| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph 21:32 - Sep 28 with 110171 views | gobbles |
The Telegraph â€@Telegraph 1m1 minute ago
Latest #football4sale allegations concern Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink at QPR, Tommy Wright of Barnsley and Leeds' Massimo Cellino |  | | |  |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:45 - Sep 29 with 2993 views | BerkoRanger |
Yes - this thread is a fascinating read with all the differing views.
I've been following football and this club for over 50 years and there is only one way this is going to go. And I honestly wanted Jimmy to succeed.
Apparently, Tommy Wright now sacked. |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:45 - Sep 29 with 2993 views | LongsufferingR |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:44 - Sep 29 by Hunterhoop |
After thinking and reading more, I actually feel for Jimmy here a bit.
It's quite possible he isn't bent and would have done nothing bent. But as explained above, he's stupidly put himself in a situation where he's discussing being paid by a firm who represents players and try to sell them, when he's a manager and can influence signing of the players by a club.
He may have been playing along and non-committal when they mentioned the player element (after discussing the fee for public speaking).
But, at that point, as soon as he's aware "what the firm do/what their business is" he should have backed out of everything.
It's quite possible his naivety and stupidity could to cost him his reputation and/or job. That's sad.
We won't know for sure whether he was going to do anything bent with regards players this firm represented. But the doubt everyone in the game will have, especially the players (to a lesser degree the fans) will undermine him. It'll undermine the club.
He may well be straight. But by not backing out when they explained they represent players and brought up wanting to bring them to Clubs, he's, possibly inadvertently, and very naively, ensured there'll always be a cloud hanging over his head.
If he does go, it's his stupidity and naivety which has cost him. If he's genuinely not bent, that's a real shame.
But if people and players don't trust you, I don't see how your position is not untenable. |
How do we know the players don't trust him? |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:52 - Sep 29 with 2912 views | Rangersw12 |
It will be interesting to see how the away end acts on Saturday towards JFH
I suspect if it's negative then he will be gone on Monday | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:53 - Sep 29 with 2906 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:44 - Sep 29 by Hunterhoop |
After thinking and reading more, I actually feel for Jimmy here a bit.
It's quite possible he isn't bent and would have done nothing bent. But as explained above, he's stupidly put himself in a situation where he's discussing being paid by a firm who represents players and try to sell them, when he's a manager and can influence signing of the players by a club.
He may have been playing along and non-committal when they mentioned the player element (after discussing the fee for public speaking).
But, at that point, as soon as he's aware "what the firm do/what their business is" he should have backed out of everything.
It's quite possible his naivety and stupidity could to cost him his reputation and/or job. That's sad.
We won't know for sure whether he was going to do anything bent with regards players this firm represented. But the doubt everyone in the game will have, especially the players (to a lesser degree the fans) will undermine him. It'll undermine the club.
He may well be straight. But by not backing out when they explained they represent players and brought up wanting to bring them to Clubs, he's, possibly inadvertently, and very naively, ensured there'll always be a cloud hanging over his head.
If he does go, it's his stupidity and naivety which has cost him. If he's genuinely not bent, that's a real shame.
But if people and players don't trust you, I don't see how your position is not untenable. |
also, we don't know that he didn't walk away a little later. Isn't there a post on here earlier from someone saying when it got into details he made his excuses and left?
It's possible he did that, thought: 'well, that was dodge, glad I got out when i did' only to find out he's nailed anyway. |  |
| |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:56 - Sep 29 with 2881 views | LongsufferingR |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:52 - Sep 29 by Rangersw12 |
It will be interesting to see how the away end acts on Saturday towards JFH
I suspect if it's negative then he will be gone on Monday |
I imagine it will be the same as on here, ie the ones who wanted him out anyway will be sticking the knife in while those with less of an agenda will be waiting for the club to make the decision. Unfortunately it may end in fighting amongst the fans again, which as you say, may force the club's hand if no decision has been announced by then. [Post edited 29 Sep 2016 13:56]
| | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:57 - Sep 29 with 2862 views | Mytch_QPR |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:52 - Sep 29 by Rangersw12 |
It will be interesting to see how the away end acts on Saturday towards JFH
I suspect if it's negative then he will be gone on Monday |
Do we have any new songs?
'Jimmy, give us a bung'... |  |
| |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:07 - Sep 29 with 2738 views | daveB |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:52 - Sep 29 by Rangersw12 |
It will be interesting to see how the away end acts on Saturday towards JFH
I suspect if it's negative then he will be gone on Monday |
he'll get plenty of stick unless we win and even then he'll get a fair bit |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:10 - Sep 29 with 2717 views | Hunterhoop |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:45 - Sep 29 by LongsufferingR |
How do we know the players don't trust him? |
We don't. But if someone isn't playing...and a new signing is playing instead, given what's come out, it's surely human nature to doubt/question it. That's a lack of trust.
