JFH named

[Kevin Mcleod]

The journo Mark Hughes whos running it, and the actual paper aint made one tweet since blowing up JFH , Barnsley bloke and the Leeds owner last night.

[James1979]

Police investigating the Telegraph

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/poli...legraph-sting?

Telegraph allegations not the telegraph. Based on that article anyway. Or which part are they saying they are investigating the telegraph?

[nasser95]

Conspiracy to obtain money through deception could be one. Avoiding tax could be another. Showing desire and possible intent to obtain players through a third party consortium which in England is banned.

Through deception? Don't see where that is... Avoiding tax isn't illegal but more immoral and to be honest, he says that if he's working in the UK it's one thing and he'd pay the taxes here but working abroad he'd rather take it in Holland. Morality comes into question with that, not legality. He showed no desire to sign players until they pushed the idea on him, at least that's what the video shows. And he didn't offer to just sign a player they wanted him to have, but rather he said that if the player is good, they'd take a look at him. Again, the sting operation was done in a way to make him look as bad as possible and it worked, but you have to look at both sides of it. Not defending him, but he did explain that there is a clause in his contract allowing him to do this on his off days.

[Kevin Mcleod]

Oh here we go. The Telegraph are loving this.

Just tweeted this after all day silence.


Tonight the Telegraph will name an individual at a Premier League club as part of its #football4sale investigation


Erik Blak. Boring. Wanted Hughes. Ha.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

Through deception? Don't see where that is... Avoiding tax isn't illegal but more immoral and to be honest, he says that if he's working in the UK it's one thing and he'd pay the taxes here but working abroad he'd rather take it in Holland. Morality comes into question with that, not legality. He showed no desire to sign players until they pushed the idea on him, at least that's what the video shows. And he didn't offer to just sign a player they wanted him to have, but rather he said that if the player is good, they'd take a look at him. Again, the sting operation was done in a way to make him look as bad as possible and it worked, but you have to look at both sides of it. Not defending him, but he did explain that there is a clause in his contract allowing him to do this on his off days.

Agree.

[West Acton]

Oh here we go. The Telegraph are loving this.

Just tweeted this after all day silence.


Tonight the Telegraph will name an individual at a Premier League club as part of its #football4sale investigation


Erik Blak. Boring. Wanted Hughes. Ha.

Eric black

Big Sam aside do they have anything of note

[qprjeff1882]

Through deception? Don't see where that is... Avoiding tax isn't illegal but more immoral and to be honest, he says that if he's working in the UK it's one thing and he'd pay the taxes here but working abroad he'd rather take it in Holland. Morality comes into question with that, not legality. He showed no desire to sign players until they pushed the idea on him, at least that's what the video shows. And he didn't offer to just sign a player they wanted him to have, but rather he said that if the player is good, they'd take a look at him. Again, the sting operation was done in a way to make him look as bad as possible and it worked, but you have to look at both sides of it. Not defending him, but he did explain that there is a clause in his contract allowing him to do this on his off days.

What he was intending to do in the long run is illegal. He and everyone knows that the £55k for going to talk in Singapore was not to tell them about his career and moments in football. It was all geared to the possible tranfers of players owned by a third party of which in England is illegal. It is also the club who deal with agents and their fee's and paying managers money as part of deals as this is what it would have eventually amounted to is also illegal in England.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

Jeff you may be right but none of that can be proved.

You can't sack someone for what you think might have happened.

[qprjeff1882]

Depends on what the full video and transcript says. Could be that there is insufficient evidence to to find him guilty but the intent was clearly there and that breaks trust. If he stays then results will have to dramatically change in the coming weeks for the fans not to force the boards hand

[Kevin Mcleod]

Depends on what the full video and transcript says. Could be that there is insufficient evidence to to find him guilty but the intent was clearly there and that breaks trust. If he stays then results will have to dramatically change in the coming weeks for the fans not to force the boards hand

If they had anymore they would of shown it. What we have seen is the only incriminating bits they have. Deffo imo,

[nasser95]

Jeff you may be right but none of that can be proved.

You can't sack someone for what you think might have happened.

this is the point. We can't make any assumptions on motives and that's where I'm trying to keep balanced. From a legal standpoint, without the full unedited footage, we can't call anything.

[West Acton]

Depends on what the full video and transcript says. Could be that there is insufficient evidence to to find him guilty but the intent was clearly there and that breaks trust. If he stays then results will have to dramatically change in the coming weeks for the fans not to force the boards hand

But in case like this how do you prove intent

[qprjeff1882]

Could it be that the telegraph have started with the big bombshell in Big Sam then a few smaller names to make everyone think they have only got small fry only to have bigger names later this week and next. certainly making those involved sweat it out.

[qprjeff1882]

But in case like this how do you prove intent

I don't know i'm not a lawyer. But you can bet the clubs lawyers will be looking at it

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

If QPR have asked for the footage and the DT refuse, JFH is in the clear.

They would of suspended / sacked him off of the initial video info by now.

If the DT don't want to hand the full tape over (for fear of being sued as the case is weak) QPR have nothing more to go on & will have to drop it. No case to answer for JFH.

That's how I see it playing out.