manina-pub Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 He said: "If Swansea play the last game against a team and a third team pays Swansea to win the game, I really don't see anything bad about that." Accepting money to influence the outcome of a match is against Football Association and Premier League rules. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19667219 Personally I think this is an outrageous statement ... ps ... Can't see NC sanctioning this ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 (edited) That statement disgusted me. Financial incentives for sporting matters outside of your own employment? Despicable, disgusting and wrong on every level. Or, are we naive in this country? Is sport for sport's sake an archaic gesture? Edited 21 September, 2012 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Why? It's not match fixing! Makes it more competitive when a team has nothing to play for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Why? It's not match fixing! Makes it more competitive when a team has nothing to play for It is an attempt to sway a game by a team not directly competing. It's abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughing now Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 At last! A rationale explanation for our first four results. Let's hope no one is offering Villa a win bonus too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 If he says its fine to pay a team to beat a rival IMO he basically says its fine for a team to accept payment to lose. Wrong, maybe he didnt understand the cost of his words but, v wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Don't see much wrong with it, if I'm honest. Not much difference in technicality to a win bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 If he says its fine to pay a team to beat a rival IMO he basically says its fine for a team to accept payment to lose. Wrong, maybe he didnt understand the cost of his words but, v wrong Apart from the part where he distinctly said that wasn't fine? Or did you miss that bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Don't see much wrong with it, if I'm honest. Not much difference in technicality to a win bonus. Completely dissagree. A win bonus is a set standard, a constant. For other teams to chip in in an attempt to sway results is wrong, utterly wrong. It is something that could be imposed or offered at any time and would effect the mentality of all players unfairly in the context of other games occuring. Why should a game at an end of a season (compared to say one in the middle) have any different bearing for the players based on the financial offering of a team with something to gain now the context is known? It's a complete insult to the integrity of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 It is an attempt to sway a game by a team not directly competing. It's abhorrent. Hitler gassing millions of Jews was abhorrent. This is merely "not really in the spirit of fair play" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Good example was given on the radio. If it was legal to do this Spurs could have incentivised West Brom on the last game of last season to beat Arsenal. West Brom had nothing to play for and changed a few team members. They had a few lapses of concentration which lost the game. You could say some of the team were already mentally on the beach. Whereas if they had more incentive they may have been more competitive. Where's the negative in that? If it was made legal there would have to be strict rules on it. It's completely different to paying someone to lose. That isn't on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Hitler gassing millions of Jews was abhorrent. This is merely "not really in the spirit of fair play" In regards to my perception of sport as an ideal, its abhorrent. You are right, these thing need to be taken in context, I feel you went a little beyond the needs of this debate for your example though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Why should a game at an end of a season (compared to say one in the middle) have any different bearing for the players based on the financial offering of a team with something to gain now the context is known? It's a complete insult to the integrity of the game. Because a game at the end of the season often means a team has nothing to play for (relegation/champs league etc) in the middle of the season that isn't the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Completely dissagree. A win bonus is a set standard, a constant. For other teams to chip in in an attempt to sway results is wrong, utterly wrong. It is something that could be imposed or offered at any time and would effect the mentality of all players unfairly in the context of other games occuring. Why should a game at an end of a season (compared to say one in the middle) have any different bearing for the players based on the financial offering of a team with something to gain now the context is known? It's a complete insult to the integrity of the game. What about club sponsors? If they give a win bonus, is that ok? What about individual player sponsors, who choose to give out a certain payment? I don't see what bearing a payment paid to a player for winning a game (which a player will naturally try to do anyway) is all that bad. Not ideal, obviously, but I don't see it actually goes to the integrity of the game unless players are diverted away from their natural inclination to win a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Because a game at the end of the season often means a team has nothing to play for (relegation/champs league etc) in the middle of the season that isn't the case So, it's ok to put extra outside influence in the form of financial incentive onto it? A league is based on the idea that all games have a bearing at the end. All games have an equal impact. Mentally of course, based on the circumstances no, that will never be an even thing, relegation battles, chasing champions league spots will play a factor. But trying to influence it further outside of the pressure of circumstance is utterly wrong. It just serves to warp the sporting nature of the events. It is morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 In regards to my perception of sport as an ideal, its abhorrent. You are right, these thing need to be taken in context, I feel you went a little beyond the needs of this debate for your example though. I can actually see some merit in this though. Kind of like having the play offs keeps things more interesting for more teams longer into the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Apart from the part where he distinctly said that wasn't fine? Or did you miss that bit? Apparantly yes Kids, this is why you shouldnt go on the forum under the influence Sorry Kraks me old mucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Apparantly yes Kids, this is why you shouldnt go on the forum under the influence Sorry Kraks me old mucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 So, it's ok to put extra outside influence in the form of financial incentive onto it? A league is based on the idea that all games have a bearing at the end. All games have an equal impact. Mentally of course, based on the circumstances no, that will never be an even thing, relegation battles, chasing champions league spots will play a factor. But trying to influence it further outside of the pressure of circumstance is utterly