27/09/2016 Newsnight


Sam Allerdyce has quit as England manager, is English football a mess? Plus the centre right hits back at labour conference and the first US Presidental debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



at the helm of the England football team is over,


courtesy of the Daily Telegraph's hidden cameras.


We agreed that his position was untenable


We didn't get to the point where we had to consider sacking him.


We'll ask a former sports minister and a football agent


spot the coded words being used to subtly attack Jeremy Corbyn.


Yes, it was the day that the non-Corbynites took


to the stage, they made clear they're here, and they aren't


giving in to the left, or giving up on Labour.


I don't know why we've been focusing on what was wrong with


the Blair and Brown governments for the last six years.


But trashing our record is not the way to enhance our brand.


We'll ask the question that won't go away -


Also tonight, head to head for the first time.


Donald supported the invasion of Iraq. Wrong!


Wrong! That is proved over and over again.


He actually advocated for the actions we took.


He sniffed, She smiled, but what was it that really mattered


It was one of the shortest management stints


up there with Brian Clough's 44-day tenure as manager of Leeds.


of England'S National Football team 67 days ago, is toast.


Allardyce, who was caught in a sting by the Daily Telegraph,


that he'd made a significant error of judgment.


He was recorded apparently giving advice on how to "get around" rules


After Fifa's long and tortuous problems,


is the probity of English football now at stake?


Behind that golf buddy, Sam Allardyce leaving Wembley tonight


after just 67 days and one match as England manager. Caught out by a


newspaper's secret recording, summoned to a crisis meeting and


then... They called it mutual consent. As a governing body we have


two hold ourselves to the higher standards and Sam admitted he hadn't


met those standards and moved on because the governing body must


lead. If we are going to be opinionated about how people behave


in football we have to be held up to high standards ourselves. A problem.


We dealt with it quickly and fairly and we've been transparent and here


we are talking about it. You've not seen this one before! This was


Allardyce barely two months ago. Appointed England manager, the job


he'd always dreamt of. Big Sam with big dreams and bristling with


confidence. I think I fit the chair. I hope I do. I think I have


experience to Basson and challenge the England team and myself and I


think I'm tough enough to take it. So, bring it on, hey, lads? Just 25


days later, he was secretly recorded in what he believed was a meeting


with a far East development firm. He mocked his predecessor and


criticised the England setup. But this was the damning bit. Offering


guidance on how to avoid rules on players owned by organisations other


than football club is. A practice that is banned all over the world.


Here is the England manager saying dodging it is not a problem.


He makes third-party ownership sound trivial technical but for many in


world football it is seen a scourge. High profile figures within the


game, even the English game, prior to the restriction of third-party


ownership said it was akin to human to, a modern form of slavery. Money


that was flowing out of the game should be kept within the football


family. Those that support it say it is a business transaction, akin to a


loan of a player and a crucial part of football clubs finances around


the world. Tonight, a statement from Saladin eyes himself. -- Sam


Allardyce. Allardyce was placed ?3 million a


year as England manager. But he was also secretly filmed appearing to


accept a ?400,000 deal to offer advice and make speeches. Tonight,


he's being portrayed as a symbol of the malaise within England football.


I didn't think England could stoop any lower from what happened in the


summer to Iceland. Here we are, a laughing stock of world football.


Have we got a problem with money in our game? We've got a problem. It's


greed, isn't it? There is so much money in our game. People demand and


ask for more. From dreams of the World Cup to a hasty exit, big Sam


has gone but he's left English football with a great big mess.


We can date this crisis from the Daily Telegraph of yesterday and now


we have tomorrow's Daily Telegraph. More revelations about the conduct


of Premier League managers. Allegations that eight former and


current managers have been guilty of some kind of misconduct, taking


inducements. It adds to a feeling of soul searching that is taking an


English football. We saw a very rapid response from the FA, an


organisation that in the past has dithered. That isn't a coincidence.


Greg Clark is new to the job, barely a month into it, he paid a key role


in saying that Sam Allardyce had to go.


