BBC Resorts To Sensationalist Journalism Yet Again?

There was a lot of hype over the ‘Undercover: Football’s Dirty Secrets’ exposé which was shown last night, where it was implied that several Premiership managers including Sam Allardyce wouldn’t be adverse to taking what is known as a ‘bung’ from players agents to sanction a successful move of a player to Bolton Wanderers.

Now it would be easy to ‘read in between the lines’ and jump on the bandwagon (especially as I’m not exactly a fan of the Walrus) but what I personally saw last night was something that did not show any actual proof of managers receiving bungs or illegal payments, but essentially a few agents boasting about giving managers, scouts and other people some favours like staying in a hotel for a few weeks!

Groundbreaking stuff!

But I suppose all the speculation and hype drummed up by the BBC was an attempt to boost the ratings of a show that needed viewers.

After watching the hour-long programme, I felt conned that I had wasted an hour of my time which could have been spent in the pub. A lot of hearsay and conjecture from agents – who everyone knows aren’t exactly the most trustworthy people in the world!

And why were other clubs and managers ‘blanked out’ of the show?

Is it because the agents were talking utter b*llocks and they would get sued if they even suggested these other teams and managers accepted bungs?

According to the documentary throughout the programme agents had named between 16/18 managers that would accept bungs. Without actually naming them it’s just pure speculation!

It seemed from the outset that the BBC had some sort of hidden agenda with Sam Allardyce they way they were specifically going after him!

And it was very hard to believe that the undercover reported ‘Knut’ was actually on the verge of giving a manager a £50,000 bung only for Mike Newell to go to the press and ruin there chances of completing the deal.

What a huge co-incidence!

But after the Newsnight programme ‘exposing Arsenal’s links with Beveren’ what are we to expect from the BBC these days?

Now I don’t doubt that there is probably some sort of corruption in the game – there have been high-profile incidents in Italy and Germany so why not in England? But I also doubt last night’s show was anything more than poor journalism.

Harry Redknapp who was shown on the programme has said that he has given his last interview to the BBC and he is also considering legal advice, as is Sam Allardyce. Which is only to be expected really…


18 thoughts on “BBC Resorts To Sensationalist Journalism Yet Again?

  1. While i have no doubt there are dodgy dealing goin on behind the scenes this program didnt produce 1 piece of hard evidence. All they showed was how money hungry agents really are.

  2. I agree that there wasnt too much in that programme but the ones who do have something to answer are Phil Gartside & Fat Sam (both Bolton) & Arnesen (chelski). Gartside & the Walrus have both been happy to to have digs at arsenal & DD in particular basically labelling him corrupt. Fat Sams son was only too happy to spill his guts & you cannot tell me his dad didnt know what was going on especially as most of it was through Bolton. I believe Fat Sam didnt get the england job because of this & nothing to do with DD.

  3. Agree 100%. All hearsay and suggestion- nothing concrete. The BBCs goal is not quality but viewers. e.g. all Harry Rednapp said about Andy Todd was that he WOULD take him- the conditional tense- the condition could be that the clubs agree a fee- nothing wrong with that. As for the world cup junket- well thats the way business is done in all walks of life. This program was as shoddy as the Arsenal- Beveren rubbish- pure innuendo.

  4. you should have had a jiz during it to avoid the wasting of time…

    i did and i finished all over the screen when i saw arnesen – partly because of the possible 3 pt deduction but also because the Dane is quite handsome.

  5. The only thing I found out from watching the programme is that some football agents are money-hungry, dishonest and would say anything to get some money – even the agent Peter u-turned about actually giving managers bungs and said it would be better to sweeten the deal by putting them up in a luxury appartment for a couple of weeks! Hardly an illegal payment or ‘bung’.

    I’m not even sure why the Harry Redknapp clip was even shown! As someone has said already he said he’d take Todd if he was available. It’s not exactly if Redknapp secretly met with anyone and orchestrated a deal! I think the only real reason it was shown because Harry swore!

    Pathetic – I can’t believe we pay our TV license for this tripe. Maybe the BBC should do an expose on where our TV license money goes!!

  6. It was the same with some jumped up cow, also from the BBC (British Bullshit Corporation) accused Arsenal of doing illegal moves with Breven, a few months ago, and what came of that? NOTHING!!

    Although, I do think big fat Sam has some explaining to do, ol’ twitchy Harry Reddknap, has nothing to answer for me! He only admitted liking the player!

  7. I know the BBC programme was centered around bungs but did they actually show any manager taking one?? Nope!

    Feel sorry for the Knut guy though – don’t think he’ll be getting a job in football any time soon!

