Is all the fury over Balotelli masking a far bigger story?

[TheMightyQuinn]

I've just seen some information that makes me realise why there is all the fuss over Balotelli this morning as there is a far bigger story that key people are very keen to bury.

That story is Stoke 1 v 2 West Brom. Two West Brom goals, one very late on, were the result of goalkeeping howlers from Thomas Sorenson, normally a very safe pair of hands. His save from Mario in the Cup Final was one of the best I've ever seen and all goalkeepers make mistakes now and again but two in the same game beggars belief.

When you add suspicious betting patterns to that then the story takes on a whole new complexion. Bodog, West Brom's sponsor, were offering far better than market odds on a Stoke win (and therefore tempting money on that outcome across the market) and kept those odds well into the game. Plus a lot of money went on a West Brom win in the Far East just before kick off and the big Far Eastern bookies layed Stoke heavily.

But I'm sure it's mere coincidence and there is no agenda.

We've been looking at the same info PB. Amazing how some cannot fathom any sort of corruption going on. I think with our owners were pretty much safe but wonder if we had certain players involved in the past?

It's so blatant isn't it? I'd say we were very much involved under our previous owner.

I'd agree with that.

 

[Squatter]

Well i'm convinced.

 

[blueprint]

I've just seen some information that makes me realise why there is all the fuss over Balotelli this morning as there is a far bigger story that key people are very keen to bury.

That story is Stoke 1 v 2 West Brom. Two West Brom goals, one very late on, were the result of goalkeeping howlers from Thomas Sorenson, normally a very safe pair of hands. His save from Mario in the Cup Final was one of the best I've ever seen and all goalkeepers make mistakes now and again but two in the same game beggars belief.

When you add suspicious betting patterns to that then the story takes on a whole new complexion. Bodog, West Brom's sponsor, were offering far better than market odds on a Stoke win (and therefore tempting money on that outcome across the market) and kept those odds well into the game. Plus a lot of money went on a West Brom win in the Far East just before kick off and the big Far Eastern bookies layed Stoke heavily.

But I'm sure it's mere coincidence and there is no agenda.

Besides the GK who else on the team playing an important role in the field can influence the outcome of a game especially when a One (1) goal margin or odds (DRAW or Tie) are given?

 

[Sigh]

I've just seen some information that makes me realise why there is all the fuss over Balotelli this morning as there is a far bigger story that key people are very keen to bury.

That story is Stoke 1 v 2 West Brom. Two West Brom goals, one very late on, were the result of goalkeeping howlers from Thomas Sorenson, normally a very safe pair of hands. His save from Mario in the Cup Final was one of the best I've ever seen and all goalkeepers make mistakes now and again but two in the same game beggars belief.

When you add suspicious betting patterns to that then the story takes on a whole new complexion. Bodog, West Brom's sponsor, were offering far better than market odds on a Stoke win (and therefore tempting money on that outcome across the market) and kept those odds well into the game. Plus a lot of money went on a West Brom win in the Far East just before kick off and the big Far Eastern bookies layed Stoke heavily.

But I'm sure it's mere coincidence and there is no agenda.

Besides the GK who else on the team playing an important role in the field can influence the outcome of a game especially when a One (1) goal margin or odds (DRAW or Tie) are given?

The bastard in the black. "Football is Fixed."

It's done at the margins, and it isn't always about win lose or draw either.

One can stake on just about anything - next yellow, red card, free kick, most shots on goal, penalty awards and so on.

Those who participate on the pitch have to prioritize - and they do - and must be prepared to avail themselves of naturally occuring opportunities...and they do.

The best understand that over 90 minutes (or more *cough*) opportunities will arise, and they almost always have no need to force the issue.

Punters understand that it is NOT in their long term interests to see their charges force the question and understand that any given game might not afford naturally occuring opportunities to "lean on the tottering wall"...but they know this and discount accordingly.

 

[Chris in London]

I've just seen some information that makes me realise why there is all the fuss over Balotelli this morning as there is a far bigger story that key people are very keen to bury.

That story is Stoke 1 v 2 West Brom. Two West Brom goals, one very late on, were the result of goalkeeping howlers from Thomas Sorenson, normally a very safe pair of hands. His save from Mario in the Cup Final was one of the best I've ever seen and all goalkeepers make mistakes now and again but two in the same game beggars belief.

