Sky news players charged bury game - Page 14

Tin Monkey · 09-04-2009, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Really? I was at the game and I don't remember that. Which report?

McGiven missed an absolute sitter against Bury during that match, but I put it down to him being crap, rather than being involved in any betting scandal.

Mind you, I remember Mullin missing a free header from 6 yards out, so maybe we should be looking at him too?

In fact, I say let's burn the lot of 'em!!! This 'StanleyGate' saga is going to run and run.

Whalley Red · 09-04-2009, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-P

OK I am guesing that your all so wound up that your not going to appreciate the following so I will add my dissclaimer first... If they did do what they are accused of then I agree with everything said.. I have very strong views on this for all the same reasons most of you have.

BUT some of you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5

The players have NOT and I repeat NOT been accused of match fixing.. Nowhere has anyone said they have tried to fix a match and nowhere is the FA the Club or anyone else other than Internet users (yes not just accyweb) suggesting they have done anything to change the outcome of a match

The players are accused of betting against the team they play for... something as I say I have equally strong views about and am still disgusted now at the thought... But to accuse them of match fixing could lead you and/or this messageboard open to ...well you know.

Betting against your team is a mortal sin for a footballer as far as i am concerned ... But it isn't match fixing as most seem to assume.

Sorry for saying it.. But I believe it had to be said

The problem with a charge of match-fixing is that it is extremely difficult to prove. Bruce Grobbelaar was caught on video discussing match-fixing, but the jury in two different trials was still unable to reach a verdict. Even though he was cleared, the House of Lords slashed his subsequent libel award to £1 and he was ordered to pay The Sun's legal costs of £500,000.

So, just because the players have only been accused of betting on the outcome of matches in which they are involved, that doesn't make it wrong for us to suspect that match-fixing was really at play.

shakermaker · 09-04-2009, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

McGiven missed an absolute sitter against Bury during that match, but I put it down to him being crap, rather than being involved in any betting scandal.

Ahh, see I do remember that. Thanks.
Surely Leighton (if he had the conscious choice rather than relying on his ability) would've chosen to score and subsequently earn a contract with a Football League side for another year, rather than win his bet.
If indeed that's what Revived Red is motioning his legally subtle conspiracy stick at.

Doug · 09-04-2009, 10:41

Forget Cav’s fiver for now, the total bet of the other players comes to a total of £10,500. If you’re in a scoring position and you and you buddies stand to lose £10,500 on a single shot is any one of them going to pull the trigger?

I pray that not one of them is found guilty of any inappropriate behaviour let alone match fixing, but I say again they should be suspended until such time as this matter is resolved.

In respect of match fixing, I would again pray that they would do no such thing and hope that this suggestion never bears fruit; but… why would you and your mates place bets amounting to £10,500 against your own team and then go on to ensure you win….

Wynonie Harris · 09-04-2009, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

For once nearly everybody on this forum is in agreement, it just goes to prove that we all have the interests of Stanley at heart.

That's the one good thing that's come out of this whole sorry business for me. We're all passionate about the club we love, but because we all have different temperaments and attitudes, disagreements can sometimes get a little intense on here. Just goes to show that when there's a real crisis, we all stick together!

cashman · 09-04-2009, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

In today's Lancashire Telegraph Jimmy Bell appears to be defending Cav by saying he only had a £5 accumulator and shouldn't be crucified - I thought Cav had also been charged with betting on a Stanley game this season and betting on other league two games. Bell also appears to be blaming the FA for making this public. I don't agree with having a protest on Monday - we NEED to win the game, but I do agree that Cav and Rocky shouldn't play even if they haven't been found guilty. Any defensive slip by either of them will result in the fans saying that they must have had a bet on the game. Drop them until the FA hearing but please don't play Jay Bell. For once nearly everybody on this forum is in agreement, it just goes to prove that we all have the interests of Stanley at heart.

well aint seen it yet, but if thats the case, jimmy bell is misguidedly saying its ok fer the Club Captain to bet against his club?

also its saying he "DID" make the bet, not wait until the verdict.