You can just see a situation where someone isn't being picked by him them getting angry and bursting in or saying something on training field along the lines of "you're only playing him not me because..."
As soon as that happens you have trust issues. Perhaps none of our squad will think like that, but I doubt it. |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:15 - Sep 29 with 2690 views | Juzzie |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:53 - Sep 29 by Antti_Heinola |
also, we don't know that he didn't walk away a little later. Isn't there a post on here earlier from someone saying when it got into details he made his excuses and left?
It's possible he did that, thought: 'well, that was dodge, glad I got out when i did' only to find out he's nailed anyway. |
If that did happen then the Telegraph shouldn't really have pursued this. Focus on the one's that are happy to engage in these kind of player/3rd party deals.
Maybe this is just a warm up to the big fish being fried over the next week or so? |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:15 - Sep 29 with 2680 views | Hunterhoop |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:53 - Sep 29 by Antti_Heinola |
also, we don't know that he didn't walk away a little later. Isn't there a post on here earlier from someone saying when it got into details he made his excuses and left?
It's possible he did that, thought: 'well, that was dodge, glad I got out when i did' only to find out he's nailed anyway. |
And if so, then good on him (as I said on page 1). He should then obviously keep his job.
But,
That's not how the Telegraph are portraying it - quite the opposite. If what you've hypothesised happened, not what the Telegraph make out, then this is a serious case of defamation of character. Jimmy will have the right to sue and he'll win. The Telegraph aren't idiots. Their lawyers will have reviewed the evidence, the story, the portrayal, and confirmed what the risk of a defamation lawsuit actually is. If it was big, they wouldn't have framed the story as they have.
So, yeah, what you said is possible. I hope it happened like that (as I said on page 1), but I just doubt it. Chances, based on the above process they'd have gone through is they have more, not less, evidence....
That's why we're doing the right thing investigating properly first and getting access to the full footage. | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:17 - Sep 29 with 2659 views | FloridaR |
Some great opinions on this thread.
I believe the ethic barrier has been breached with the club/league & now subject is exposed to the public finds casts doubts on his ethical turpitude. Maybe inside the club management it maybe commonly accepted to act this way but I'm sure he broke the golden rule and has pulled the club in disrepute again.
Fact is he was agreeing a fee to fly to Singapore for a company who asked him to consider signing their players, The point of accepting/agreeing the fee likely means he would favour spending club money with this company and would lead onto him getting a fee every time a player was bought paid to his account in Holland without the club ever knowing, also him circumnavigating UK tax laws. One thing leads to another and this will have a damaging affect on his future career.
I only see 1 outcome here... |  |
| Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink: Happy I'm the 'chosen one' |
| |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:22 - Sep 29 with 2626 views | LongsufferingR |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:57 - Sep 29 by Mytch_QPR |
Do we have any new songs?
'Jimmy, give us a bung'... |
You can be sure that Fulham will provide us with some ideas of their own. | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:23 - Sep 29 with 2608 views | Match82 |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 08:26 - Sep 29 by Northernr |
Yeh, agree with you and Hunter, and I think all three of us were keen for him to stay originally. |
While the majority of posts may not make it sound like it, I think the majority of fans had the same view. A few people shouting loudly, or repeating the same point every other thread, doesn't necessarily represent the majority |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:23 - Sep 29 with 2608 views | calHoop |
This really does say a lot about our support at the moment. Has everyone watched the tapes, how can anything said by JFH about player acquisitions be taken as anything more than flippant, his response is jokey? We even know at what point in the transfer window he said it, no surprise that he's laughing about it.
He said he needs to google the firm he's talking to, further proving he's not committing to anything. We know he doesn't conduct transfers, and that's on the record.
If/when he appears on a TV programme, like some of our players and managers have done in the past, he'd be paid a fair wedge and he, or his agent, would be negotiating on that. Same as a conference speaker. Fair play to him for negotiating what ultimately is par for the course. And the club have confirmed he's free to do this as part of his contract. Therefore, he probably organises a lot of this himself as it's simple and he doesn't have to give his agent 10-15%.
And yet so many are talking of trust, how his players won't trust him etc,etc. These are the players who'll have agents pocketing thousands for them for advertising a bit of tat on instagram/twitter etc.
This really is the thin end of the wedge with the Telegraph, they've been blocked from naming two managers and have probably "pushed up" the order what was originally slim pickings.
But, he's Chelsea, we're not playing well (for the 5th season in a row), we're dull to watch (for the 5th season in a row). So, he has to go. I dread to think how toxic Saturday will be. | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:24 - Sep 29 with 2595 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 13:44 - Sep 29 by Hunterhoop |
After thinking and reading more, I actually feel for Jimmy here a bit.