Joining me now to discuss Sam Allardyce's departure


is football agent Sky Andrew, who has represented


England internationals Sol Campbell and Jermain Defoe.


And from Sheffield, the former Sports Minister, Richard Caborn.


Richard, was this the right decision? Absolutely. No doubt. This


goes to the core integrity of the sport. Third-party ownership was


banned in this country and then by Uefa and the fat and now we have an


England manager saying that we can get around it. What is important to


note is that the discussion is not just about Sam Allardyce. According


to the papers today there are a lot more implications for others. There


ought to be an independent enquiry by the FA. I congratulate the FA for


the action they have taken today but now they have got to move and set up


some type of in the -- some type of independent enquiry. They have been


saying that Fifa need to get their house in order and now the FA need


to move as well. Sky, would you say that this is an error of judgment?


The sad thing is it is another England manager gone for


non-footballing reasons but it is an important reason. Third-party


ownership was banned in 2008 by the FA and Fifa bandit last year.


Players need to be able to make their own decisions and third-party


ownership doesn't allow that. Looking at the Daily Telegraph


tomorrow, eight managers past and present accused of taking transfer


bungs, do you recognise this picture? The problem with that is,


whenever we hear these accusations, no one is ever named. I don't think


anyone can take it seriously until people are named. This leaves


English football with a major problem. Trying to find a manager


who has got absolutely crystal clear history and a clear way of going


forward. The sad thing is with this story is at a human angle, here is a


guy with a lifelong ambition to be England manager is gone overnight. I


think the FA are very serious about the issue of third-party ownership.


The public have got to understand that this is something that everyone


across the world is trying to stop because players are literally owned


by an individual or a third party on the economic rights. We have got Rio


Ferdinand and Alan Shearer saying that England football is the


laughing stock of world football. How did it get to this point? To


some extent, it's true but let's be clear that this goes to the heart of


football. The integrity of football. For summary to say this is not a


footballing issue is naive or ducking the issue. It is about the


integrity of football and how it is regulated and run. You talk about an


independent enquiry, writing in the Telegraph tomorrow, Damian Collins,


the acting chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee


says that the FA seems incapable of rigorously enforcing the owners test


to keep unsuitable people out of the game. The FA have dealt with the


issue and in my opinion are absolutely right. What they ought to


do now is say there are further allegations, this needs a wider


enquiry but it needs to be independent and... So people have


some faith in the regulation of English football. That is what is at


stake. Therefore, the FA need to take that type of action to bring


the credibility of the game back. We've got an interim manager. How


quickly is it going to be to get a new manager in before the World Cup


qualifiers? The FA need to act quickly. They have got to do their


due diligence even better this time. Thank you very much indeed.


Well, I'll be back later on the programme with our


analysis of the first American Presidential debate.


But let's join Evan now in Liverpool at Labour Party Conference.


The Corbyn wing is on top here, but today, it was the turn


of the non-Corbynites to stand their ground.


Now this is a very strange time, no-one here wants to admit publicly


that there is a divide in Labour at least as wide as the Mersey,


but any unity is on the surface only, and sometimes not even that.


Two big characters were on stage today: Tom Watson,


legendary party fixer, deputy leader,


one time right-hand man of Gordon Brown.


Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor and the Labour man with the biggest


personal mandate in the country, also up there.


Both talked of needing to win elections or get into power.


Such is the weirdness of the struggle in the party,


were seen as designed to attack Jeremy Corbyn.


Well, I'm with Jon Ashworth, Shadow Cabinet member,


he'll tell us otherwise in a few minutes, but our political editor


Nick Watt is an expert deciphering these kinds of events.


It had seemed to be a relatively smooth journey, all wings of the


party coming to terms with Jeremy Corbyn's victory but today the


waters became distinctly choppy. Labour's deputy leader, who's


remained diplomatic during the troubled summer finally gave vent to


his frustration. I don't know why we've been focusing on what was


wrong with the Blair and Brown governments for the last six years.


