Those who think there's no agenda need to read this...

[Latics Fan SJK]

I would say that todays scenario was what Sky, the premier league and every media outlet in the world was praying for, so unless we are "in " on the agenda, it looks are pretty flimsy theory.

As I keep saying, there are two "agendas". The first is Sky's commercial agenda so by slowing us down and giving them a big helping hand they've got exactly what they wanted when they wanted it. So that's worked perfectly for them.

The other is driven by the Far Eastern underground gambling markets where single bets of £10m or more are common and where the total staked on a big event like next Monday will probably be over £1bn.[/quote]

So are you suggesting that if there's a controversial decision in favour of United that means these bets were all laid on a United win?

What if City win? Does it mean those Asian betters plumped for City?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I would say that todays scenario was what Sky, the premier league and every media outlet in the world was praying for, so unless we are "in " on the agenda, it looks are pretty flimsy theory.

As I keep saying, there are two "agendas". The first is Sky's commercial agenda so by slowing us down and giving them a big helping hand they've got exactly what they wanted when they wanted it. So that's worked perfectly for them.

The other is driven by the Far Eastern underground gambling markets where single bets of £10m or more are common and where the total staked on a big event like next Monday will probably be over £1bn.

So are you suggesting that if there's a controversial decision in favour of United that means these bets were all laid on a United win?

What if City win? Does it mean those Asian betters plumped for City?[/quote]
Not that simplistic. The inside bets could be on number of goals or score or there could be a big bet on other factors like the number of cards or a sending off.

When we played West Ham in the FA Cup 3rd round in 2008 Rob Styles denied us two stonewall penalties. These never got shown on MOTD so there was no controversy but I was at the game and can tell you they were quite clear. I always reckoned that there was a lot of money riding on a result that those penalties would have screwed up.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

As I keep saying, there are two "agendas". The first is Sky's commercial agenda so by slowing us down and giving them a big helping hand they've got exactly what they wanted when they wanted it. So that's worked perfectly for them.

The other is driven by the Far Eastern underground gambling markets where single bets of £10m or more are common and where the total staked on a big event like next Monday will probably be over £1bn.

So are you suggesting that if there's a controversial decision in favour of United that means these bets were all laid on a United win?

What if City win? Does it mean those Asian betters plumped for City?

Not that simplistic. The inside bets could be on number of goals or score or there could be a big bet on other factors like the number of cards or a sending off.

When we played West Ham in the FA Cup 3rd round in 2008 Rob Styles denied us two stonewall penalties. These never got shown on MOTD so there was no controversy but I was at the game and can tell you they were quite clear. I always reckoned that there was a lot of money riding on a result that those penalties would have screwed up.[/quote]

So do you believe in a pro United agenda or just general match fixing?

I mean, logically speaking, there would be more money to win betting against United simply due to the odds.

 

[JM Mcr]

5 mins injury time for the Rags in a game there was hardly a bad tackle and about 3 free kicks around the edge of the box in that injury time. I doubt there'd have been more than three mins given if United would have been 4-3 up. And the Johny Evans free kick was a disgrace and nothing other than blatant cheating by the ref.

They'll quote " there was a head injury" as the reason no doubt, that was a couple of minutes at most, but they'll justify it by adding up the subs and goals aswell, just a pity they don't do that every time though isn't it ;-), oh and that ref, Jones was it ? Goes down as another bottler, made sure he gave the rags every opportunity to keep up their head of pressure with some of his decisions during that time.

"they'll justify it by adding up the subs n goals...". So referees correctly applying the rules is part of the conspiracy is it?

By the way, given that Everton had just scored twice in previous 10 mins how could the ref be sure they wouldn't just steam up the pitch n score again? Dangerous ploy for someone in on The Agenda - should've played it safe by blowing right on 90 mins....

 

[bernabias home shirt]

I would say that todays scenario was what Sky, the premier league and every media outlet in the world was praying for, so unless we are "in " on the agenda, it looks are pretty flimsy theory.

As I keep saying, there are two "agendas". The first is Sky's commercial agenda so by slowing us down and giving them a big helping hand they've got exactly what they wanted when they wanted it. So that's worked perfectly for them.

The other is driven by the Far Eastern underground gambling markets where single bets of £10m or more are common and where the total staked on a big event like next Monday will probably be over £1bn.

You have mentioned this lots of times p.b..

So what about it?

 

[Dirty Harry]

5 mins injury time for the Rags in a game there was hardly a bad tackle and about 3 free kicks around the edge of the box in that injury time. I doubt there'd have been more than three mins given if United would have been 4-3 up. And the Johny Evans free kick was a disgrace and nothing other than blatant cheating by the ref.

