Laudrup's Match Fixing Thoughts

[leww_rfc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19667219

Thoughts?

Headline makes it sound worse than it is..

'Michael Laudrup has no problem with rivals paying teams to win'

[T.R.O.L.I.]

He'll get a slap on the wrist for his comments, but personally I don't see any issue with his comments - not that I think they'll ever be allowed. IIRC, there's also now a regulation that states all bonuses relating to a game / a season have to be set out at the start of the season?

As an aside, I think in an "ideal world", footballers would be able to bet on a positive outcome for a game they are involved in (i.e. sticking a ton on themselves to score the first goal) but as there would be more dodginess than not I guess it's better to outlaw all forms of betting. ISTR someone admitting they'd put some money on themselves scoring a goal / goals in a match, being really chirpy about it in a post-match interview only for the FA to hammer them with a fine / ban?

[Vision]

Integrity of the league is I believe the cliche that applies here.

Can't really have extra inducements to try harder against some teams rather than others in a League situation.

[weybridgewanderer]

I have no problem iwth the thought of one team giving another team a win bonus

For example we could have offered Pompie 1M if they had beaten Fulham on the last day of the season.

Its impossible to fix a win.

However I would have a problem with paying a bonus to lose a game. It is possible to fix a defeat

[Ian Royal]

Integrity of the league is I believe the cliche that applies here.

Can't really have extra inducements to try harder against some teams rather than others in a League situation.

With you on this.

[Stuboo]

Integrity of the league is I believe the cliche that applies here.

Can't really have extra inducements to try harder against some teams rather than others in a League situation.

With you on this.

Me too. I don't like Laudrup's idea.

[Bowman's Quiver]

I think it's an outrageous suggestion. OK, I'm not sure he's suggesting it but rather contemplating it.

Where does the line for incentivising one team to win end, and paying the other team to lose begin. And of course, some clubs can afford to pay more than others.

We can all give up and go home if this ever became something the authorities allowed.

[From Despair To Where?]

He'll get a slap on the wrist for his comments, but personally I don't see any issue with his comments - not that I think they'll ever be allowed. IIRC, there's also now a regulation that states all bonuses relating to a game / a season have to be set out at the start of the season?

As an aside, I think in an "ideal world", footballers would be able to bet on a positive outcome for a game they are involved in (i.e. sticking a ton on themselves to score the first goal) but as there would be more dodginess than not I guess it's better to outlaw all forms of betting. ISTR someone admitting they'd put some money on themselves scoring a goal / goals in a match, being really chirpy about it in a post-match interview only for the FA to hammer them with a fine / ban?

I think it was Wimbledon as a team betting on the time of the first throw in at something like 2 seconds, winning the toss and immediately hoofing the ball out from the kick off. It's a bit like the spot fixing in cricket. On the one hand, bowling a no ball or conceding a throw in at a particular time is highly unlikely the effect the overall balance of the match, but in betting terms I'm pretty sure its illegal as you can influence the outcome of the bet. Mind you, no-one complained when Dennis Lilley and Rodney Marsh fessed up to betting on England to win the Headingly test in 81 on the 3rd day when the odds were 500-1. I think it was the Wimbledon incident that directly resulted in players being banned from any form of betting on their own club.

The then manager Lou Macari and the Swindon chairman were also charged for putting money on Swindon to lose a Cup tie. They were playing a top flight team though and were odds on to lose. It ultimately got them relegated as punishment.


Not sure what Laudrup is suggesting is entirely within the spirit of the game although its offering an incentive to win rather than lose and it is not directly influencing the game. This sort of thing goes on all the time in places like Italy and Spain and no-one bats an eyelid, although it doesn't involve money. Clubs will offer local high end produce as an incentive to teams playing their rivals. Parma for instance have been known to offer tons of ham to other clubs.

[facaldaqui]

I wish Laudrup's system had been in place when we got relegated from the prem. Sir John could have given Harry a bung to beat Fulham.

*

Seriously, though, Laudrup needs to get in touch. If you pay one team to beat another, the opposite will start to happen: they will lose if not paid. Which means at the end of the season rich clubs will get more help from other teams than poor ones. What if Reading and QPR both had to play, say, Swansea in their last two games and needed three points to stay up? QPR could pay Swansea to play flat out against us and not pay them anything to play them. Could we afford to match QPR's level of bung?

[Royal Rother]

Indeed facaldaqui, it's a ridiculously pathetic / naive / ill-informed / stupid suggestion.

[peterroyal76]

He'll get a slap on the wrist for his comments, but personally I don't see any issue with his comments - not that I think they'll ever be allowed. IIRC, there's also now a regulation that states all bonuses relating to a game / a season have to be set out at the start of the season?

As an aside, I think in an "ideal world", footballers would be able to bet on a positive outcome for a game they are involved in (i.e. sticking a ton on themselves to score the first goal) but as there would be more dodginess than not I guess it's better to outlaw all forms of betting. ISTR someone admitting they'd put some money on themselves scoring a goal / goals in a match, being really chirpy about it in a post-match interview only for the FA to hammer them with a fine / ban?

I think it was Wimbledon as a team betting on the time of the first throw in at something like 2 seconds, winning the toss and immediately hoofing the ball out from the kick off. It's a bit like the spot fixing in cricket. On the one hand, bowling a no ball or conceding a throw in at a particular time is highly unlikely the effect the overall balance of the match, but in betting terms I'm pretty sure its illegal as you can influence the outcome of the bet. Mind you, no-one complained when Dennis Lilley and Rodney Marsh fessed up to betting on England to win the Headingly test in 81 on the 3rd day when the odds were 500-1. I think it was the Wimbledon incident that directly resulted in players being banned from any form of betting on their own club.

The then manager Lou Macari and the Swindon chairman were also charged for putting money on Swindon to lose a Cup tie. They were playing a top flight team though and were odds on to lose. It ultimately got them relegated as punishment.


Not sure what Laudrup is suggesting is entirely within the spirit of the game although its offering an incentive to win rather than lose and it is not directly influencing the game. This sort of thing goes on all the time in places like Italy and Spain and no-one bats an eyelid, although it doesn't involve money. Clubs will offer local high end produce as an incentive to teams playing their rivals. Parma for instance have been known to offer tons of ham to other clubs.

I think it was southampton and Matt Le Tissier in particular.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

He'll get a slap on the wrist for his comments, but personally I don't see any issue with his comments - not that I think they'll ever be allowed. IIRC, there's also now a regulation that states all bonuses relating to a game / a season have to be set out at the start of the season?

As an aside, I think in an "ideal world", footballers would be able to bet on a positive outcome for a game they are involved in (i.e. sticking a ton on themselves to score the first goal) but as there would be more dodginess than not I guess it's better to outlaw all forms of betting. ISTR someone admitting they'd put some money on themselves scoring a goal / goals in a match, being really chirpy about it in a post-match interview only for the FA to hammer them with a fine / ban?

I think it was Wimbledon as a team betting on the time of the first throw in at something like 2 seconds, winning the toss and immediately hoofing the ball out from the kick off.

I think it was southampton and Matt Le Tissier in particular.

The "throw-in from kick-off" scam was indeed Saints - there's an anecdote from Le Tiss IIRC about a game at OT and a player who wasn't involved in the scam being really chuffed that he'd kept the ball in play from what he thought was an sliced diagonal ball until he got a massive bollocking from his teammates at half time.

My original comment was based on a striker betting on himself either scoring in a match or being top scorer at the end of the season and getting hauled over the coals for it - can't for the life of me remember who it was though.