Trashing our record is not the way to enhance our brand. We won't win


elections like that. And we need to win elections! Jeremy Corbyn took


some time to join in the applause. And for some in the audience,


Watson's speech went too far. Jeremy, I don't think she got the


unity memo. There's a certain poignancy that it is in Liverpool


where the scene of the battles with the militant tendency in the 1980s


that Tom Watson publicly confronted the central belief system of the


Labour left. The scene is now set for an ongoing and historic


showdown. You cannot play politics with


people's jobs and services. The man who was in his sights popped up at


the conference. I don't get Tom Watson. 12 months ago I was having a


drink with him saying to him that I support him for deputy leader and I


paid a few quid into his campaign. The way he's changed is


unbelievable. Many people say he's always been a playwright, he's come


back to his roots -- always been our Blairite. I view it with regret


rather than anger. But Tom Watson's fans drew strength from his


impassioned speech. This week, we are bringing those different


divisions together again. Tom laid out a route map for us to do that,


how we can make them relevant to the modern world. In so doing we can


make ourselves popular. It is a brilliant speech and it has got me


fired up. The leader of one of Britain's's trade unions thought it


provided a reminder of the importance of heading for


government. It is great having 500,000 members but there are 41


million voters. We are with Jeremy but we are not a fan club. Today,


Jeremy Corbyn will bring the conference to a close. Critics have


a few days to decide whether they are on board ahead of a reshuffle


next week. Well, someone said the war


in the party is like herpes. Every time you think it may be


settling down, Jon Ashworth is with me,


not generally seen as a Corbyn supporter but is still


in the Shadow Cabinet. Evening. Does Tom Watson want to be


leader? I'm still trying to come to terms with that metaphor. Don't


worry, it was inappropriate. I don't think that was a leadership bid. I


think he is right to say we made an error by not defending the record of


the past Labour government. We were not prepared to take on the Tory


argument that somehow Labour completely wrecked the economy. I


think he's right that we should be defending the good things they did.


You had quite a bit of reminding the party they need to fight elections,


every reform was because of Labour. Why do you need to remind your party


that they need to win elections? Is anybody arguing against that? Of


course not. We've been through a divisive summer and we've got to


pull together and take on the Tories. Next year, the Prime


Minister might go for a general election, who knows. But we


certainly got county council elections, mayoral elections, we've


got to win them and get campaigning. Are you meeting any resistance on


that? It is very striking how much your wing of the party are


emphasising, power, winning elections. I think Jeremy wants us


to win elections. He is going to campaign against the return to


grammar schools. It is a very tall order. Does it feel that the party


is united at the moment? We've had a difficult summer. Those of us who


think we need to pull together have got to unify. When we go back to


Parliament we've got to be an effective front bench. I think it's


a very weak Tory government that we can exploit, the lack of fiscal is,


that they don't have a plan for Brexit, there's loads that we can be


doing. He says tomorrow we need to end trench warfare. Everybody is


saying exactly what you've just said, you don't need to probe very


hard to find still an enormous amount of anger and jostling for


position in his party. The people we are letting down by not unifying...


For many people who have interpreted this request to think about winning


elections are wrong to think it is a coded attack? I make the same speech


every year where I say we need to get out and campaign. One of the


things to reflect on his Labour is in power in certain places, London


and Wales. There is a contrast between what you get when they are


in power and the Labour that is framing and discussing things here.


Isn't there? In what way? Today, we basically learned Jewish and fees


are going to go up from ?4000 to ?9,000. The Welsh government are


going to implement a plan to scrap the ?5,000 tuition fee grant so they


will be paying the same tuition fees as England. That is a Welsh Labour


Government, today, not even being discussed. That is the logic of


devolution, that is the system we are in. But you are happy to see


them go up? I would rather they did not pursue that policy. But whatever


they've decided, I don't know enough about it. They've got the power to


raise income tax. There is still time for them to change their minds.