Redraine · 09-04-2009, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-P

OK I am guesing that your all so wound up that your not going to appreciate the following so I will add my dissclaimer first... If they did do what they are accused of then I agree with everything said.. I have very strong views on this for all the same reasons most of you have.

BUT some of you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5

The players have NOT and I repeat NOT been accused of match fixing.. Nowhere has anyone said they have tried to fix a match and nowhere is the FA the Club or anyone else other than Internet users (yes not just accyweb) suggesting they have done anything to change the outcome of a match

The players are accused of betting against the team they play for... something as I say I have equally strong views about and am still disgusted now at the thought... But to accuse them of match fixing could lead you and/or this messageboard open to ...well you know.

Betting against your team is a mortal sin for a footballer as far as i am concerned ... But it isn't match fixing as most seem to assume.

Sorry for saying it.. But I believe it had to be said

I do understand where you are coming from Kipax, but surely the only point of the regulations is that betting on matches IMPLIES that results could be affected. Otherwise, what are the rules there for? Or have I missed something?

baldy · 09-04-2009, 11:05

I dont post much on here but...

1. Your not allowed to bet on your team or even league.

2. Why would you even put 1000 nevermind 4000 if you wasnt sure?

3. Its not worth thinking about that we have been chanting their names
for 10 years and they do this (if guilty)

4. I will be at Grimsby, I will be there on monday.

5. Players come and go from a club but the fans still stay and the club need your support more than ever, support YOUR club not the players!!

wadey · 09-04-2009, 11:05

AN Accrington Stanley game at the centre of betting allegations saw more than £280,000 placed on it with one bookmaker alone. "
LET
I wonder how many of these punters were friends and family of the players involved?

yonmon · 09-04-2009, 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldy

4. I will be there on monday.

5. Players come and go from a club but the fans still stay and the club need your support more than ever, support YOUR club not the players!!

As will we all Baldy!..(although Cashy seems hesitant!),And as Wyn says... 'The Faithful 1000' have supported the Reds through thick and thin, and, along with you, we WILL now whatever might threaten it's current status and future well-being !.

GET YOUR 2009 SEASON TICKET NOW!!

K-P · 09-04-2009, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redraine

I do understand where you are coming from Kipax, but surely the only point of the regulations is that betting on matches IMPLIES that results could be affected. Otherwise, what are the rules there for? Or have I missed something?

there you go then.. you said it yourself.. IMPLIES .. thats a lot different than did..

Redraine · 09-04-2009, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-P

there you go then.. you said it yourself.. IMPLIES .. thats a lot different than did..

Are you a lawyer in your day job?

MCR ADIM · 09-04-2009, 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

well aint seen it yet, but if thats the case, jimmy bell is misguidedly saying its ok fer the Club Captain to bet against his club?

also its saying he "DID" make the bet, not wait until the verdict.

He says that Cav told him he can not remember putting the bet on! And the Betting shops did not pay out anyway it said in the LET yesterday because they had to inform the FA

Revived Red · 09-04-2009, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

If indeed that's what Revived Red is motioning his legally subtle conspiracy stick at.

I think I am correct in saying that it was the amount of money bet on this match that first raised suspicions. Were these merely many random and unconnected one-off bets? I did not use the word conspiracy - but now that you mention it ......

Mr Matthew · 09-04-2009, 12:19

1. So Jimmy Bell defending one of his bessy mates!!! Surprising???? Or very unproffessional and blinkered. I expected better. I for one would be v.hurt and disgusted.

2. Fact: It is much more difficult to prove match fixing.

3. I know that everybody is different, but how unconfident must an individual be to bet against their own side, do we want somebody who thinks were gonna lose against opponents with equal ability playing for us. I don't!!!