They'll quote " there was a head injury" as the reason no doubt, that was a couple of minutes at most, but they'll justify it by adding up the subs and goals aswell, just a pity they don't do that every time though isn't it ;-), oh and that ref, Jones was it ? Goes down as another bottler, made sure he gave the rags every opportunity to keep up their head of pressure with some of his decisions during that time.

"they'll justify it by adding up the subs n goals...". So referees correctly applying the rules is part of the conspiracy is it?

By the way, given that Everton had just scored twice in previous 10 mins how could the ref be sure they wouldn't just steam up the pitch n score again? Dangerous ploy for someone in on The Agenda - should've played it safe by blowing right on 90 mins....

I'll highlight the important bit for you, the bit you obviously failed to take into account there ;-).

 

[JM Mcr]

They'll quote " there was a head injury" as the reason no doubt, that was a couple of minutes at most, but they'll justify it by adding up the subs and goals aswell, just a pity they don't do that every time though isn't it ;-)
I'll highlight the important bit for you, the bit you obviously failed to take into account there ;-).

Didn't fail to take it into account, just not sure how it's a justification for a ref not to apply the rules. So because prev refs may, or may not, have incorrectly calculated time to be added on, no other ref should even try to get it right in future?

Does that mean if Ashley Young throws himself to the ground in City's penalty area next Monday night, the ref has no choice but to award a penalty because the ref incorrectly gave him s pen when diving in a previous game? Strange logic but at least there'd be consistency ;-)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I would say that todays scenario was what Sky, the premier league and every media outlet in the world was praying for, so unless we are "in " on the agenda, it looks are pretty flimsy theory.

As I keep saying, there are two "agendas". The first is Sky's commercial agenda so by slowing us down and giving them a big helping hand they've got exactly what they wanted when they wanted it. So that's worked perfectly for them.

The other is driven by the Far Eastern underground gambling markets where single bets of £10m or more are common and where the total staked on a big event like next Monday will probably be over £1bn.

You have mentioned this lots of times p.b..

So what about it?

Because if some bookie risks losing hundreds of millions of dollars if some event goes against him then he's going to want to ensure it doesn't, as far as he can. Plus there's also the possibility that late and large bets against the prevailing money tend to be on the basis that the placer knows something the others don't.

The referee in the rags pre-season friendly in China in 2007 was even paid £8k to fix the coin toss in favour of the home team. What do you imagine people would pay for a fixed result?

 

[jrb]

Taken from Red Cafe.

Another one of their hopes dashed.

THE WHOLE STORY!!! Lazy journalism at its worst!! If those responsible for this article watched the game they would realise this is aimed at the referee in response to 2 fouls without booking. Previously Yaya Toure was booked, and Yaya help up 1 finger as if to say "thats my first". As i said lazy sensasationlised rubbish, aimed at those without a brain cell. Will this article be removed, i will hazard a guess at not. Surely showing your organisation as a load of crooks spreading lies to get the uneducated masses talking.

 

[Dirty Harry]

They'll quote " there was a head injury" as the reason no doubt, that was a couple of minutes at most, but they'll justify it by adding up the subs and goals aswell, just a pity they don't do that every time though isn't it ;-)
I'll highlight the important bit for you, the bit you obviously failed to take into account there ;-).

Didn't fail to take it into account, just not sure how it's a justification for a ref not to apply the rules. So because prev refs may, or may not, have incorrectly calculated time to be added on, no other ref should even try to get it right in future?

Does that mean if Ashley Young throws himself to the ground in City's penalty area next Monday night, the ref has no choice but to award a penalty because the ref incorrectly gave him s pen when diving in a previous game? Strange logic but at least there'd be consistency ;-)

Again, it seems you have as much of what you've said has no relevance to the point I was making, I'm talking about added time, nothing else, so I'll spell it out for you bud so we're not going round in circles as I've neither the time nor inclination to labour the issue, the point to which I was refering to was that it can and does give officials a certain amount of leeway should they wish to try and sway a game to benefit certain teams or a desired outcome.

If they totted up these incidents so precisely that go towards the additional time for every game, then I wouldn't have an issue, but they don't, they clearly don't and it leaves too much of a grey area and the potential to influence.

And before you think I'm suggesting that it's just united who benefit from this, if you care to check my previous posts on the matter you'll find my comments confirming that I think WE also benefit from these types of incidents since the money came in and our standing in the game rose, we get decisions now that we'd never have got 3-4 years ago.

Hopefully that makes my comments clearer.