JohnMc 2,463 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Now, I'm not naive, I know stuff goes on in football and it always has. Agents and players and managers and coaches make money through various ways, sometimes not in an orthodox way. Favouring a certain agent could be done for a lot of reasons, that on its own doesn't mean corruption, however lying in court is something I'm very uncomfortable with. "Perhaps worse than the apparent breaches of regulations, certainly more depressing for lovers of our national game, were Waksman’s findings about the lying and dishonesty of these football men. Of Lee and McParland’s story about discussing McCann with SEM in a Liverpool restaurant in May 2007, Waksman summarised in his ruling on legal costs: “The events attested to by the Bolton witnesses concerning these meetings simply did not happen. True, I did not use the word ‘dishonesty’ [in his original judgment], but plainly if their evidence on the facts on this issue was false they must have known it to be so.” The full article is here - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/nov/08/sammy-lee-sam-allardyce-fa-england-double-standards None connected come out of this well, only McParland now works for us though so he's the only one I care about. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Maybe I read it too quickly, but doesn't the article say that McParland wasn't involved? His Honour Judge Waksman QC found that in June 2007, when Bolton Wanderers, then managed by Sammy Lee, signed the midfielder Gavin McCann from Aston Villa, the agents, Jerome Anderson’s SEM, poached McCann from an oral agreement with McGill. Multiple breaches of the FA’s rules were apparently committed and several witnesses, including Lee, lied in court. Lee’s evidence, claiming that he and the Bolton general manager, Frank McParland, had met SEM to discuss McCann in a Liverpool restaurant, seeking to show that SEM had been involved longer than was truthfully the case, was dismissed as “unreliable” and “false”. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,463 Posted November 12, 2016 Author Share Posted November 12, 2016 No, it doesn't say that DB it says the opposite. It says, pretty clearly I think, that McParland lied to the court. It's a corcern not just because it does cast a big shadow over his character but also because it show's the influence some agents clearly hold over him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) No, it doesn't say that DB it says the opposite. It says, pretty clearly I think, that McParland lied to the court. It's a corcern not just because it does cast a big shadow over his character but also because it show's the influence some agents clearly hold over him. It doesn't mention him giving any evidence at all in that article , it slaughters Lee,s version where he states he was in a meeting in Liverpool with McParland but there are no quotes referencing anything McParland gave as evidence Edited November 12, 2016 by rbr 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,463 Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 It doesn't mention him giving any evidence at all in that article , it slaughters Lee,s version where he states he was in a meeting in Liverpool with McParland but there are no quotes referencing anything McParland gave as evidence Well if you're not convinced guys try Google... First hit is this... "In a later ruling on legal costs Waksman recorded that Lee’s and McParland’s evidence about the meetings was “unreliable” and “false”, saying: “The events attested to by the Bolton witnesses concerning these meetings simply did not happen. True, I did not use the word ‘dishonesty’ [in his first judgment] but plainly, if their evidence on the facts on this issue was false, they must have known it to be so.” You know, there are times when we should circle the wagons, close ranks and protect our own, but there are also times when we should face facts and ask questions. If we've still not learned that after the last few years then we clearly are our own worst enemies. Bottom line the Rangers 'Head Of Recruitmet' lied to a court to protect an agent who stood to make a lot of money from a transfer he endorsed. That should trouble us more than it seems to be currently in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Football men in greed and lies shocker, I don't really know where your going or what your wanting , the entire game is corrupt , why are you surprised or shocked , it's all about the money 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,463 Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 I'm not shocked. I'm a little surprised that Db, and then you rbr, tried to suggest that McParland hadn't done anything wrong. I'd hoped that as supporters we'd be a little more open to the truth now. Where I'm going with this is posting it on the best Rangers supporters forum because I couldn't see it on it. What I wanted was to bring it to the attention of the posters on Gersnet. I didn't expect the first reply to be 'nothing to see here move along' in a German accent. Maybe you think lying in court is acceptable behaviour for a senior Rangers employee? If it was up to me I'd fire him for this. Added to that our recruitment since he joined has been woeful, combined with his clear dishonesty I'd say he should be removed from his position instantly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Well, at least you have finally got to the point of your OP.Folks were wondering where you were going. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 I'm not shocked. I'm a little surprised that Db, and then you rbr, tried to suggest that McParland hadn't done anything wrong. ... You obviously misread our respective replies. From your first post, it was not clear that McParland was actually part of these lies etc., as the quote refers only to Lee, see post 2. If there is more evidence than that, opinions will consequently change. It is interesting to note that the Guardian article have either Lee as well as Lee & McParland as people giving "false" evidence. I don't think there is need to comment on the rest of your reply above. And while I'm at it, I posted my initial reply as a question. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 I'm not shocked. I'm a little surprised that Db, and then you rbr, tried to suggest that McParland hadn't done anything wrong. I'd hoped that as supporters we'd be a little more open to the truth now. Where I'm going with this is posting it on the best Rangers supporters forum because I couldn't see it on it. What I wanted was to bring it to the attention of the posters on Gersnet. I didn't expect the first reply to be 'nothing to see here move along' in a German accent. Maybe you think lying in court is acceptable behaviour for a senior Rangers employee? If it was up to me I'd fire him for this. Added to that our recruitment since he joined has been woeful, combined with his clear dishonesty I'd say he should be removed from his position instantly. I think it is better to keep 'morals' and 'performance' apart, tbh, if you are proposing dismissal for unethical behaviour. If you think he should be sacked for his behaviour in the case quoted, then it shouldn't really matter how he is performing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.