All the signs are tuition fees will go to ?9,000. Jeremy Corbyn has


clearly given the impression. He said, I want to apologise on behalf


of the Labour Party to the last generation of students. It is


clearly a different position to the UK Labour Party but devolved parties


can make those decisions. Does it tell you that when Labour gets into


power it needs to be different from the Jeremy Corbyn party? Sadiq Khan


implied that the case. When Labour gets into power, as they have done


in Wales, and cities like Bristol and my own, Leicester, the Labour


leaders put together a package of policies which have broad appeal to


the electorate and that is what Jeremy and his team have to do. Put


together a package that has broad appeal to mums and dads worried


about childcare, appeals to people worried about the state of


education, appeals to people who are so fed up that their wages have been


stagnant for the last ten years. Actually, those policies are not


crazy or socialist left-wing, they are common sense policies and we


need to talk about them more. Just think about how the party has


changed. One of the main ones is Sadiq Khan, who was not much known


until he was selected for a candidacy. We caught him up today


for a quick hello. He was basically repeating the message that defines


the divide of this conference. Labour is so far from power. Are you


a beacon of hope? I've been described as many things and I will


take that. The key thing is we've got big elections across the


country, we need to Windows. We need to Windows why? Those cities and


regions need Labour representation. Speaking as the Mayor of London, the


greatest prize is winning the general election. That is what


Labour is all about. The strong point is, look at the Labour Party's


history, whether it is the creation of the NHS, legal aid, the Human


Rights Act, we did those by winning elections. Winning elections. Here


with me is Ed Miliband's former adviser, Owen Jones from the


Guardian and Matty Parish from the Times. Is the party united? I think


people will try to unite but underneath it it will be hard.


Nobody thinks we will come together and be some happy clappy family. But


there is an acceptance even from moderates. You either step up and


serve properly or you go to the backbenches and get on with what


you're doing. But you can just carry on the constant sniping. There's a


feeling you've got to accept the scale of the defeat. Let him succeed


or fail on his own terms. I think Labour is more united than people


give it credit for. Ideological age there are far greater divisions in


the 1980s. These days, on all wings of the Labour Party there is quite a


lot of consensus tax Justice, workers'


rights, there's not actually, when it comes to it, a massive division.


I think freedom of movement is going to be quite a divisive issue. It is


not a left- right issue. You remind me that even the Tories agree with


quite a lot of what you're seeing. Of course they are not united, Owen


speaks to the victors and Jeremy Corbyn has one. Labour can find


unity if the moderates accept defeat and I agree, in a sense, they have


to accept that if the party is to be united. I don't think they should,


but... The question is, you can have unity, slightly dead eyed unity


where we get together and move away from the public, that is not great


for the general outcome. Labour needs to be a broad church. The idea


that the left of the party have conquered that is not borne out by


the reality. If people can go through issues where there is a


genuine ideological chasm, I don't think it's there. On the main issues


it takes quite a lot. The remark that we no longer need to whisper


the name of socialism, that is not a broad church. Do you know the only


leadership candidate who used socialism? It was Tony Blair. I


don't think a Shadow Chancellor talking about socialism at a Labour


Party conference is a new thing. The truth is the policies. Not all of


this is about policy, there is a cultural divide in the party. You've


got to be honest about that. I think we've got to try and find some way


of coming together, mainly because we are so exhausted by fighting.


