tampering

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by Tahu, Feb 17, 2008.

  1. Exit16W

    Exit16W New Member

    Aug 27, 2005
    Reston VA
    Where is the evidence? I keep on hearing this but no one seems to be able to produce anything other then hearsay. I have no problem with fining RBNY if they are guilty but no one has anything to prove they have done anything.
     
  2. Peter Wilt

    Peter Wilt Member

    Jun 11, 1999
    Whitefish Bay, WI
    Marquee players went away years ago (with the cba maybe?)...in any regard, they had to be max salary players and the Competition Committee had to approve as you stated above.

    Wilman Conde is very good, but would not have been classified as a Marquee Player.
     
  3. Onionsack

    Onionsack BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 21, 2003
    New York City
    Club:
    FC Girondins de Bordeaux
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You were quite clearly indicating that NY had tampered with Conde in your blog and even went as far to say that NY should be punished...if they could prove it.

    While everyone is entitled to an opinion, i think you know full well the pedestal Fire fans hold you on, and your comments are going to carry a lot of weight with them. So lets not pretend you weren't stoking the flames by suggesting tampering on your public soundboard.

    It's pretty easy to take the high road when you are not the one being accused. I am sure you never recived calls from players or their agents while they were under contract with another team in the world about interest in joining Chicago.

    Unless you are going to offer some proof that NY initiated talks with Conde and devised this plan to go public, then all we really have here is a player that months ago asked to be traded and made his intentions known to his club prior to any speculation of talks between NY and Conde. Which is not tampering.

    Also, i would bet the farm you paraphrased substantialy this alleged conversation with Mark. But it is nice that you were sure to claim he obviously discussed the job with Osorio before he asked Chicago for permission to talk to NY.

    Sorry Pete, i am not buying your story. You may be able to snowball Fire fans but it won't work on me.

    Either offer some evidence there were dealings behind Chicago's back or just shut it. Because all your doing is speculating, and if thats what your doing then you need to announce it as such because some fools here will construe it that you are directly accusing NY of it.
     
  4. Tahu

    Tahu Member

    Apr 13, 2001
    Chicago-North Suburb
    So obviously OS, you are not an attorney. Becuase your attempts at insulting and baiting someone who has given more to soccer in the US than you or I is quite silly.
     
  5. Onionsack

    Onionsack BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 21, 2003
    New York City
    Club:
    FC Girondins de Bordeaux
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What is the People's Court?

    You gonna smack with you gavel Judge Wapner?

    Who's insulting who? The man made a public comment about my club that they "apparently" engaged in illegal tapping up for a player. He has no evidence, no factual support, nothing. Its no different than if some other Fire fan said the same thing.

    He throws allegation around to the effect that he told NY not to tamper with Osorio but the obviously did anyway. Again with no evidence other than some hearsay. But i am the insulting one baiting poor Mr.Wilt?


    I think you just can't believe somebady is actually challenging him and your offended.
     
  6. Tahu

    Tahu Member

    Apr 13, 2001
    Chicago-North Suburb
    "my club" ? Do you own any stock?

    lighten up francis.....its not good for your heart to get this upset.

    Once again, the purpose of the thread was to ask the question, not to provide an answer. It is only up to MLS and the current team officials to provide facts and make a decision. Mr. Wilt used to be in that position. I have not.

    You can disagree and still show respect of an expert. You just sound like you are getting all worked up over trying to prove something on a board. you just look more like a dolt when you ramble on.


    I also notice you did not respond to my second definition of tampering - the one from Princeton.
     
  7. wolfp10

    wolfp10 Member

    Sep 25, 2005
    Why bother asking a question if you aren't looking for an answer?
     
  8. Tahu

    Tahu Member

    Apr 13, 2001
    Chicago-North Suburb
    some questions can not be answered, but just need to be discussed.
     
  9. Peter Wilt

    Peter Wilt Member

    Jun 11, 1999
    Whitefish Bay, WI
    Agreed. Like the Clemens case, it is unlikely that there will be legal proof of tampering, but the circumstances certainly indicate that there was. That is why i said "apparent". The conversation with Marc was pretty straight forward. It was after the Fire iitially said no and before they finally said yes. He asked me my opinion of hiring JCO in NY and i told him i think he's a very good coach, but i didn't support taking coaches who are under contract to other teams.
     
  10. Onionsack

    Onionsack BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 21, 2003
    New York City
    Club:
    FC Girondins de Bordeaux
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes i do own stock as a matter of fact.


    The funny thing is i am not really upset at all.

    Good, then we agree only those with "facts" should be making the judgments here, and as someone as you say that was "in that position" i think Mr. Wilt should know better than to make claims he can't back up.

