Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

NorCalBlue said:
Obviously because they "do things the right way"
Click to expand...
So it was more bullshit from journalists, to stop City fans reacting to the way they are covering this then?

"Oh but wait, before you discredit Der Spiegel, there's some juicy United stuff coming.... *That should shut a few up, for a while. Haha* "
 
Last edited:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-utd-transfer-news-today-16337669

From the overall fee paid for Pogba, a small solidarity payment went to Pogba's youth club Le Havre and agent Raiola's cut was £23m. United paid Juventus the full £89m transfer fee and the Serie A champions distributed it. Football Leaks: The Dirty Business of Football then claimed Raiola received five additional instalments of £16.39m.
Click to expand...

Is this common knowledge, don't remember reading he cost United £190M
 
An interesting, (WARNING!)...but long read, about Rui Pinto (aka "John") in the New Yorker. We come in for only a brief mention...some very interesting stuff on Benfica and the Ronaldo alleged rape case. His background, possible motivations etc are all laid bare. Should be very interesting to see how it all pans out in the courts...will he be treated as a whistleblower or do time for alleged extortion etc.....loved the bit about the allegedly corrupt 8 refs ( "The Priests" )in Portugal who "looked after" Benfica.

https://www.newyorker.com/.../how-football-leaks-is-exposing-corruption-in-european-s...
 
Bell_Boy said:
An interesting, (WARNING!)...but long read, about Rui Pinto (aka "John") in the New Yorker. We come in for only a brief mention...some very interesting stuff on Benfica and the Ronaldo alleged rape case. His background, possible motivations etc are all laid bare. Should be very interesting to see how it all pans out in the courts...will he be treated as a whistleblower or do time for alleged extortion etc.....loved the bit about the allegedly corrupt 8 refs ( "The Priests" )in Portugal who "looked after" Benfica.

https://www.newyorker.com/.../how-football-leaks-is-exposing-corruption-in-european-s...
Click to expand...

It IS very interesting. However, I'd say two things.

Firstly, I think you have to at least consider the prospect that Rui Pinto was involved in this at the behest of someone else with an agenda. The idea of him being a lone wolf motivated by a desire to expose wrongdoing in football is romantic. However, there are aspects of the story that make me think his claims should be subjected tio at least some questioning and scrutiny.

Secondly, the author takes Der Spiegel at face value and refers to our club's "likely" wrongdoing. That tone is reflected in subsequent mentions in the text. In my opinion (and I have a professional background that makes me better able to judge than a journalist), the selectively presented information simply isn't sufficiemnt to judge. We COULD be guilty, of course. Nothing they printed is inconsistent with that possibility. But nor is it inconsistent with the possibility that we found ways to pursue our operations to the best effect within the letter of the regulations even if not everyone would consider that we were within the spirit of them, just as countless legitimate and reputable businesses do across the globe every day.
 
Bell_Boy said:
An interesting, (WARNING!)...but long read, about Rui Pinto (aka "John") in the New Yorker. We come in for only a brief mention...some very interesting stuff on Benfica and the Ronaldo alleged rape case. His background, possible motivations etc are all laid bare. Should be very interesting to see how it all pans out in the courts...will he be treated as a whistleblower or do time for alleged extortion etc.....loved the bit about the allegedly corrupt 8 refs ( "The Priests" )in Portugal who "looked after" Benfica.

https://www.newyorker.com/.../how-football-leaks-is-exposing-corruption-in-european-s...
Click to expand...
What a great article. The sort of journalism the media here is incapable of producing. The English press has consistently been behind the US media on all these corruption stories. It is amazing how little of this has seen any coverage over here. What strikes me most though is, given that Der Spiegel has 70 million documents ( which dwarfs any other cyber leak in history), why did they decide to home in on City and PSG for what seem like minor infractions compared to the truly sensational stuff they have on other clubs. I mean the Benfica stuff really is like something out of the Sopranos. What is in the other 69,900,000 million documents? I don't remember the Raiola stuff getting much coverage here. It's incredible that he apparently got £49 million from the Pogba deal.
It looks like they have got Pinto bang to rights for extortion and fraud but what else will come out in court which will damage a lot of powerful people (especially in Portugal)?
 
petrusha said:
It IS very interesting. However, I'd say two things.

Firstly, I think you have to at least consider the prospect that Rui Pinto was involved in this at the behest of someone else with an agenda. The idea of him being a lone wolf motivated by a desire to expose wrongdoing in football is romantic. However, there are aspects of the story that make me think his claims should be subjected tio at least some questioning and scrutiny.

Secondly, the author takes Der Spiegel at face value and refers to our club's "likely" wrongdoing. That tone is reflected in subsequent mentions in the text. In my opinion (and I have a professional background that makes me better able to judge than a journalist), the selectively presented information simply isn't sufficiemnt to judge. We COULD be guilty, of course. Nothing they printed is inconsistent with that possibility. But nor is it inconsistent with the possibility that we found ways to pursue our operations to the best effect within the letter of the regulations even if not everyone would consider that we were within the spirit of them, just as countless legitimate and reputable businesses do across the globe every day.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this, but if you don't mind me saying so (and even though it's one I use myself) the phrase 'spirit of the regulations' really annoys me.

Regulations don't have a spirit. They have words, and words have meaning. So, when a new regulation comes into force either the words used within the regulation prohibit a particular activity or they don't. If they don't, it is not the duty of anyone bound by the regulations to say 'oh well what they actually meant to stop us from doing was X so we'd better not do that anyway.' Regulations are regulations - nothing more, nothing less. They are certainly not guidelines, advice on best practice or some sort of code of conduct. If you are in breach of a regulation, sanctions apply. If you aren't in breach of a regulation, the fact that the regulations aren't fit for purpose doesn't mean you can still be sanctioned nonetheless.

What is meant by people using the phrase 'not within the spirit of the regulations' is usually nothing more than an activity that isn't precluded by regulations but would have been if the lawmakers had thought of it. But if the regulations don't stop you from doing something that if the lawmakers would have prevented if they'd thought of it, the lawmakers have nobody but themselves to blame for not drafting their own regulations properly. It is of course entirely open to the lawmaker to change the regulation where they see people are taking advantage of what the regulations don't say, but as you say that happens all the time, as in the context of say tax laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.