Motherwell fixing - alleged

steo87

This is a big story at the moment in the Scottish newspapers.

Several Bookies have claimed that Steve Jennings deliberately got sent off in Motherwell's match against Hearts.

The Bookies claim that a flurry of bets were made on a Motherwell player to get sent off, and the action that worried them most was a newly-created internet betting account placing 500 pounds on the bet at 10-1...in the Liverpool area (Jennings is a Scouser).

What do you make of this? Was it just a (weird) coincidence or is Jennings looking to make a quick buck?

The SFA and the Association of British Bookmakers are investigating.

hitman79

Jennings looking to make a quick book i reckon. He got sent off for abusing the ref and putting his hand on the ref. So easy to do and plan in advance. Handy Xmas cash for his mates in Liverpool tho

OhNoYouDidn't

There was ONE bet for £100.

The bookies are pulling the píss bigtime here and in general.

The guy gets a peno claim turned down, goes ape at the ref, someone then bets £100 at 10/1 he wont last the game, and 6 mins later he goes in over the ball.

ONE bet and they come out taking about irregular betting patterns and blackening this guys name.

Chucky the tree

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There was ONE bet for £100.

The bookies are pulling the píss bigtime here and in general.

The guy gets a peno claim turned down, goes ape at the ref, someone then bets £100 at 10/1 he wont last the game, and 6 mins later he goes in over the ball.

ONE bet and they come out taking about irregular betting patterns and blackening this guys name.

Link? A spokes person for Blue square said they had multiple new accounts made the day of the game that made £100-£500 bets on the red card market. Some of the accounts were based in Liverpool. It's not only one bookie making this claim so where are you getting the information it was only one bet? They wouldn't bother going through all this hassle for one £100 bet at only 10/1.

deisedevil

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There was ONE bet for £100.

The bookies are pulling the píss bigtime here and in general.

The guy gets a peno claim turned down, goes ape at the ref, someone then bets £100 at 10/1 he wont last the game, and 6 mins later he goes in over the ball.

ONE bet and they come out taking about irregular betting patterns and blackening this guys name.

Was that really all it came down to! Shur I have made bets like that myself before on Paul Scoles and won one of them years back. I'm lucky meself and Paul weren't investigated for match fixing so.

OhNoYouDidn't

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Link? A spokes person for Blue square said they had multiple new accounts made the day of the game that made £100-£500 bets on the red card market. Some of the accounts were based in Liverpool. It's not only one bookie making this claim so where are you getting the information it was only one bet? They wouldn't bother going through all this hassle for one £100 bet at only 10/1.

Apologies, it was one bet for £500

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/15/motherwell-red-card-bet

But the core point remains, bookies are far to quick to call conspiracy.

The guy got sent off for dissent 10 mins after having a stonewall penalty turned down. It happens. Anyone with an eye for a bet watching that game would have seen how bulling he was.

steo87

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Apologies, it was one bet for £500

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/15/motherwell-red-card-bet

But the core point remains, bookies are far to quick to call conspiracy.

The guy got sent off for dissent 10 mins after having a stonewall penalty turned down. It happens. Anyone with an eye for a bet watching that game would have seen how bulling he was.

In fairness you are oversimplifying the situation and there is a lot more to it than that.

As far as I'm aware, the bet was made before the match (I'm open to correction!). And the fact that new accounts were open just to place this bet on, and that it was opened in Liverpool, shows that something is not right here. 9 times out of 10 that would scream 'dodgy'.

OhNoYouDidn't

steo87 wrote: »

In fairness you are oversimplifying the situation and there is a lot more to it than that.

As far as I'm aware, the bet was made before the match (I'm open to correction!). And the fact that new accounts were open just to place this bet on, and that it was opened in Liverpool, shows that something is not right here. 9 times out of 10 that would scream 'dodgy'.

Ok, even if there is something 'dodgy' and I am skeptical, why are we reading about their investigation in the papers.

Let them investigate and if there is something, then they should go public.

There were a couple of high profile allegations over LoI players that turned out to be nothing. But the damage was done to their reputations as them being cleared didn't hit the papers with the same impact as the allegation

steo87

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Ok, even if there is something 'dodgy' and I am skeptical, why are we reading about their investigation in the papers.

Let them investigate and if there is something, then they should go public.

There were a couple of high profile allegations over LoI players that turned out to be nothing. But the damage was done to their reputations as them being cleared didn't hit the papers with the same impact as the allegation

Well that's modern celebrity for ya - papers will publish anything to sell papers, regardless of the potential damage.

