The Official Liverpool FC Thread [Vol 15]

[Pommy]

NRS said:

wjb said:

He's in st then, if proved, as the rules are quite clear.

We'll have to go and get Callum Wilson in January

Just to say I have no insider info on this - just since he clearly stated he has not done a bet then would be unlikely it was him directly, as you'd imagine that is easy to prove. So I'd then think it's the above that they are trying to pin on him.

And his statement is only categoric about him not placing a bet without a reference or denial to the other charge

[CharlieH89]

Back in January he was alleged to have broke the rules.
I wonder if he has passed info to family or friends in regards to his transfer.
He was going to Newcastle weren’t he and ended up at West Brom. Transfer to West Brom would have been decent odds.

[type-r]

CharlieH89 said:

Back in January he was alleged to have broke the rules.
I wonder if he has passed info to family or friends in regards to his transfer.
He was going to Newcastle weren’t he and ended up at West Brom. Transfer to West Brom would have been decent odds.

That is an interesting theory - you could well be right. However even if true, I am not sure how it could even be proven. If he had verbally told say friends/family and they go lump £x on the transfer, how do you prove it? Balance of probabilities?

[NRS]

type-r said:

CharlieH89 said:

Back in January he was alleged to have broke the rules.
I wonder if he has passed info to family or friends in regards to his transfer.
He was going to Newcastle weren’t he and ended up at West Brom. Transfer to West Brom would have been decent odds.

That is an interesting theory - you could well be right. However even if true, I am not sure how it could even be proven. If he had verbally told say friends/family and they go lump £x on the transfer, how do you prove it? Balance of probabilities?

Not sure about verbal, but if it was by text etc then easy to prove. Does raise the interesting question of what it is defined on. Say in the case above, you want to know about living in West Brom. You have a mate who lived there/ was from there. It would be natural to ask them - and that basically would give away you were likely to go there. Yet it wouldn't be done with betting in mind - but could be used for that. Are you not allowed to do stuff like that? Also it seems a bit weird when you consider Terry (or was it Lampard?) in his last game for Chelsea got away with that highly suspect betting thing.

I think it's also on the probability if there is unusual large sums being bet. Someone got done for insider trading here, and I think it was because they used a huge amount of their savings on buying shares just before the news came out, which they had never done before.

[type-r]

I guess it's best not to make any assumptions until the charges become public and whether he accepts or denies the specific charge.

Regarding Terry, 3 punters won money but the PL did not investigate. The stakes bet weren't huge and I guess no suspicious betting patterns were triggered.

https://www.givemesport.com/1059385-three-gamblers...

[wjb]

CharlieH89 said:

Back in January he was alleged to have broke the rules.
I wonder if he has passed info to family or friends in regards to his transfer.
He was going to Newcastle weren’t he and ended up at West Brom. Transfer to West Brom would have been decent odds.

They were saying on the radio this morning it was 25/1 to wba. And someone won a few quid to say the least.

[mickk]

wjb said:

They were saying on the radio this morning it was 25/1 to wba. And someone won a few quid to say the least.

Are agents allowed to bet?

[anniesdad]

[LoonyTunes]

It needed a small BetFair logo on the T-Shirt.

[anonymous-user]

mickk said:

Are agents allowed to bet?

Agents aren't really regulated any more - there is a set of regulations for clubs to conduct themselves by and there is an association for football agents.

[ferrisbueller]

jammy-git said:

Salah's goal against Fulham

Take note of VVD hurrying Allison to get the ball out to Trent and start the counter.

Probably need a url on there.

[Black can man]

anniesdad said:

[jammy-git]

ferrisbueller said:

jammy-git said:

Salah's goal against Fulham

Take note of VVD hurrying Allison to get the ball out to Trent and start the counter.

Probably need a url on there.

Doh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDogfn9i2k

[anonymous-user]

jammy-git said:

Doh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDogfn9i2k

It gets more offside every time I watch it.

[General Price]

desolate said:

jammy-git said:

Doh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDogfn9i2k

It gets more offside every time I watch it.

I said the same to my brother,Mitrovic is 2 or 3ft off when the ball is crossed.

[Guvernator]

General Price said:

I said the same to my brother,Mitrovic is 2 or 3ft off when the ball is crossed.

Lol 2-3 ft, there's that good old LFC bias kicking in again.



This clearly shows he is in line with the last defender at the bottom or it's too tight to call at which point the rules say where it is unclear, the advantage should have been given to the attacker but lets not let facts get in the way.

[Black can man]

General Price said:

I said the same to my brother,Mitrovic is 2 or 3ft off when the ball is crossed.

Are you confusing Feet with Milimetres ?

[anonymous-user]

Black can man said:

Are you confusing Feet with Milimetres ?

Metres, not millimetres.


You are so desperate to have a pop aren't you?

It's clearly a joke.

[ferrisbueller]

Guvernator said:

General Price said:

I said the same to my brother,Mitrovic is 2 or 3ft off when the ball is crossed.

Lol 2-3 ft, there's that good old LFC bias kicking in again.



This clearly shows he is in line with the last defender at the bottom or it's too tight to call at which point the rules say where it is unclear, the advantage should have been given to the attacker but lets not let facts get in the way.

I don't think anyone had the definitive angle to look at it from. The linesman definitely didn't. Subsequent analysis was that to the letter of the law (any part of your body you can score with), he was off. It was marginal though.

The clearer argument for the haters would surely be that the ball was moving when Alisson played it out (and for ultimate pedantry was probably in the wrong place) and the LFC goal should have been disallowed.

One could also speculate as to whether those two decisions would have been the same if they had been for the opposite sides i.e. an LFC "Mitrovic" offside would have been given and whether Fulham would have been allowed to do what Alisson did, but that's probably a whole different thread.

[Guvernator]

ferrisbueller said:

I don't think anyone had the definitive angle to look at it from. The linesman definitely didn't. Subsequent analysis was that to the letter of the law (any part of your body you can score with), he was off. It was marginal though.

The clearer argument for the haters would surely be that the ball was moving when Alisson played it out (and for ultimate pedantry was probably in the wrong place) and the LFC goal should have been disallowed.

One could also speculate as to whether those two decisions would have been the same if they had been for the opposite sides i.e. an LFC "Mitrovic" offside would have been given and whether Fulham would have been allowed to do what Alisson did, but that's probably a whole different thread.

Not just for this incident but I just think in general linesmen are a bit too eager to call offside these days when the guidance clearly states, if it's too close to call and the lino isn't sure, they should be giving attackers the benefit of the doubt.