Pugwash Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 So where would this lead? How much money would change hands? Would individuals rather than teams benefit? Would it extend to mid-season matches "when there's everything still to play for", or early-season matches when "the results don't mean much at this stage"? We all know that there are plenty of over-exuberant skill-challenged tacklers out there, who could perhaps be incentivised to 'up' their game against the likes of ManU and maybe put Van Persie out for a season. Would it be fair then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 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. And so is corruption in football and life generally. So because it is more widespread in europe, then it ought to be OK over here, eh? The position of a team in the table is already incentivised financially, because they make more money the higher up the table they are. The top teams have the additional incentive of either European football, or promotion. The bottom teams have the incentive of avoiding relegation and the resultant loss of income. The football authorities are able to punish clubs who in their opinion do not field their strongest teams. So pray do tell how this would be regulated, if indeed you would want it regulated? Should a rival team be required to state the payment they have made to another club? Or is it to be just a gamble, unregulated between the two clubs? And what happens when a club has laid out lots of dosh for another team to play to their utmost against one of their rivals and then get tonked? Let's say for example that it is the end of the season and we are bottom with nothing to play for. Manchester United need us to get a result against Arsenal to become champions, so agree to pay us a significant sum to beat them. Then we get thrashed 6-1. If this payments system is common practice, therefore deemed to be acceptable, then what about the ensuing recriminations and legal implications when one club sues another for breach of contract, or whatever it might constitute? The other factor making it an even more morally reprehensible scenario, is the unfairness of the wealthier teams being able to further influence the league positions, beyond their current ability to do so based on their ability to buy the best quality players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Red Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Agree with those saying this wouldn't work. Could cause a hell of a headache for the fixture list guy. Say we play man utd in January when they are trailing city in the league by 6pts, we get offered little incentive to win cos city are sitting pretty... Then in may villa play utd but city need villa to draw in order for them to be champions... And so offer villa shed loads to get a result. How is that fair to us? Just because the fixture list wasn't in our favour. Too much money in football anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 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 ;-) Really ? You think it's wrong that someone gives incentives to WIN a match ? Losing, maybe, but not winning, they're trying to do that anyway. That's just professionalism. The only dubious thing is when someone starts taking money not to do what they're meant to be trying to do anyway. You can't stop random people giving you money for something you're supposed to be doing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 It is not right that some teams wind down at the end of the season in key promotion, relegatrion or champion influencing games however surely it is not right for teams to offer others incentives to win key games. What would happen for instance of a key match between two mid table teams was to determine the fate of Man U or Wigan? even if we put aside the doubtful morality of this Man U would be able to pay far more than Wigan! Is that fair? it would give yet another advantage to the richer clubs. Also where does it end? Should richer clubs be able to loan out or even contribute to the buying of better players for teams about to play their rivals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 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. Quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 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. It is completely the opposite. Someone, anyone, paying someone to perform to the maximum of their ability is the definition of being a professional. Accepting payments to be deliberately bad is totally different and at the opposite end of the moral compass by its very definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manina-pub Posted 22 September, 2012 Author Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Danny Baker (on his radio prog a few years ago) had an idea to stop teams "winding down" at the end of a season: Basically your 2 games over a season had an extra point on offer for the teams that win on aggregate over those 2 games. Not much chance for us getting it back from Arsenal I admit but could be very interesting come the end of the season........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Saint Without a Halo: It is not right that some teams wind down at the end of the season in key promotion, relegatrion or champion influencing games however surely it is not right for teams to offer others incentives to win key games. What would happen for instance of a key match between two mid table teams was to determine the fate of Man U or Wigan? even if we put aside the doubtful morality of this Man U would be able to pay far more than Wigan! Is that fair? it would give yet another advantage to the richer clubs. Also where does it end? Should richer clubs be able to loan out or even contribute to the buying of better players for teams about to play their rivals? A very good point. And you don't have to look very far to have a perfect illustration of this in action. Last season, we're tightening up on grip on the division, with Reading also putting in a late run. West Ham seem to be destined for the lottery of the play-offs. Their position would be further jeopardised if the Skates were to be liquidated and their points re-distributed, putting us and Reading even further ahead of them. So what do they do? Pay a ridiculously inflated sum to the Skates for their goalkeeper on loan for a few weeks, even though they didn't need him at the time. So the Skates survive with this additional money from West Ham and West Ham gain an advantage through laying out some money. This is just as morally reprehensible as the scenario being discussed on this thread. Nobody can reasonably justify either case and anybody who attempts to do so just shows that their own moral code is also open to question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 It is completely the opposite. Someone, anyone, paying someone to perform to the maximum of their ability is the definition of being a professional. Accepting payments to be deliberately bad is totally different and at the opposite end of the moral compass by its very definition. The problem is that your definition of what constitutes a professional is not black and white. The professional footballer is defined as such because he receives a salary from his club and other bonuses from them based on performance. Outside of that, there are other financial rewards such as image rights and other commercial payments. This is perfectly normal and acceptable. But by the definition of a player being "professional", then certain standards of endeavour are expected from him. If he needs to gain additional incentives to play to the best of his ability from a rival club, then it can be argued that he is not a model professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Any third-party influence over games is wrong. As are loans between teams in the same division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 The problem is that your definition of what constitutes a professional is not black and white. The professional footballer is defined as such because he receives a salary from his club and other bonuses from them based on performance. Outside of that, there are other financial rewards such as image rights and other commercial payments. This is perfectly normal and acceptable. But by the definition of a player being "professional", then certain standards of endeavour are expected from him. If he needs to gain additional incentives to play to the best of his ability from a rival club, then it can be argued that he is not a model professional. Its not quite as black or white as that though. Take the case of Adebayor; while he was at Tottenham on loan his wages were being subsidised by Man City. Is that not in the same ballpark as players accepting payments from rivals clubs in order to perform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Its not quite as black or white as that though. Take the case of Adebayor; while he was at Tottenham on loan his wages were being subsidised by Man City. Is that not in the same ballpark as players accepting payments from rivals clubs in order to perform? Pretty much, and it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Pretty much, and it is wrong. I agree; but its perfectly allowed in the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 I know, the rules need changing. Why should City have been allowed to loan Adebayor to Spurs. If they wanted him off the wage bill they should have sold him. What really gets my goat is that under the terms of these agreements, the loan player is often prevented from playing against his parent club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Probably been said before in this thread but what happens if there is a combination of games that different scenarios are required for different reasons at both the top and bottom of the table, chances for European spots. Surely this can not be right or allowed. The team with the biggest reward pot will then have an unfair advantage. Not sure if i am making sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 I know, the rules need changing. Why should City have been allowed to loan Adebayor to Spurs. If they wanted him off the wage bill they should have sold him. What really gets my goat is that under the terms of these agreements, the loan player is often prevented from playing against his parent club. Yep, which is an advantage in itself. Its been mentioned on here, loans between clubs in the same division should not be permitted. I just highlighted it as its one of a few similar type issues (including players being permitted to bet on themselves but not against their own teams) which could/should really be tightened up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Id personally rather player lose 50% of their salary if they lose and 25% if they draw. That should keep the effort level high and ensure they dont slack off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 22 September, 2012 Share Posted 22 September, 2012 Id personally rather player lose 50% of their salary if they lose and 25% if they draw. That should keep the effort level high and ensure they dont slack off. F*ck me Flyer, our boys this seaon would be getting Income Support from the Government! 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