Maybe. Who do you think should have told him ? One of the coaches whose role is just to coach the players supplied to them ?
Why ? It's correct isn't it ? It had been suggested that he lied about Bayats involvement. He just didn't respond to it.
Watford are a business in the public domain, they aren’t MI5 or homeland security, it’s bizarre to think it’s normal to lie about in the involvement of an agent in the day to day running of the club, especially considering he’s seen in the directors box, at most home games, wearing the club badge.
Somewhat obviously, it rightfully should have been someone who was actually an employee of the club Troost worked for. Its a conversation that easily should have been conducted first by either the head coach/sporting director/technical director/Duxberry etc. Its not for an unrelated (to the player) third party to break the news
Someone, anyone, at the club who he has regular day to day contact with? As opposed to an agent he has no attachment to, and who we’re told has no more attachment to the club than Sky Andrews does. I don’t know, it’s just a thought.
As I've said before you don't need to be an employee to have a role at a company or football club. My fellow director is not an employee but makes key decisions.
Clearly is - must be something vile and highly illegal going on that the rest of the world can't see !
Honestly, what is your angle here? You seem to be hell bent on defending the indefensible, but I can’t work out why, on a wind up, or just in awe of Gino? Sometimes when it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it’s a turd.
Yes he did in so many words, Sky Andrews is an agent and Gino doesn’t favour Mogi over any other agent. I refer to my last post, what is your angle here? Pedantically picking up on minor semantics in defence of someone you don’t know, or have never met (presumably) over the club you support and its best interests. Seriously baffling.
Just trying to keep the debate factual. Gino didn't say Bayat has no involvement in the club. He sidestepped that part of the question and just said we buy players from him and other agents, yet posters are throwing their hands up in the air about Gino lying about his involvement. He didn't lie thats all I'm saying. He sounds a highly dodgy character, I wish we had no involvement with him, I don't know why Gino doesn't distance himself.
He’s a troll. HB1 does similar and everyone is up in arms and moderators write threatening threads. Complete double standards.
'Mr Mogi is just one of the agents that we use.' *hubbub erupts in the room* 'Please, don't interrupt, me, if you'd let me finish I was going to say, he is just one of the agents that we use WHEN LOOKING TO BUY PLAYERS. Outside of that he's our legal counsel, Director of HR, head of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, designated mental health first aider, fire marshall and Secretary of our ESG Steering Group. However, when it comes specifically to the matter of buying and selling players, he's just one of many agents that we use, without any specific preference. Oh, except when we use him in deals where he doesn't represent either the other club or the player, in which case he's still just another agent, I just haven't addressed that of the question part yet.'
HB1, to my recollection, never got personal in the face of some pretty heavy stuff. It’s no surprise that since he decided to leave the forum, the people that only came onto numerous matchday threads to try and bully him for thinking negatively about the club, haven’t posted since, including the self-styled ‘be kind’ ambassador of the forum. Any anti-Pozzo story like this one follows the same trend. Muddy the waters to dilute the story until it turns into a personality *** for tat fight that derails the thread. The main culprits have mostly left the forum as they ‘all fell out of love with football’ around the same time as the stories became impossible to defend but there’s still a few around. But it became a real chore to discuss these things on here, which is what one side of the debate wants.
I'm just stating facts - if you don't like them then ignore them. I'm a troll because I don't hold the same view as you ?
Why would you needlessly implicate yourself in something? And tbh I'm sure it's completely normal, or at least not completely unusual, for football clubs to not publicly divulge everything relating to agents who they have used. Do you think the likes of Chelsea and Man City have and have had willingly fully disclosed the full details of every single transfer they have made? Also, what if hypothetically Mogi's relationship is that in addition to an agent he has also acted as a footballing consultant and financial advisor to Gino personally? And as such for some of his roles and tasks he is compensated by Gino personally, as opposed to the club? In which case again there would be no need or requirement for Gino to say anything. As an aside, when has Mogi worn the club badge? And what does that have to do with anything? If it did then you'd also have to assume that every fan attending games in a replica shirt worked for the club and had to reveal their role and finances.
It's a particularly misleading interpretation of a quotation in black and white, where you claim that the words in response to a question about Mr. Mogi's involvement don't state that he has no further involvement than being 'just one of the agents that we use.' The fact that this may or may not be true, is up for judgement, but the fact that this was explicitly denied by the owner of the club is not.
OMG I see another mole, emboldened by the ridiculous last stand of one of their ilk, has poked their head up to be seen and heard. 'I'm Mogicus!'
Errrr. A recent one was him taking a weird snipe at one of the forum's most frequent posters in wfcsinatra by saying: "I’ve not seen you before, so thought you are just one of those newbies that pop up from time to time, just to have a splash. But I’m surprised to see you’ve been a member since 2009!!" https://wfcforums.com/index.php?thr...tol-city-26-12-2023.60688/page-5#post-3299773
Seriously Moog have you read the direct quote that A19 posted ? He didn't say Bayat was only involved in transfer business. he ducked that part of the question. It's a shame there (presumably?) was no follow up to pin him on the non-player aquisition part of his role with the club though as LR points out there is no requirement for him to disclose this, though it would have been helpful had he done so.
That's the bit I don't like and I've read your posts about a co director at work. It just seems a bit unprofessional that an employee of the club didn't do this
Yeah I suppose it depends on Bayat's role. Would it have been better in Troost's eyes if Giaretta had told him rather than Bayat ? It seems Bayat has a club role to help ease players out of the door, not just bring fwd potential signings so maybe he was the logical person to do it ? I can't recall, was Troost upset that it was Bayat that told him, or just upset with the message that the club had accepted an offer for him...and that that offer happened to be from a Russian club ?
Like having him in the directors box wearing the club badge, in front of press, TV cameras and the general public, or getting him to call players up that he has no professional relationship with to broker moves? I don’t know, you tell me.
Like most I'm not a fan of Mogi and I don't like the fact he was the one to tell Troost about going to Russia. It, in my view should have been an employee of the club, probably Giaretta. On the flip side I'm not sure anything TUT has said requires the amount of stick he's getting on here. He's not been abusive, he has a point of view that others don't agree with. I'm pretty sure that's allowed
Indeed but I genuinely don't think he has lied in his response. The question was certainly asked but his reply waffles on about how important agents are but that ultimately the players they bring are the most important thing and we get players from many agents not just Bayat. He didn't say that Bayat doesn't perform any other role did he ? He avoided covering that in his response. At least that's my take.
