Wednesday at Stoke
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 22,241
- Supports
- Time Travel
This picture of Scholes from that article, good for a photoshop thread.
Either that or,
"How much long do you think we can feck with Sky and the BBC?"
"They had a guy outside my house the last few days, useless tossers...."
Like some guy said in this thread. They're sat in a room asking each other how long do we need to wait before signing him so it doesn't look like this was all agreed months ago.
I did, 15 minutes ago.
in your face, you incorrigible little rascal.No JoMo then
in your face, you incorrigible little rascal.
You don't believe me? I have the example of Bob Lamonte who represents GMs, Head coaches, coaches and coordinators, in theory it's the same type of conflict of interest.
But most importantly why do you ask that for Mourinho and not for the other managers or maybe you think that all the managers should ditch their agents?
United fans waiting for Mourinho
The example you have picked to represent agent conflicts of interest being "accepted in all sports" is an agent who is criticised for the exact same conflict of interest that I am talking about when he has represented management and players (google bob lamonte conflict of interest). Even putting that rather telling fact to one side, Lamonte mainly represents management figures, so it is not a good comparison with the situation I described: a manager with responsibility for spending club funds on players who are represented by the same agent.
With regards to your second and most important point...this thread is not about 'all managers', it's about Mourinho, hence why I only mentioned Mourinho's situation. Despite that, I've already replied to your earlier tangential post about SAF / Duncan Ferguson, criticising that situation - from that post, please conclude that my comments are generalisable across all managers/agents with conflicts of interest.
Is this latest nonsensical point using bizarre acronyms more or less important than your earlier, blown away, most important point?It's not widely non accepted though but if you want the exact same type of situation you have CAA or SFX, most people don't complain about it because there is no problem with it.
This picture of Scholes from that article, good for a photoshop thread.
Is this latest nonsensical point using bizarre acronyms more or less important than your earlier, blown away, most important point?
This picture of Scholes from that article, good for a photoshop thread.
What is it with the title, Ducker: Deal is done? It's nowhere...
Random agency names are not a convincing argument. Not that I'm even sure what your argument is, and I'm not sure you are either.Oh sorry, it's the name of agencies who have both players and managers in other sports than football. You pointed out that the comparison wasn't good which is fair, so I gave you other agencies.
Random agency names are not a convincing argument. Not that I'm even sure what your argument is, and I'm not sure you are either.
That would not be accepted as a business practice in any field other than football.
Right? Sky looking silly yet again.Wow, breaking... It's the same rehashed tweet for a week.
You said that
I answered that it was accepted in all the sports which is true, CAA have players and coaches in football, NFL and NBA while SFX have head coaches and players in Rugby league. I'll end it there.
I'm shocked that you doubt reliable sources like Mandy Itten and Jasmine Jackson.It does feel like a media-wide guessing game
What's this place like for NSFW posts?
Honestly, has he ever been in the loop on anything United related? Everything I read about him sounds like he's making it up as he goes along.