Everybody is spent. I agree with Matthew, the moderates, and I am a


moderate, we've got to accept. I'm not an extremist! We've got to


accept that we lost. We made a really stupid challenge and we lost


badly. You guys won and you can do what you want. What happens to the


moderates, I don't know what we call them? What do they do? Do they find


another job? They give in, they run up the whitefly, some of them will


toe the line, others, most, I suspect, slink away from politics


and don't stand again in the next election. Quite a few will be afraid


of being reselected. That is the only kind of Labour Unity now


available. That is very sad for the political centre. I think all sides


need to give and take. They need to accept they have the biggest


Democratic party in Western Europe, but the leadership should oppose


mandatory reselection so MPs don't feel that threat. Have a portion of


the Shadow Cabinet elected by MPs. That is a compromise. You always


say, focus on these internal divisions, but there is lots of


scope for common ground. What I'm suggesting, which is basically that


the Labour moderates should not give up without a fight, should not go


for unity, should stand up for themselves, could be fatal to the


Conservative Party in a period where I think the Conservative Party will


be in all kinds of trouble. What you are suggesting, Labour should unite


around the Jeremy Corbyn line is fine for the Conservatives. We need


to be honest. If you've spent the summer doing tearful interviews


about how bad Jeremy Corbyn was and you think he is not fit for purpose


you cannot crawl back and say I've had a huge conversion.


Can the non-Corbyn wing ever get the keys back to the vehicle? Some of


them are trying to find half a million mainstream, moderate members


will stop people don't join a party like that. We've not focused on


policy issues. I think it should be about policy issues. If MPs think


Labour is heading for a terrible defeat and they want the leadership


to own it, then many members will say it is your fault. If the


leadership is seen to give ground and give an inspiring alternative


that resonates with people, then people who rebelled against


Corbynista can say that they had big grievances but they have changed.


Owen, you would support Corbyn but Mark two has to be different to Marc


Warren. Are you seeing evidence that he has learned or picked up what he


needed to do? He was re-elected three days ago but I think there are


promising signs. There's no sign at all. They are rampant, they have


one. They are talking as though they have one, growing, and good luck to


them. Labour MPs don't understand that over the next three and a half


years there is a huge opportunity for them. A Conservative Party who


has been returned with a mandate that she can't possibly fulfil. They


are ready to split. If Labour MPs in the House of Commons were to unite


and oppose the government and in the lobbies, they have enormous


potential power. Next week's story, the Tory party conference. The three


of you are going to hang around and do a Facebook live thing. You can


put your questions to them. We will go and get a drink and go to a quiet


space. Go to our Facebook page and you will see as. Facebook live.


Tomorrow, Jeremy Corbyn takes to the stage -


Donald Trump began his own post-match analysis almost


as soon as he stepped off the podium after last night's


first Presidential Debate which ranged over trade,


race, foreign policy, temperament - his.


He claimed his microphone was defective,


he insisted he didn't sniff his way through the debate,


and that Hillary Clinton did not get under his skin.


He said he's really eased up because he didn't want to hurt


anyone's feelings, and he may hit her harder next time.


With a background of tightening polls the consensus


among the pundits was that Hillary Clinton edged it.


So much for the opinion, here's Emily to take us


First number of the night, 30, the minutes which matter when the


audience is switched on. Trump dominates, he opens well, crawling


Clinton on the trade deals. The worst trade deal ever signed in this


country. He accuses Hillary Clinton of flip-flopping on the transpacific


partnership deal, which she did. You know that if you did win, you would


have proved that. That would almost be as bad as Nafta. The next number


is zero. The amount of federal tax that Donald Trump admits to paying.


Maybe he wouldn't want you to know that he has paid nothing in federal


tax. The only times he has had two was when he had to turn his taxes


over to federal authorities when he was trying to open a casino. That


makes me smart. That's rate. Right. He did say he was smart not to pay


tax. Trump offers to release his tax returns if she releases her lost


e-mails. She concedes error. If I had to do it over again, I would do


it differently. The night was always am elated by fact checking and lies.


34 false claims for Donald Trump and four false claims for Hillary


Clinton and to misleading for both. But Donald Trump was by far the most


dishonest. But after half an hour the growing realisation that there


is an extra player in this debate. John's knows. HE SNIFFS. We reckon


about 15 sniffles. It spawned its own Twitter account. Who had what


pundits might call possession of the argument? 17 interruptions by


Clinton of Trump. And 51 by Trump of Clinton. There's nothing crazy about


not letting our companies bring their money... It would be


squandered too, believe me. And don't forget Lester Holt who gets


interrupted as well. You supported the war in Iraq before the


invasion,... I did not support the war in Iraq. That is mainstream


media nonsense put out by her. I was against the war in Iraq. The record


shows otherwise. The record does not. The record shows I am right.