It's quite possible he isn't bent and would have done nothing bent. But as explained above, he's stupidly put himself in a situation where he's discussing being paid by a firm who represents players and try to sell them, when he's a manager and can influence signing of the players by a club.
He may have been playing along and non-committal when they mentioned the player element (after discussing the fee for public speaking).
But, at that point, as soon as he's aware "what the firm do/what their business is" he should have backed out of everything.
It's quite possible his naivety and stupidity could to cost him his reputation and/or job. That's sad.
We won't know for sure whether he was going to do anything bent with regards players this firm represented. But the doubt everyone in the game will have, especially the players (to a lesser degree the fans) will undermine him. It'll undermine the club.
He may well be straight. But by not backing out when they explained they represent players and brought up wanting to bring them to Clubs, he's, possibly inadvertently, and very naively, ensured there'll always be a cloud hanging over his head.
If he does go, it's his stupidity and naivety which has cost him. If he's genuinely not bent, that's a real shame.
But if people and players don't trust you, I don't see how your position is not untenable. |
Very good summation. |  |
| |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:25 - Sep 29 with 2578 views | FredManRave |
What a fcuking shÃt storm. So shocked when JFH was first mentioned. You only have to read this thread to realise that even though it appears at this stage that he hasn't actually done anything illegal there are so many doubts about his personal intentions and commitment to the club that rightly or wrongly I just can't see how he can stay at the club. Whoever wants it, and there'll be many, they now have a massive shÃt stick with which to beat JFH and to a lesser extent Les and Fernandes on any commitment, honesty, ability, trust issues and all those other important attributes that a manager needs.
Righly or wrongly I just find JFH's position completly untenable now.
All a sorry mess. [Post edited 29 Sep 2016 14:26]
|  |
| |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:32 - Sep 29 with 2531 views | Northernr |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:15 - Sep 29 by Hunterhoop |
And if so, then good on him (as I said on page 1). He should then obviously keep his job.
But,
That's not how the Telegraph are portraying it - quite the opposite. If what you've hypothesised happened, not what the Telegraph make out, then this is a serious case of defamation of character. Jimmy will have the right to sue and he'll win. The Telegraph aren't idiots. Their lawyers will have reviewed the evidence, the story, the portrayal, and confirmed what the risk of a defamation lawsuit actually is. If it was big, they wouldn't have framed the story as they have.
So, yeah, what you said is possible. I hope it happened like that (as I said on page 1), but I just doubt it. Chances, based on the above process they'd have gone through is they have more, not less, evidence....
That's why we're doing the right thing investigating properly first and getting access to the full footage. |
And the problem with these things is always the 'club into disrepute' aspect. Maybe that is how it panned out, problem is it's in the paper now. He and therefore we will always be tainted with some sort of suspicion, however unjustified it may be. That's particularly bad considering Ferdinand and Hoos have made massive plays of cleaning things up, getting rid of bad eggs, not dealing with agents all the time etc.
The way these things play out is the guy leaves after "both parties mutually agreed it would be in the best interests of everybody and allow the team to focus on the crucial run of Championship dirge coming up". This allows the club to deny all knowledge, try and preserve reputation while the manager goes away and sits on a beach for a while, then re-appears six months later doing interviews saying what an absolute travesty the whole thing was, back in the game within nine months.
If he stays, and let's remember he's not exactly mr fcking popular at the moment anyway, there's always going to be, at the very least, a little nagging doubt. Opposition fans will sing about it, QPR fans will bash him with it if the team doesn't perform well, every time LF and LH speak about agents etc it's going to ring hollow.
I just don't see how him staying will work, unless they launch a very big, very expensive, very public legal action against the Telegraph and win it almost immediately.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:33 - Sep 29 with 2521 views | PinnerPaul |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:17 - Sep 29 by FloridaR |
Some great opinions on this thread.
I believe the ethic barrier has been breached with the club/league & now subject is exposed to the public finds casts doubts on his ethical turpitude. Maybe inside the club management it maybe commonly accepted to act this way but I'm sure he broke the golden rule and has pulled the club in disrepute again.
Fact is he was agreeing a fee to fly to Singapore for a company who asked him to consider signing their players, The point of accepting/agreeing the fee likely means he would favour spending club money with this company and would lead onto him getting a fee every time a player was bought paid to his account in Holland without the club ever knowing, also him circumnavigating UK tax laws. One thing leads to another and this will have a damaging affect on his future career.
I only see 1 outcome here... |
That's an awful lot of supposition form the actual footage if you watch it.
