vlad666 203 Posted July 5, 2019 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7214509/Middlesbroughs-new-bombshell-accusations-Garry-Monk.html This seems very suspect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
splendidrush 700 Posted July 5, 2019 Wow, this could run and run, Monk has been around, it could get messy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobLoz3 492 Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) They do look like a couple of little, money grubbing weasels... Sh*t eating grins for sure... Edited July 5, 2019 by BobLoz3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777 Posted July 5, 2019 So maybe Birmingham were well within their rights to dismiss him if he was up to those tricks again.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted July 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: So maybe Birmingham were well within their rights to dismiss him if he was up to those tricks again.... Yes, apparently they didn’t want anything to do with the agent as well which monk opposed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,578 Posted July 5, 2019 Wow. Birmingham really need to up their due diligence when it comes to appointing managers- first they get fleeced by Redknapp now Monk may be dodgy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted July 5, 2019 To be honest, it doesn’t seem that unusual. There are so many managers that have run transfer strategies based on players that their agent represents. Mark Hughes in particular springs to mind. Another thing, of the already long list, to add to the benefits of having a Sporting Director. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted July 5, 2019 16 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said: To be honest, it doesn’t seem that unusual. There are so many managers that have run transfer strategies based on players that their agent represents. Mark Hughes in particular springs to mind. Another thing, of the already long list, to add to the benefits of having a Sporting Director. I think the point they’re trying to make is monk was paying over the odds for transfers knowing his agent/friend would get more money out of the deal. One example is monk being quoted a 3 million pound fee for fletcher then paying 6.5 million for him. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobLoz3 492 Posted July 5, 2019 17 minutes ago, vlad666 said: I think the point they’re trying to make is monk was paying over the odds for transfers knowing his agent/friend would get more money out of the deal. One example is monk being quoted a 3 million pound fee for fletcher then paying 6.5 million for him. That is exactly the point they're trying to make, as far as I read it. Fletcher for 6.5 million??! Do me a favour! It's a very crooked approach, however you want to dress it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Apples 1,317 Posted July 5, 2019 If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣 Apples Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobLoz3 492 Posted July 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Mr Apples said: If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣 Apples A LOT of people thought he would be a good appointment, yes. As for actually having conversations with him? Don't know that we did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted July 5, 2019 Not sure how paying a larger fee would get a player’s agent more money. They’d only be paid more if they were acting as the agent for the selling club... Usually agents are trying to push player fees down so they can push the signing on fee and wages higher. I’d also imagine West Ham would raise concerns, it is in all clubs interests that agents aren’t skimming money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,578 Posted July 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Mr Apples said: If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣 Apples To be fair, before this came to light why wouldn't we have been interested? He has generally had a very good record at this level. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted July 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said: Not sure how paying a larger fee would get a player’s agent more money. They’d only be paid more if they were acting as the agent for the selling club... Usually agents are trying to push player fees down so they can push the signing on fee and wages higher. I’d also imagine West Ham would raise concerns, it is in all clubs interests that agents aren’t skimming money. The agent was going to the clubs and at one point also a family member of the players monk would then target. The agent offered his services for 10% of the transfer fee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobLoz3 492 Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, vlad666 said: The agent was going to the clubs and at one point also a family member of the players monk would then target. The agent offered his services for 10% of the transfer fee. This- although I believe it was 5%. For example, he (Featherstone) was said to make £100,000 from the deal that saw Christie going to Boro. The player was valuated at £1.75 million, but he convinced Boro to pay more and they bought him for £2.25 million Edited July 5, 2019 by BobLoz3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777 Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said: Not sure how paying a larger fee would get a player’s agent more money. They’d only be paid more if they were acting as the agent for the selling club... And he was. The article says that the agent had an agreement with Derby that he'd get 5% of the transfer fee for Christie. The agent and Monk then persuaded Middlesbrough to pay a higher price for Christie, which means Derby and the agent got more money. It sounds like they then did a similar thing for other players, or signed players the club didn't need because the agent was getting a good cut. Middlesbrough and Birmingham clearly didn't like this because there's a conflict of interest and Monk was favouring his agent over the club he was working for by getting them to overspend on players or sign players he didn't really want because it meant his agent made some good money out of the deal. Edited July 5, 2019 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icecream Snow 761 Posted July 5, 2019 41 minutes ago, Mr Apples said: If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣 Apples I believe when we appointed Farke, there was a two man shortlist and Monk was the other name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
splendidrush 700 Posted July 5, 2019 He used to Manage Leeds, unlike them to be involved in anything controversial. 😎 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted July 5, 2019 Just shows how almost seedy football has become since the advent of agents. I have never understood why the PFA doesn't act for the players in deals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted July 5, 2019 4 hours ago, Icecream Snow said: I believe when we appointed Farke, there was a two man shortlist and Monk was the other name. That would surprise me. Given the kind of football management model we were setting up and the type of experience we wanted from whoever the head coach was going to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icecream Snow 761 Posted July 5, 2019 1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said: That would surprise me. Given the kind of football management model we were setting up and the type of experience we wanted from whoever the head coach was going to be. I think whilst Farke was always the preferred candidate, Webber wanted to offer the board a UK option as well. Apparently when Wagner was appointed Huddersfield boss, Webber's back up candidate was Dean Smith (now Villa boss) All of this comes via the Pinkun, who seem to have got it from an off the record chat with Webber. So whilst they never cited him directly, they're usually very good at labeling unsubstantiated stories as such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites