General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

Utd put up a statement mentioning it on their website a while back it seems. It just said;

"The unusual start time was agreed following consultation between the clubs, the broadcaster and local authorities."

A bit vague.

PL coming down hard on Everton apparently

I think even with a 12 point deduction, Everton would stay up. A reflection on how bad at least 3 other teams are currently.

Realistically then Everton will need around 50 points to be safe, or about 11th place last season. It’s a tall order with the squad they have imo.

to me there is a big difference between them.

While Everton are accused of breaking the rules, they have actually accounted for everything, publicly.

They are accused of breaking the acceptable losses figure, because in their accounts they state that they have.

But Everton claim their Covid impacted losses are basically the exact figure they would need to go from their official loss to the Covid adjusted loss that comes in under the FFP figure. What I find odd about this is this was dealt with a year ago, and the PL said it was fine, when they submitted them. So i don't know why it is a problem now.

Yes, it is bizarre that Everton had a higher covid loss than anyone else in the league, like twice as high as the next or something like that.... but it was previously accepted.

City, on the other hand, are accussed of lieing in their accounts, for several years. Making up revenues, lieing about the source of funds, and obstucting and lieing to the investigators.

Both should have the book thrown at them if guilty, and City should be stripped of their titles.

With Everton though, if they are guulty their guilt can arguably be seen as directly contributing to the relegation of teams the last two seasons. If they get a points deduction this season, that doesn't help Leeds or Southampton. If the still manage to stay up with a points deduction then, to be honest, Everton will consider that a price well paid.

As Mitch said, Everton are being entirely transparent about it all, which allows the process to work as it's supposed to. Meanwhile, City are blocking everything at every turn, and will tie it up with their army of lawyers for years more most likely.

Everton will go down if they are deducted 12 points. That asterisk beside City is getting bigger and bigger….

But Pep said he’d manage them if they got relegated to non league. I hope to see it happen.

More fool them.

Mo reward for bong straightforward with the likes of the FA. Then again, they haven't a slush fund to pay a bus load of wigs to drag it out for years.

I mean it's for the same reason only two or three clubs are mentioned in chasing Everton, they're the ones most affected.

Italy is down on this sort of thing, especially with unlicensed betting companies or sites, which AFAIK Tonali is linked with. Goes back to organized crime being owed money and having a hold on players in the past, against the law as well as against the sporting rules. That's my understanding of it anyway.

City have bought their way into the pockets of the rule makers in England, between dodgy sponsorship, their subsidizing the regeneration of Eastlands in inner City Manchester, and the links with referees and politicians/embassy officials in the UAE as reported recently. What's reported of course is likely only the tip of the iceberg, I'd be guessing there are huge opportunities in the UK since the Russian money got too hot for people to buy influence, especially since their Tory overlords crashed the economy against the wall with a combination of Brexit and lunatic economics.

I agree, my response was just immediately to the point of view if you bet to win it's ok, the repercussions for the betting agency you place that bet with having an advantage in the market etc, the only thing that works is a complete ban on those involved betting on the sport

Indeed, even if betting on yourself to win, it can have a big impact on the game. With both Toney and Tonali seemingly admitting to betting for wins in games they took part in (according to the Guardian), it looks especially bad. Imagine late in a game where you've just come back from a goal down for instance, and the manager wants the team to hold out for a valuable point - what if that player ends up in an attacking position where they can drive on goal, or take the ball to the corner to see out the draw. Without a bet, that player does the logical thing, holds it up, and ends the game. With that bet, maybe they instead think of their self interest and go for goal - maybe they score, and the game is directly impacted, or maybe they give it up and the other team break and score, and again the game is directly impacted. That's just one example, and i'm sure there's many more, of how even a positive bet can directly effect the result. A ban just makes sense for safety.

Betting and the Premier League is well linked. You can't turn on the TV for a game without seeing gambling ads. Managers and players appear in these ads.

I don't see anything wrong with betting on your own team to win. Everybody wants to win don't they?

I'd be against betting on anything else in your own teams games.

Betting on other games shouldn't be a problem at all but I believe this isn't allowed?

And players are just as likely as the rest of the world to develop gambling addictions. This should be taken into account when deciding on any punishment.

As regards Manchester City, it's clear their money is buying them not only a massive squad but favours as well. It's next to impossible to stop that.

My point is that there is so much corruption in the game that nobody is in a position to stand up and call them out on it for fear of something at their own club being exposed. And you just know that if there is corruption at any other club that the owners of City know about it. They can buy information just like they can buy officials.

I gave an example above of how betting on your own team could lead to different outcomes as a result. The basic gist of it all though, is that the only way to remove the possibility of betting impacting outcomes is to not allow betting. Makes total sense to simply remove that possibility.

As to EE's point of there potentially being corruption elsewhere - well, it's that old saying, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Sure, maybe all aspects of corruption can't be removed, but that doesn't mean you don't make your gains where you can.

As has already been pointed out, betting on your own team to win can cause a conflict of interest where your goals of winning a bet go against the wishes of the manager - football isn’t played in a way where everyone is trying to win at every moment.

And as for betting on games you’re not involved in - there’s also a conflict of interest there. While you cannot directly affect the outcome of the game, football is a small group - players will know players will know players. Who’s to say that someone couldn’t influence another player, even in a smaller market? And if you have players doing that you’re going to expect larger influences at some point.

I think it’s absolutely correct to have a blanket ban for players, it’s a situation football doesn’t need.

Any player who signs a contract with win bonus, goal scoring bonus, or incentives to finish in/above a certain position is effectively betting on themselves.

There's no real difference between a £1K win bonus and putting £1K on your team to win at Evens, other than one is betting with salary yet to be paid and the latter is betting with salary already paid. (And also the latter is frowned upon/illegal/gets you a 12 month ban, whilst no-one bats an eyelid at the former)

I made clear that I'm aware one is illegal (in Italy)/against the rules (England), and performance bonus isn't, so not sure why you felt the need to point it out to me.

For me the question would be why one (score/win/position bonus, even a paycut for relegation) is industry standard yet it becomes such a no-no if there's a Ladbrokes sign above it. I really don't see much difference, at the core they are all just bets.

But ultimately I agree that if the authorities have banned it, then it's really silly of the players to do it.

I didn't look at it from that angle. I agree with you.

With these recent high-profile betting suspensions, I wonder will clubs start inserting clauses into contracts that limit their exposure.

Newcastle have spent a small fortune on a guy who can't play again until next season. It's not the same as a long-term injury; this is something the player could easily have avoided. It's more akin to assaulting someone on the pitch and in those cases it's not uncommon to see a player fined by his club.

I wouldn't hold my breath

Are all Prime Video games on Premiere also?