I agree with you that they could have waited for the investigation, but that's like telling a paedo not to touch your child while babysitting.

The paper I read it in has a pro-Rangers bias (Daily Record), so I'm just about certain they wouldn't have jumped on it with this much zeal if it was the Gers. If it were Celtic? - witch hunt!

Broxi_Bear_Eire

steo87 wrote: »

Well that's modern celebrity for ya - papers will publish anything to sell papers, regardless of the potential damage.

I agree with you that they could have waited for the investigation, but that's like telling a paedo not to touch your child while babysitting.

The paper I read it in has a pro-Rangers bias (Daily Record), so I'm just about certain they wouldn't have jumped on it with this much zeal if it was the Gers. If it were Celtic? - witch hunt!

I lol'd I really did :rolleyes:

Chucky the tree

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Apologies, it was one bet for £500

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/15/motherwell-red-card-bet

But the core point remains, bookies are far to quick to call conspiracy.

The guy got sent off for dissent 10 mins after having a stonewall penalty turned down. It happens. Anyone with an eye for a bet watching that game would have seen how bulling he was.

It was two bookmakers who had concerns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/motherwell/9291880.stm

Blue Square spokesman Alan Alger was certain that activity on his company's website and those of rivals required investigation.

"We keep in touch with all other bookmakers and we were discussing this market with another bookmaker and they reported some suspicious activity and asked us to have a look and see what we'd actually taken on the match," he told BBC Scotland.

"Although we didn't actually notice it in the normal course of our day yesterday, when we revisited the market for the Motherwell red card, it was pretty clear there had been some suspicious activity on our side of things - then we obviously contacted other bookmakers and the regulatory authorities as well.

"At Blue Square, we actually offer specific team red cards. In any particularly live game, you can back a team to get a red card.

"In this instance, the market that had the suspicious activity was the Motherwell red card market, but we understand from other bookmakers that their particular concern was over any red card in the game.

"What we mean by suspicious is new accounts opening up and trying to back that specific outcome."

At first Blue square didn't even notice, it was only until another bookmaker who had concerns about the market contacted them and asked them if they found any suspicious betting. I'm sure when they looked at it in detail and found a £500 bet from a brand new account they felt it was fairly suspicious. It seem at least two bookmakers have found suspicious betting patterns in the red card market, perfectly valid for them to raise this issue.

steo87

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I lol'd I really did :rolleyes:

Ah here he is, right on time :pac:

Broxi_Bear_Eire

steo87 wrote: »

Ah here he is, right on time :pac:

?????????????????????;)

£500 on 10/1 ?

5 grand. Hardly life changing money ffs.

Betfair ftw. Bookies are gangsters.

amacachi

Whatever about patterns or anything else, if the bookies have coded their system so badly that a couple of bets stop them making their percentage they should be allowed go broke.

fkt

It was fixed, 100% fact.

Nothing the bookies can do to prove it though

Handsome Bob

rarnes1 wrote: »

£500 on 10/1 ?

5 grand. Hardly life changing money ffs.

Betfair ftw. Bookies are gangsters.

Flurry of bets though apparently, which means that there must have been a lot more than just one bloke betting on it. Would have to see the game though to make a judgement.

Degag

Seems like alot of trouble for the sake of a few thousand quid. If we were talking about hundreds of thousands, i'd say something. It could be an idea to look into the referee. Just as easy for a player to deliberately get sent off as for the referee to deliberately give a red card.

happydayz182

there was a flurry of bets on a red card at odds as much as 10-1 so much that it was noticed by more than one bookmaker

there was multiple accounts opened with most of them being from liverpool

the player involve is from liverpool

he was already on a yellow card and gave the ref abuse supposedly questioning his integratity which means it most of being playing on his mind and got a straight red

he refused to be interviewd the next morning at training (if he was innocent why would he shy away from the cameras)

clearly something went on but how will they prove it?

eagle eye

I hope he gets away with it even if he done it. The reason I say that is because if he was innocent he has had his reputation destroyed now. The bookmakers are at fault for leaking this story. They should know better and they deserve no sympathy after making it public before its proven one way or the other.

I don't know why people bet with bookies these days anyways.

LiamMc

eagle eye wrote: »

I hope he gets away with it even if he done it. The reason I say that is because if he was innocent he has had his reputation destroyed now. The bookmakers are at fault for leaking this story. They should know better and they deserve no sympathy after making it public before its proven one way or the other.

I don't know why people bet with bookies these days anyways.

I understand placing bets amongst friends is so much less complicated.