When you add suspicious betting patterns to that then the story takes on a whole new complexion. Bodog, West Brom's sponsor, were offering far better than market odds on a Stoke win (and therefore tempting money on that outcome across the market) and kept those odds well into the game. Plus a lot of money went on a West Brom win in the Far East just before kick off and the big Far Eastern bookies layed Stoke heavily.

But I'm sure it's mere coincidence and there is no agenda.

Besides the GK who else on the team playing an important role in the field can influence the outcome of a game especially when a One (1) goal margin or odds (DRAW or Tie) are given?

The bastard in the black. "Football is Fixed."

It's done at the margins, and it isn't always about win lose or draw either.

One can stake on just about anything - next yellow, red card, free kick, most shots on goal, penalty awards and so on.

Those who participate on the pitch have to prioritize - and they do - and must be prepared to avail themselves of naturally occuring opportunities...and they do.

The best understand that over 90 minutes (or more *cough*) opportunities will arise, and they almost always have no need to force the issue.

Punters understand that it is NOT in their long term interests to see their charges force the question and understand that any given game might not afford naturally occuring opportunities to "lean on the tottering wall"...but they know this and discount accordingly.

Dennis Wise once told a story about being given a bung to unsure there was a very early throw-in in a game he played in. From the kick off, he agreed he would spray a pass to the wing and then just massively over-hit it. The betting market was 'first throw in'. The winning bet was '3 seconds' or some such.

In June last year, the Telegraph reported that FIFA was investigating the Argentina v Nigeria game which Nigeria won 4-1(where Pab Zab was the captain) . At the end of the 90 minutes, the referee added 5 minutes of extra time with Nigeria leading 4-0. As soon as this happened, sports betting websites in Argentina experienced a massive surge of bets that the game would feature more than 4 goals in total.

In fact, the ref allowed the game to continue until the 98th minute and awarded a highly suspicious penalty to Argentina which they scored from.

Sound familiar?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've just seen some information that makes me realise why there is all the fuss over Balotelli this morning as there is a far bigger story that key people are very keen to bury.

That story is Stoke 1 v 2 West Brom. Two West Brom goals, one very late on, were the result of goalkeeping howlers from Thomas Sorenson, normally a very safe pair of hands. His save from Mario in the Cup Final was one of the best I've ever seen and all goalkeepers make mistakes now and again but two in the same game beggars belief.

When you add suspicious betting patterns to that then the story takes on a whole new complexion. Bodog, West Brom's sponsor, were offering far better than market odds on a Stoke win (and therefore tempting money on that outcome across the market) and kept those odds well into the game. Plus a lot of money went on a West Brom win in the Far East just before kick off and the big Far Eastern bookies layed Stoke heavily.

But I'm sure it's mere coincidence and there is no agenda.

Besides the GK who else on the team playing an important role in the field can influence the outcome of a game especially when a One (1) goal margin or odds (DRAW or Tie) are given?

Well a centre back could influence a game by, say, scoring an own goal, directing a defensive header into the path of an opposition attacker or misplacing a pass from the back so that the opposition have a chance to score near the end of a game.

 

[johnny crossan]

Well a centre back could influence a game by, say, misplacing a pass from the back so that the opposition have a chance to score near the end of a game.

Savic's lawyers will be in touch

 

[laserblue]

Dennis Wise once told a story about being given a bung to unsure there was a very early throw-in in a game he played in. From the kick off, he agreed he would spray a pass to the wing and then just massively over-hit it. The betting market was 'first throw in'. The winning bet was '3 seconds' or some such.

some years ago there was an identical incident at west ham who kicked off & the player who received the ball (pretty sure it was kitson) immediately hoofed the ball out for a throw in with only 3 seconds on the clock.

it was clearly a betting related incident & as a result i'm sure betting on a game's first throw in was banned although of course it's now ok again along with fouls, cards, etc.

 

[MCFC-Scott]

Not sure whether it's credible or not, but this site makes some pretty strong allegations about united and favourable referees, aswell as match fixing.

<a class="postlink" href="http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/sea ... results=12</a>

 

[1.618034]

Not sure whether it's credible or not, but this site makes some pretty strong allegations about united and favourable referees, aswell as match fixing.