  8. Well that’s an hour of my life that i won’t get back again.

    Sucked in by the hype on BBC radio all day, i watched the so-called expose of bungs in football. What i actually saw was a few idiots trying to make themselves look important. Poor undercover journalism cobbled together into a weak programme. I hope the FA investigation goes further into uncovering the truth. Unfortunately, this pile of tripe has probably ruined any chance of that.

    Disgraceful BBC!

  9. From the moment I heard the BBC was planning another “expose” i thought it should be taken with a pinch of salt. The BBC is a corporation I’ve trusted over the years, until the Newsnight Beveren article that is.

    We all know what happened there and after all was said and done (and we were completely exonorated of any wrongdoing) I decided to complain to the BBC about what had been reported.

    I received what can only be described as a piss-poor response from the BBC. I was tempted to post the response on here, but I didn’t want to bore people. Needless to say it didn’t apologise and just detailed pretty much exactly what I had said in my complaint (but worded differently) describing that Arsenal hadn’t actually done anything wrong.

    The BBC seem to need to compete with other corporations with their sensationalist articles and now I read/watch content from them with a healthy dose of sceptcism

  10. I wasn’t conned into watching this – saw it as another speculative piece of rubbish from the BBC yet again who are becoming a very shoddy operation these days. Glad I went to bed early.

  11. Why do you love Sky’s coverage so much ? Didnt you think ‘Grand Slam Sunday’ was slightly retarded, as is Jim White, Richard Keys and ultimately Rupert Murdoch.

  12. Who loves Sky’s coverage? I can’t stand that annoying bastard Richard Keys!

    Anyway, the fact is the BBC promised but didn’t deliver – all they’re doing with the ‘Football Bungs’ and Arsenal/Beveren programmes is trying to get all the football fans (of which there are many) to boost their ratings.

    The Beeb don’t give a shit if the show was crap – they wanted high viewing figures and they got it!

  13. To be fair to the BBC unless they had got an agent to reveal all as a whistleblower they were never going to get the hard evidence they needed. I understand they had to drop a number of other allegations against other managers after lawyers reviewed the program.

    The sad thing is the money leaking out of the game into these parasites pockets is ultimately ours.

  14. That’s not a proof of a ‘bung’. I thing the BBC’s got something against Sam.
    Players agent always try or force always their way to seduce clubs managers with any kind of approach. I don’t think managers ask money before taking any player. But I guess agents may paye a bung to a club manager after a successful player transfer for ‘thanking’ him as the result. I don’t think these type of dealing that the goal is only for the agent to sell as many players as he can is anything to do with corruption as it happened recently in Italy, with referees changing football results.

  15. The one piece of hard evidence they COULD have had would have been when they were about to make a payment to a manager but Newel went public and apparently messed up the deal, how convenient! This was never going to happen anyway, it was all set up by another agent trying to look important in order to get a job with a wealthy businessman that didn’t exist. I suppose Bolton, with ‘illegal payments’ to Craig Allardyce, and Chelsea, with the ‘tapping up’, may have something to answer for but where is the proof. I think this investigation was based around Sam Allardyce as they thought he might get the Englad job, and if they exposed the England manager as corrupt, the story would sell well. What a waste of time.

  16. I actually think Allardyce and Arnesen have something to answer for. But I think the upshot will be it’s all forgotten and ignored. Agree about Redknapp though, he said he liked a player, so what? Particularly because Fat Boy and Gartside have been so self righteous about Dein. Slimey cunts.

  17. While I don’t condone massive “bungs” to Agents, most of whom are slimy characters anyway in my opinion, I do think that the BBC Programme was an attempt to sensasionalise the whole issue, whilst not coming up with any concrere evidence.

    Do the BBC not realise that this thing has gone on for years in many other industries.

    How many sales reps hand out bottles of wine and boxes of chocolates to thier clients at Christmas and wine and dine clients in an attempt to ‘seal the deal’

    I agree that a £10 bottle of wine or a £100 meal is not quite the same as a £50,000 bung, but it goes on almost everywhere. How many Knigthoods and Peerages have been awarded to wealthy people who “bung” money into political parties and how many instances have there been for politicians to ask questions in the House of Parliament for cash!! Remember CASH for QUESTIONS!!

    The one BIG niggle I have, is that why should the Agent be paid by the Club?? Surely the Agent is acting on behalf of the Player!! and the Agent’s fee should be paid for by the Player!! If the Player wanted to “bung” the Agent a bit extra, then it should come out of the Player’s pocket and not from the Club, who are currently forced into paying an Agent’s fee!!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.