If you tried to sack him based on that reasoning/logic JFH's lawyers would ride coach & horses through it, let along suing for slander/libel. | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:33 - Sep 29 with 2518 views | karl |
Distinct lack of professionalism discussing with strangers about deferring training sessions.
We're in a position where we're trying to bed in new signings at the club and many are pleading for time and patience to allow this yet the manager is talking of f8cking off for 3 -4 days during the one spell he hasn't got games piling in on him, seriously how many players are actually travelling with national teams?
Fatigue is a factor but to work on shape and defensive set ups doesnt take great energy etc, these can/should be done in short walking paced sessions and if spirits are low everyone here knows that you can't beat a bit of 5's to relax and have a laugh.
Training ground banter is what all the ex pro's say they miss the most and isn't a chore when handled right so for his obvious preference to chase a dollar instead of doing his job correctly i'm afraid i'm in favour of getting rid, whoever has built the squad has done a good job but it is his role to put together the team on the pitch and that won't happen in Singapore. |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:34 - Sep 29 with 2515 views | baz_qpr |
The key point and you can see this if you watch the heavily edited video. Is that players are not mentioned until after the speech discussion about money. So he has not set a price for looking at players, he's had an initial discussion about speech work primarily with the woman, we then get an edit an the ex footballer agent starts talking about players and asking him to look to which he responded almost jokingly. We dont know what was said before and inbetween or the length of time and this could be easily resolved if the full unedited video and transcipt is released. |  | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:36 - Sep 29 with 2480 views | PinnerPaul |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:32 - Sep 29 by Northernr |
And the problem with these things is always the 'club into disrepute' aspect. Maybe that is how it panned out, problem is it's in the paper now. He and therefore we will always be tainted with some sort of suspicion, however unjustified it may be. That's particularly bad considering Ferdinand and Hoos have made massive plays of cleaning things up, getting rid of bad eggs, not dealing with agents all the time etc.
The way these things play out is the guy leaves after "both parties mutually agreed it would be in the best interests of everybody and allow the team to focus on the crucial run of Championship dirge coming up". This allows the club to deny all knowledge, try and preserve reputation while the manager goes away and sits on a beach for a while, then re-appears six months later doing interviews saying what an absolute travesty the whole thing was, back in the game within nine months.
If he stays, and let's remember he's not exactly mr fcking popular at the moment anyway, there's always going to be, at the very least, a little nagging doubt. Opposition fans will sing about it, QPR fans will bash him with it if the team doesn't perform well, every time LF and LH speak about agents etc it's going to ring hollow.
I just don't see how him staying will work, unless they launch a very big, very expensive, very public legal action against the Telegraph and win it almost immediately.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
The key is "legal" and "immediately" never go together, so any action taken by JFH/and/or the club would take months to actually get to court. | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:38 - Sep 29 with 2469 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:15 - Sep 29 by Hunterhoop |
And if so, then good on him (as I said on page 1). He should then obviously keep his job.
But,
That's not how the Telegraph are portraying it - quite the opposite. If what you've hypothesised happened, not what the Telegraph make out, then this is a serious case of defamation of character. Jimmy will have the right to sue and he'll win. The Telegraph aren't idiots. Their lawyers will have reviewed the evidence, the story, the portrayal, and confirmed what the risk of a defamation lawsuit actually is. If it was big, they wouldn't have framed the story as they have.
So, yeah, what you said is possible. I hope it happened like that (as I said on page 1), but I just doubt it. Chances, based on the above process they'd have gone through is they have more, not less, evidence....
That's why we're doing the right thing investigating properly first and getting access to the full footage. |
Well, we'll see. The Telegraph could argue the whole thing was hypothetical and he showed he was potentially open to a conflict of interests. That he then later backed out wouldn't necessarily need to be part of their story, because they haven't said he's taken a bung or that he's bent, just that if he followed through on this then there would be a conflict of interests. We already know he didn't follow through with it, the Telegraph would simply argue he entertained it, which he did.
As I said, would like to see the whole chat. | |
| |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:40 - Sep 29 with 2435 views | Northernr |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:36 - Sep 29 by PinnerPaul |
The key is "legal" and "immediately" never go together, so any action taken by JFH/and/or the club would take months to actually get to court. |
I know mate. | | | |
| Hasselbaink in the Telegraph on 14:49 - Sep 29 with 3790 views | eastside_r |
Not sure if this has been posted already, but why did the Telegraph go after JFH, who most would concede is not an obvious candidate?
A) Did they just go after a load of managers on a fishing exercise and see which of them ‘bit’.
B) Or did they suspect he was ‘dodgy’ but did not have any evidence that they could publish and so went about setting this trap.
I think either are possibilities.
However I suspect that in the next few days both parties will ‘mutually agree’ to part ‘in the best interests of the football club’.
Especially if we get gubbed at Fulham (again!) |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
