Or he could have a "weakness" that everyone can see and therefore it doesn't come as a shock when goals are conceded because of that. Say, for example, shots low down to his left. Or he could race out of his goal for balls which aren't his and his defenders had covered.Let's say a keeper was fixing a match. he could easily not just concede, but instruct players to move into poor areas and then have a very poor release, not throwing ball out fast to counter or kicking out of play or to opposition etc. A keeper has far more influence on overall play these days, that's why we got Bravo in.
But how could you do that without players from both teams being involved ?Or it could be just the end result that was the desired outcome.
Big difference between fixing a low profile mid table end of season Serie A match where the players haven't been paid and the governing body and broadcasters don't give a shit and fixing a high profile champions league game between some of the highest paid sportsmen in the world.Well its happened in Italy and the refs have a thread about who it is every week,so maybe the idea is not so far fetched.
Or he could have a "weakness" that everyone can see and therefore it doesn't come as a shock when goals are conceded because of that. Say, for example, shots low down to his left. Or he could race out of his goal for balls which aren't his and his defenders had covered.
The centre half of the losing team had a 10 minute stinker, and was purchased from the winning team.
Indeed. Spot on PB.
Now, I'm not casting doubt about the character of the guys who played that game, but lets look at some cold facts:
The manager of the team who went on to lose is now the manager of the winning team.
The centre half of the losing team had a 10 minute stinker, and was purchased from the winning team.
Once the result swung to 3-2, the winning manager promptly took an attacking option off the field in favour of a defensive midfielder, stopping City from topping the group and leaving the losing team top. Both teams progress to knockout stages. The revenue from the knockout stages then play a huge part in City climbing over the FFP hurdle.
One of the centre halves playing that day was investigated for gambling breaches last year and had a very close relationship with the manager.This player also gave away a ridiculous amount of penalties, free kicks and red cards in key games despite being a seasoned veteran.
I'm not saying football is fixed is right, but they don't just blindly say stuff without having some sort of theory. if you were to look at all the above points and then watch the game, would you think it looked suspect?
Just checked the calendar to see it wasn't 1st April,you need to go and hav a lie down mate.Youve plucked so many random things there and lumped them all together it's laughable.Indeed. Spot on PB.
Now, I'm not casting doubt about the character of the guys who played that game, but lets look at some cold facts:
The manager of the team who went on to lose is now the manager of the winning team.
The centre half of the losing team had a 10 minute stinker, and was purchased from the winning team.
Once the result swung to 3-2, the winning manager promptly took an attacking option off the field in favour of a defensive midfielder, stopping City from topping the group and leaving the losing team top. Both teams progress to knockout stages. The revenue from the knockout stages then play a huge part in City climbing over the FFP hurdle.
One of the centre halves playing that day was investigated for gambling breaches last year and had a very close relationship with the manager.This player also gave away a ridiculous amount of penalties, free kicks and red cards in key games despite being a seasoned veteran.
I'm not saying football is fixed is right, but they don't just blindly say stuff without having some sort of theory. if you were to look at all the above points and then watch the game, would you think it looked suspect?