When Lester gives up, Hillary steps in. It is proved over and over


again. How does it all end? Percentage who thought Clinton won?


According to CNN, 62%. PPP gave 51%. A typical bounce of between two and


four percentage points. No wonder she couldn't resist this smoked


weed. By usual metrics she won this debate


people watching the debate were a little more democratic than the


electorate as a whole. People who chew them might not be the people


trying to make up their minds and they may not be the same people who


turn out as an election day. The only number that matters on election


day is this one. The number of electoral college votes needed to


win the presidency. Trump has proved that none of the usual rules of


engagement apply to him. The debate is a party piece of entertainment


and rather than political intent. Maybe no different.


Let's talk now to Joe Klein, political columnist for Time


magazine and the font of wisdom on Presidential politics


Good evening to you. Good evening. The fact that many pundits said


Hillary Clinton had done a better job kind of misses the point,


doesn't it? I don't know. Let me start off with a couple of things. I


want to issue an apology is on the part of the American people to the


rest of the world for Donald Trump who really behaved like an infant


last night. Secondly, having listened to the previous


conversation about British politics, it's reassuring to see that you are


as screwed up as we are. Donald Trump is like any other candidate.


There is no real measurement. You look at debates in the past and you


can't imagine a debate like this. He doesn't play by political rules. And


people like him for that. Some people like him for that, other


people are horrified. He has a firm 40% of the population at this point


who see this contest as more reality TV than reality and he can be


entertaining. He wasn't entertaining last night. He was imprudent,


impertinent, he didn't make the arguments that he might have made.


It was really incompetent. We heard 80 million watched the debate and


for many of them it would have been their introduction to this campaign.


Once the debates start, they pay attention. On the basis of that


debate alone, you talk about him being all but crazy but actually a


lot of people out there are looking at him and possibly liking some of


the things he said about jobs, about trade and so forth. Well, that's


true and it's too bad we didn't have a chance to get into that because


his positions on those issues are nonsensical. He called the North


American free act agreement passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 having been


negotiated by George HW Bush, he called it the worst disaster in


history but every balanced economist that I've read on this issue says


that Nafta has been awash, providing some good things and bad things on


both sides. His exaggerations play to the populist element in our


country, as you have in your country, that doesn't really think


beyond the reflective reaction that," those Mexicans are taking our


jobs." He had a line, you have tried that for 30 years, the idea is he is


doing something different. Is that his plan? Will he be pushing that


until November? If he is competent to do so but he doesn't seem to be.


He walked into that debate with a very strong argument on national


security. It was that Hillary Clinton has supported some very


disastrous actions on the part of the US government, she voted for the


war in Iraq, she supported President Obama's expansion of the war in


Afghanistan and she supported the Nato action in Libya. There are an


awful lot of people who agree with him about this. He seems unable, the


guy has the attention span of a fruit fly, he seems to be unable to


press an argument and that was true on a number of different subjects


last night. Which is why, you know, I think most pundits say he lost.


However, most pundits have been wrong about Donald Trump as you


pointed out from the very beginning. It's impossible to say yet what


actually happened last night in terms of how the American people


responded to it. Thank you very much. Lovely to hear from you.


That's all we have time for. Until tomorrow night, a very good night.


The weather is quiet out there now but we have some very strong winds


that won't reach as until Thursday. Mostly the northern half of the UK.


Here's a look at Wednesday. We have some cloud and rain on the way.


Notice the north of Scotland, overcast, even further south, across


the Lake District and Pennines, some light rain on and off. The best


weather will be in Lincolnshire, East Anglia, certainly the


south-east. Temperatures up to around 21 degrees. Not looking so


bad along the south coast. Cornwall, Devon, here at times, there will


With Evan Davis and Kirsty Wark. Sam Allerdyce has quit as England manager, is English football a mess? Plus the centre right hits back at labour conference and the first US Presidental debate.

Download Subtitles