wrong. It just serves to warp the sporting nature of the events. It is morally wrong. I don't see how it's morally wrong when the morals are to win, which in my head is morally correct. If they lose, they don't earn the extra incentive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 (edited) I can actually see some merit in this though. Kind of like having the play offs keeps things more interesting for more teams longer into the season. So, Newcastle in the final game of the season offer a 70k prize to each Swansea player to beat Aston Villa and ensure they finish in 10th. This would ensure they finish 10th rather then 11th and give their club a greater amount of money then the payments they would give to the Swansea players. It is at best Vulgar. At worst could be used to influence a club at risk of relegation and oblivion. It is a further corruption of the game, of sport in general. People who should have no right to influencing sporting contests other then their own chirping in for selfish gains. Edited 21 September, 2012 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 So, Newcastle in the final game of the season offer a 70k prize to each Swansea player to beat Aston Villa and ensure they finish in 10th. This would ensure they finish 10th rather then 11th and give their club a greater amount of money then the payments they would give to the Swansea players. It is at best Vulgar. At worst could be used to influence a club at risk of relegation and oblivion. It wouldn't "ensure" anything as Swansea would still have to win. But it would make it more fun for me watching on Sky as I now know that Swansea will be trying hard :-). And even better if the other team vying for 10th place bunged a load of money to Swansea's opponents to get them to win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 It wouldn't "ensure" anything as Swansea would still have to win. But it would make it more fun for me watching on Sky as I now know that Swansea will be trying hard :-) Then their is no integrity left in professional sport. How would you feel if Portsmouth offered Saints players money to win a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 I actually like the idea of it as teams to slack off towards the end of the season. This is frustrating when these slacking teams play a team close to you on the league. However, playing devils advocate here, it makes the rich clubs more powerful and widens that gap between top and bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Then their is no integrity left in professional sport. How would you feel if Portsmouth offered Saints players money to win a game? Now you are going beyond the realms of possibility :-) unless you count a couple of old nags and a tinker's caravan as a payment :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Then their is no integrity left in professional sport. How would you feel if Portsmouth offered Saints players money to win a game? You don't like the idea of outside interference encouraging a player to do his job better. The top scorer at world cups, euros etc usually is gifted with a prize supplied by independent sponsors. A prize (often high in monetary value) gained by trying his hardest for his team. Is that immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Now you are going beyond the realms of possibility :-) unless you count a couple of old nags and a tinker's caravan as a payment :-) Hey, the theory allows the possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Then their is no integrity left in professional sport. How would you feel if Portsmouth offered Saints players money to win a game? Take it. Not only would we have an extra incentive to win (good) we'd take money off Portsmouth (good). Again, where's the problem? Remember, this isn't fixing. It's an incentive. There are no guarantees that once they are offered a bonus that they would automatically win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 You don't like the idea of outside interference encouraging a player to do his job better. The top scorer at world cups, euros etc usually is gifted with a prize supplied by independent sponsors. A prize (often high in monetary value) gained by trying his hardest for his team. Is that immoral? No, because despite the prize he is operating purely for the best interest of his own team and self. There is no implication of detrimental effect for someone else outside of his own sides' destiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 I actually like the idea of it as teams to slack off towards the end of the season. This is frustrating when these slacking teams play a team close to you on the league. However, playing devils advocate here, it makes the rich clubs more powerful and widens that gap between top and bottom. How about if the richer clubs had to pay the slacking team with 1 of their players? That would be pretty cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 No, because despite the prize he is operating purely for the best interest of his own team and self. There is no implication of detrimental effect for someone else outside of his own sides' destiny. But if a team are being paid extra to win a game (their natural goal), why are they not doing the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Take it. Not only would we have an extra incentive to win (good) we'd take money off Portsmouth (good). Again, where's the problem? Remember, this isn't fixing. It's an incentive. There are no guarantees that once they are offered a bonus that they would automatically win. No, there isn't, but the effect it would have, to maybe destabilise the opposition who know that another club is under duress or spurs their competitors on beyond their normal means at their detriment and for the gain of the third party..... It is against the philiosophy of two teams fighting for their own pride and achievement. It turns clubs and players into other team's b*tches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 But if a team are being paid extra to win a game (their natural goal), why are they not doing the same? Because the benefit is not simply their own. That is a corruption of competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 Because the benefit is not simply their own. That is a corruption of competition. By definition, yes it is. As Laudrup is saying though, I'm not sure I agree with the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 (edited) By definition, yes it is. As Laudrup is saying though, I'm not sure I agree with the definition. The definition Michael Laudrup is disputing is 'Match Fixing.' I grant him, paying to win is not match fixing, it is however an attempt to raise the performance level of a team. That is an attempt to influence results outside of normal boundaries. That is a corruption of competition. It should not be allowed. As someone who profited from such arrangements, I would not expect Mr Laudrup to oppose it. Edited 21 September, 2012 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 No, there isn't, but the effect it would have, to maybe destabilise the opposition who know that another club is under duress or spurs their competitors on beyond their normal means at their detriment and for the gain of the third party..... It is against the philiosophy of two teams fighting for their own pride and achievement. It turns clubs and players into other team's b*tches. Why would a win bonus (which they already receive) go against the philosophy of