tommy Wright allegedly did is more than enough for him to lose his job, it's enough for anyone to question his morality, but I doubt it would stand up in a court of law. People don't get nicked for saying they will do something, even if they're paid for that. They have to actually do it.

 

You've said he's guilty, I've said it's alleged, so yes. Clearly.

 

Completely agree with that pal. I'm not saying he actually did any of this (other than seem to take the money). I am however glad he is no longer associated with Barnsley. If he intended to rip the investigators off or screw over his current employers, either one shows a man who I would rather not be involved with our club.

Regardless, the main men have dealt with it impeccably. Had nothing to do with the bogus firm. And we move on to (hopefully) go and beat a team who's owner is less than the white of shirt his team wear.

 

Premier league types can afford better lawyers than those further down the pyramid...

 

I'm no good at reading between the lines....

 

So why do you think the club was right to sack him?

 

They say from acorns giant oak trees grow, so if we assume this was Wright's first foray into this kind of thing and he had got away with it, what do we imagine his next move would have been?

 

Somewhere in his contract it will state that he always has to portray the club in a positive light. Clearly, with the negative press we have received in the national news over the last few days, he has failed in those obligations.

 

^^This^^

All day long.