    All i agree to is that the based on the evidence offered so far there is clearly no tampering that can be charged.

    So when others start insinuating that tampering is "apparent" or tampering obviously occured, then i think they need to be taken to task for it, whether its Johnny, you or even Wilt.


    Relevance? Tampering would have to be defined in this instance by the accpeted meaning in the trade or practice, not by some random Webster wanna-be on Wiki or some general term definitions put out by Princeton.

    Regardless of whatever definition you find you'll be hard pressed to find NY guilt of it on the facts as we know them at the moment. But keep checking, by the end of this we may be able to make our own Wiki edit.
     
  11. Exit16W

    Exit16W New Member

    Aug 27, 2005
    Reston VA
    Yes discussed but there is no need to say RBNY is tampering when you have no proof. A responsible person would not go out and state tampering when they have no proof. An expert would not open his mouth without proof by doing so his crediblity as an expert is tarnished.
    He uses the word "What bothers me worse is the apparent flagrant breaking of League tampering rules by the New York Red Bulls for the second time (at least) this off season. It's particularly bothersome, because both occurences have impacted the Chicago Fire." "Like Clemens/McNamee, these allegations are difficult to prove, but when the imperical evidence is laid out and the guilty parties are nervously licking their lips, it's pretty simple to see what's going on - and it ain't right."
    I'm sorry but to compare this to MLB and steroids is ridiculous. Outside of Mr. Wilt who "In the Know" has claimed tampering? I think it is just sour grapes
    Can I ask a question has anyone thought maybe it was Conde making a choice as a grown man on his own future?
     
  12. JoeW

    JoeW New Member

    Apr 19, 2001
    Northern Virginia, USA
    I don't have a dog in this fight. Irrelevant of whether or not tampering occurred (and also recognizing that Conde might even refuse to play with the Fire or may not play all-out--though that is just me recognizing that's a possibility, not a likelihood), at this point, I'm not sure Chicago and perhaps even the league can afford to see Conde end up with NYRB.

    Here's why: separate of how Chicago fans feel, and separate of whether or not tampering is ever shown to have occurred, when one team loses first one coach (and a guy who won them an MLS championship), then a second coach (when the team goes from a losing record to the Eastern Finals) and then arguably their second best player on the team (Conde) to the same side...and in each case it's the coach/player saying "let me out of my contract, I want to play for X" then it creates (fairly or not) a perception of both a red-haired step-child as well as a most-favored son. Once, even twice, you can manage that. But expecially when the third time comes so closely to one of the other events, even if there is no truth to the matter, I think it creates some major perceptual problems.

    Chicago is in a difficult spot here because Conde is an outstanding guy to have on any team in the league. He's not only a great player but he's so versatile. To a certain extent, it's like NE trying to replace Twellman--he's not the best player in the league but he's a hard guy to replace. So you can see where they'd hate to lose him to any team in MLS. But if he doesn't bring his A-game this year, you can completely understand why Hamlett would say that he doesn't want players on the team who don't want to be there. The fact that Metros/NYRB have had these two other unique situations only messes this thing up even more.

    As for the argument that Chicago should have interest in Kovalenko, Doe, etc.--gimme a break. DCU offered Kovalenko around the league a couple of years ago with no takes. Arena brought him back b/c NYRB was perceived as having a midfield with little heart or bite. Kovalenko is not an outstanding outside mid (and that is what Chicago would be looking at). Kovalenko (in part because of his salary) is a guy who NYRB would probably become a salary-cap casualty should NYRB add a player making $200k a year (ie: someone like Conde). Doe wouldn't help them at forward--Galarcep has publicly said that Chicago already has a lot of bodies at forward and their problem is the lack of a dominant guy like an Angel. I'm not saying a deal can't be made here. But the idea that NYRB is going to make this happen by dealing guys who they don't intend to start or are likely candidates to cut is wishful thinking.
     
  13. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2006
    Thanks for your reply, which is very helpful.
     
  14. Tahu

    Tahu Member

    Apr 13, 2001
    Chicago-North Suburb
    Very well said; you can add the fact that Conde and Osorio are friends; which makes it hard to believe that they would not talk about each others situation and try to improve them (unintentional, but possible tampering) and you completely understand how a Fire fan may feel.

    good job.
     
  15. kirsoccer

    kirsoccer BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 29, 2007
    "If the kit don't fit, you must acquit!"
     
  16. Onionsack

    Onionsack BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 21, 2003
    New York City
    Club:
    FC Girondins de Bordeaux
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]

    Cochran
    I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

    Gerald Broflovski
    Damn it!

    Chef
    What?

    Gerald
    He's using the Chewbacca Defense!

    Cochran
    Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case!

    It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!

    If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
     

Share This Page