the teams and affect the two teams pride or desire to achieve? Just because it comes from elsewhere? If used correctly it can make the league more competitive towards the end of the season. If anything I'd say it maintains the integrity of the players/clubs to be as competitive as possible rather than either slacking off or playing weakened teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 The definition Michael Laudrup is disputing is 'Match Fixing.' I grant him, paying to win is not match fixing, it is however an attempt to raise the performance level of a team. That is an attempt to influence results outside of normal boundaries. That is a corruption of competition. It should not be allowed. As someone who profited from such arrangements, I would not expect Mr Laudrup to oppose it. Very well put. You've swayed me Colin; I concur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 If used correctly it can make the league more competitive towards the end of the season. If anything I'd say it maintains the integrity of the players/clubs to be as competitive as possible rather than either slacking off or playing weakened teams I point you to my post above. It is a corruption of competion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 The definition Michael Laudrup is disputing is 'Match Fixing.' I grant him, paying to win is not match fixing, it is however an attempt to raise the performance level of a team. That is an attempt to influence results outside of normal boundaries. That is a corruption of competition. It should not be allowed. As someone who profited from such arrangements, I would not expect Mr Laudrup to oppose it. Not sure that it is a corruption of competition. If ManU want to stump up £100k to Saints to incentivise them to beat Chelsea, Chelsea would probably do the same when we play Man U. Sounds great and quite fun actually. There could always be some regulations put in place too, such as every team is allowed an incentivisation budget of £1m to spend getting other teams to win in order to gain the highest league position they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 (edited) Not sure that it is a corruption of competition. If ManU want to stump up £100k to Saints to incentivise them to beat Chelsea' date=' Chelsea would probably do the same when we play Man U. Sounds great and quite fun actually. There could always be some regulations put in place too, such as [b']every team is allowed an incentivisation budget of £1m to spend getting other teams to win[/b] in order to gain the highest league position they can The footballing equivalent of DRS in F1? An artificial construct? How about Mulitball? 10 men for the winning side? It goes too far. The show is the game. the playoffs as an example do not apply as they are the individual teams competing. Anything where the teams become intertwined becomes murky and open to corruption. Edited 21 September, 2012 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 West Ham last year... I have my suspicions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 That statement disgusted me. Financial incentives for sporting matters outside of your own employment? Despicable, disgusting and wrong on every level. Or, are we naive in this country? Is sport for sport's sake an archaic gesture? Agree 100%. And anybody who tries to justify it should realise that if that is acceptable, paying another rival team to win a match is not that far morally from paying another team to lose. They are just two sides of the same coin. It is easily arguable that these so-called win bonuses if paid by a rival team are nothing more than a bribe. But the FA and the Premier League have rules about this sort of thing, thankfully, so no doubt they have marked his card and will be watching him closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooley7 Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 pretty much all he said makes sense, surely every team sould be going out to win every game, an incentive to do so is just encourage them to do what they sould be doing any way. To pay a team to lose is completely different, those who think otherwise need to get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 pretty much all he said makes sense, surely every team sould be going out to win every game, an incentive to do so is just encourage them to do what they sould be doing any way. To pay a team to lose is completely different, those who think otherwise need to get a grip. You had better tell the FA and the Premierhip hierarchy to get a grip then. How can the governing bodies of football get it so wrong, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 this is really tenuous. I agree that there is a difference between playing to lose and paying someone to try a bit harder to win. on balance I don't like it. it eliminates fair play and thus is indirect match fixing through the back door. I expect (and hope) Mr laudrup to have a trip to the FA and a need to find his cheque book. I expect better from young and supposedly bright managers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 You had better tell the FA and the Premierhip hierarchy to get a grip then. How can the governing bodies of football get it so wrong, eh? Are Premier League footballers still allowed to bet on their own teams to win? They used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooley7 Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 So a mid table team playing a championship chasing team or relegation avoiding team and not turning up is better and more acceptable??? I would rather a team in tenth with 2 games left, played to win like they should every other game. Just because the FA say it is wrong means F all, in europe it is common practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooley7 Posted 21 September, 2012 Share Posted 21 September, 2012 My last comment was in reply to the comment Wes tender #43 that suggested that because the FA say it is so then it must be right!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazing Hangover Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Go down this road then threatening another team is equally OK. Hello South America. Agree 100%. And anybody who tries to justify it should realise that if that is acceptable, paying another rival team to win a match is not that far morally from paying another team to lose. They are just two sides of the same coin. It is easily arguable that these so-called win bonuses if paid by a rival team are nothing more than a bribe. But the FA and the Premier League have rules about this sort of thing, thankfully, so no doubt they have marked his card and will be watching him closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK the 2nd Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 I think the problem is a team not giving its all to win every match anyway. If this was happening there would be no need for any financial incentive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Are Premier League footballers still allowed to bet on their own teams to win? They used to be. I don't know. But there is a vast difference between a player betting on his own team to win and the people owning a team being "incentivised" to win by another rival team which has a financial reward because of a match result. As I say, morally there is not a huge gap being a team being paid to win by another team and being paid to lose by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now