To give some context to the scenario above, the latest revenue figures for a few of the stakeholders:

English FA: £376 million
Manchester United: £627 million
Bet365: £2.981 billion
Sky TV: £13.58 billion

Bales (U22081)

I can see why you may draw parallels because they are both draws, but stop and think about it for a minute.

The World Cup example comes back to corrupt individuals running the organisation with direct control over processes.

What direct control do Bet365 have over the competition or the draw?

Absolutely none.

So where's the credible basis for that suggestion?

sandy (U20567)

So Glen Johnson and Teddy Sheringham were in on it as well then?

The 'direct control' of the process is merely semantics when you're referring to a corrupt organisation. The person in control is the person paying the money.

Platini fixed the World Cup draw. Who told him to? Let's say no-one did. But to everyone below him it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

If Bet365 turn up at the FA with a few cases full of money for the guys in charge of the draw they have direct control.

Bales (U22081)

Semantics?

It's absolutely key.

You're comparing someone in control of the organisation organising the draw vs someone working in a completely different organisation to the one organising the draw.

That last sentence is so far fetched it takes me back to calling it ridiculous. I don't mean that as an insult, I just genuinely find it quite funny and I really don't agree that you can draw parallels between Fifa and the WC with Bet365 and the FA Cup.

It is very simple. The ones with the money, who want to make more money, bribe the ones with less money to do what they want. This is not rocket science.

Fixing a football cup draw can, and has been done. Fact.

Gambling and broadcasting companies have the resources and motivation to make this happen. Private individuals have made far more extravagant fixes happen in the same sport.

One last time - i'm not saying that the FA Cup draw is fixed. I don't know, and neither do you. But if you can't understand that it's possible you are the one being ridiculous, not me.

Bales (U22081)

Yes, I'm aware of how it works thank you.

The difference is that that isn't what happened in your WC scenario.

Something can be possible and ridiculous at the same time and as I have said, there's absolutely no credible basis for even having this discussion - none whatsoever, which is why I find it ridiculous.

The only difference, though, Winston, is that the guy in charge decided on his own or was paid to make a decision.

I'm curious what exactly you find ridiculous with my proposed scenario. That the head of the FA would take a bribe?

Bales (U22081)

No, it's not the only difference. The entire reason for it was different.

What I find ridiculous is that someone can just make a random accusation / scenario and then we debate it as if it's a sensible comment.

I could come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories and accusations this morning - if they're plausible, does that make them not ridiculous?

Come on.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 16 seconds ago
I did acknowledge that we're not likely to prove it. I just don't see how you can separate the discussion though. If people can fix some of the most high-profile games in world football, why not the FA Cup draw? Seems a bit naive to rule it out given the context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the evidence.

Where corruption has happened there’s quite a clear trail, from the instigator to the beneficiary. The process is logical.

Who’s the beneficiary here?

What’s the process?

Comparing the two isn’t just far fetched, it’s utterly illogical.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You asked the question, I proposed the scenario.

I asked for reasons why you find it ridiculous. If you don't want to comment, don't comment.

What does it matter if the reason is different? In terms of the process you're so keen on it makes no difference at all once the decision has been made.

comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 9 seconds ago
What does it matter if the reason is different? In terms of the process you're so keen on it makes no difference at all once the decision has been made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if the reason is different then the credible basis has gone.

You have absolutely no credible basis for suggesting that Bet365 might pay the FA to rig the draw. Absolutely none.

So you're left arguing that it's plausible.

I know it's plausible.

But without anything else, it's a ridiculous discussion.

"I asked for reasons why you find it ridiculous. If you don't want to comment, don't comment."

I gave you reasons.

If you don't like my reasons, tough sheite.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 9 seconds ago
What does it matter if the reason is different? In terms of the process you're so keen on it makes no difference at all once the decision has been made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if the reason is different then the credible basis has gone.

You have absolutely no credible basis for suggesting that Bet365 might pay the FA to rig the draw. Absolutely none.

So you're left arguing that it's plausible.

I know it's plausible.

But without anything else, it's a ridiculous discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the reasons I gave are credible. They stand to benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions by having an insight on both the viewing numbers and potential outcomes of the draw. Besides, I gave them as a simple example. Sky have much more money, BT around 20bn a year to throw around. If you can't see that they have a credible interest in manipulating the draw for entrainment, and are easily capable of it, you're either being naive or obtuse for the sake of argument.

No, the reasons you gave show it's plausible.

For this to be a credible discussion there needs to be something... anything that shows it is worthy of discussion.

Maybe some history of corruption in the FA Cup, or in the FA as an organisation, or maybe an example of a cup draw that has been affected in this way.

There's nothing, is there?

There's nothing naive or obtuse about this - just because you don't like what I said doesn't give you the right to dismiss it.

I find it ridiculous and I stand by it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 58 minutes ago
sandy (U20567)

So Glen Johnson and Teddy Sheringham were in on it as well then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not unknown for footballers to take bungs.

comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 58 minutes ago
sandy (U20567)

So Glen Johnson and Teddy Sheringham were in on it as well then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not unknown for footballers to take bungs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that every pairing for each draw is different, they must be doing a great job of finding people willing to take a bung.

I find you ridiculous and I stand by it.

Obviously we don't have credible proof of the FA Cup being fixed, or this wouldn't be a discussion at all, it's all hypothetical.

If you don't believe that it could happen, fair enough, but there's nothing to say it hasn't either. And we have agreed that it's possible.

Can we leave it there?

Bales (U22081)

Oh well that's mature isn't it.

I don't think you're ridiculous. I just think you are wrong that just because something is plausible, that it can't also be ridiculous.

Lots of conspiracies are plausible, but you'd probably laugh at a lot of them for being ridiculous.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for a single credible reason that would suggest the FA Cup draw could be fixed.

There's nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And yes, if you're going to become personal because I don't agree with you then let's leave it there.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I'm done. I was only in it for the fun of a hypothetical scenario (which you literally asked for!) and a bit of chat. I didn't realise there would be no further discussion without me meeting some mysterious credibility standard you'd come up with.

Laters

Bales (U22081)

Shame you couldn't end the debate with a civil comment but hey ho.

Have a nice day.

Patronising caant.

Grow up ffs.

I wasn't being patronising, I was being honest.

You're just another person who uses forums to present their entrenched view and cannot debate a subject without becoming personal.

It's pathetic.

You've got issues

I was only being honest when I said I find you ridiculous. If you don't like that, tough sheit, as you say.