<a class="postlink" href="http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/sea ... results=12</a>

In particular this one about the Stoke-WBA "game"...

There are a number of questions that need to be aired over the English Premier League match between Stoke City and West Bromwich Albion.

The game was settled by two goalkeeping errors from Stoke's man with a Squiggle, Thomas Sorensen.

The man might be a Squiggly goalie...
... but is he a convincing actor?

Just to remind you - the first West Brom goal squirmed through Squiggly and was so amusing to the man that he was troubled with disguising his laughter. After a late Stoke equaliser, Squiggly once again went into sixth form drama class mode trying to make out that there were reasons why he made absolutely no attempt to save a ball, once again, almost directly at him, giving Albion victory.

It is our opinion that there were indeed reasons.

A common form of fixed football match features one agent bolstering another via players on opposite sides - remember the event between Fulham and Wigan Athletic when Andy Johnson knew that he was going to score his hundredth goal (despite not having scored for 6 months).
The Squiggly on that occasion was ##### ######## who, by chance, is a client of John Colquhoun/Key Sports.
Colquhoun is also club agent at WBA where he represents James Morrison, Chris Brunt, George Thorne and Saido Berahino.

The West Brom shirt sponsors are the Antiguan bookmakers Bodog.
At market opening, they offered a best price on the planet of Evens money on a Stoke victory - B-Win, a big European firm, in comparison, were offering 3/4 at opening while Ladbrokes went 4/5.
The only other firm on the planet to match Bodog's Evens were Bet Victor - a company known to have close links with John Colquhoun.

Bodog held the tempting psychological price of Evens throughout the market while Bet Victor tempted even more money in their direction by drifting Stoke to 21/20. At any given time in the market, Bodog/Bet Victor were offering the best, joint best or almost the best value on a Stoke victory. The other leading European firms remained in the dark until the off although some of the slicker Asian outfits (including our backers) spotted the Squiggly in the making and were also looking to lay Stoke by the off.
An aside - despite the impact of Chinese New Year, Asian bookmakers are still streets ahead of the Euro-Bozos...
... that is why we work with them.

Now why did one firm from Antigua who sponsor West Brom and one bookie from Gibraltar with links to West Brom both feel so confident about the outcome on Saturday afternoon that they were willing to financially take on the might of the globe?
And by such a distance in value too.
If two of the biggest European firms were offering such markedly shorter odds, why once again was there such confidence in the Caribbean and in some stolen imperial afterthought in the Med?

Onto the game itself, James Morrison's value will have increased from the realisation that if he kept shooting, which he did, he was bound to score. He hit the woodwork more than once as well as scoring the first Squiggly goal.
Sorensen's body language needs to be mentioned at this point.
Our woman at the game (really) pointed out that Sorensen's reactions to tipping one of these shots on to a post were as psychologically uproarious as his reactions to the two goals.
It doesn't look good being angry at a good save and laughing after conceding a goal.

Now we are not saying that Thomas tanked the engine - his uselessness might just coincide by pure chance with a hyperreality and his reactions might be due to behavioural issues.
But the man is very high on our Squiggly list, including in Denmark games of yore, and he has got links to #### #########

Interestingly, as a clear indication of the fragmented cartel in European Match Fixing, there were those working against the Squiggly Scenario - indeed the efforts of gambling stable West Brom (and others including Stoke - owned by Bet 365) are frequently confronted by # #### ############ #########
There is being in the loop...
... and being in the loop.

In summation.
Two firms linked to West Bromwich Albion/John Colquhoun made a small fortune in a match where the gamble was landed only as a result of two incredibly unprofessional goalkeeping errors by a man who has previously enjoyed such correlations on more than one occasion.

The clear winners here are two bookmakers that are based offshore to avoid paying tax who have made oodles of money at no risk to themselves out of exploiting/fortunately benefiting from a Squiggly event to the continued demise of the sport we all love.
Everyone else is in what Sun Tzu might have termed Hyperreal Risk Territory and what ##################/ Dietrological/ Football is Fixed term Thirty Thirty Theory Territory.

Full text as ever is winging its way to Asia...
Kung Hei Fat Choi.

一本萬利

"May a small investment bring ten-thousandfold profits"