Manchester United, Premier League Champions... Really?

                                                            The Magic Statue

The last 24 key match-changing decisions in Manchester United's Premier League games have ALL been in favour of the Red Devils.

Since the statue of Sir Ferguson was unveiled and the stand named after the man, nothing has been given against the Reds - the last decision was the sending off of Jonny Evans in the 6-1 defeat to Manchester City on October 23rd 2011 - 554 days ago.

This is the longest run of one way decisions EVER in English football.

United fans must be grateful to hear that the new Premier League chairman, Anthony Fry, is a United fan.

Thank goodness...

Apr 28 2013: Arsenal v MAN UTD (Penalty) - Dowd

Apr 14 2013: Stoke v MAN UTD (Penalty) - Moss

Dec 01 2012: Norwich v MAN UTD (Penalty) - Halsey

Nov 03 2012: MAN UTD v Arsenal (Penalty and Sending Off) - Dean

Oct 28 2012: Chelsea v MAN UTD (2 x Sendings Off) - Clattenburg

Sep 23 2012: Liverpool v MAN UTD (Penalty and Sending Off) - Halsey

Sep 15 2012: MAN UTD v Wigan (Penalty) - Oliver

Sep 02 2012: Southampton v MAN UTD (Penalty) - Dean

Apr 15 2012: MAN UTD v Aston Villa (Penalty) - Halsey

Apr 08 2012: MAN UTD v QPR (Penalty and Sending Off) - Mason

Mar 18 2012: Wolves v MAN UTD (Sending Off) - Taylor

Mar 11 2012: MAN UTD v West Brom (Penalty and Sending Off) - Probert

Feb 05 2012: Chelsea v MAN UTD (2 x Penalties) - Webb

Jan 31 2012: MAN UTD v Stoke (2 x Penalties) - Jones

Dec 26 2011: MAN UTD v Wigan (Penalty and Sending Off) - Dowd

Nov 26 2011: MAN UTD v Newcastle (Sending Off) - Jones

For comparison, in the same window, Manchester City have had 3 sendings off in favour and 8 against together with 11 pens for and 3 against. 

Sir Alex Ferguson...
... bringing the game into disrepute.

© Football is Fixed 2006-2013

Leading Bookmaker Chooses New Premier League Chairman

"Just because a tile falls off a roof, there is not necessarily someone underneath it at the right moment: that would be too good to be true" - Jean Baudrillard.

Yesterday, it was announced that the new Premier League (EPL) chairman is to be investment banker and Dairy Crest chairman, Anthony Fry.

He replaces Sir Dave Richards, who acted as Richard Scudamore's rottweiler at the FA and repeatedly humiliated himself and the EPL around the world.
He also was a serial failure of a businessman who nearly destroyed Sheffield Wednesday and presumably received a knighthood for his refusal to put up a memorial at Hillsborough in memory of the 96 Liverpool fans who were manslaughtered by South Yorkshire police in 1989.

The appointment of Fry is controversial.
As well as being chairman of a company that sells the abusive products of the dairy industry, Fry represents Portuguese investment bank Espirito Santo having formerly worked at Rothschild and the immensely successful Lehman Brothers (on whom he did a runner in 2007 just prior to the crash). He also helped to establish that source of voluntary taxation known as the National Lottery.

But the fact that an animal abusing investment banker who encourages the poor to gamble is taking over from a heartless and hapless fool with a tendency to drink too much is peripheral to the main problem with his appointment.

The selection panel who appojnted Fry was composed of Manchester United's David Gill, Chelsea's Bruce Buck, Manchester City's John Williams and...
... Bet 365 supremo Peter Coates who also owns the insider gambling outfit known as Stoke City.

Some questions of integrity.

* Why is the owner of one of Europe's biggest bookmakers involved in the selection of the EPL chairman?
Are there not conflicts of interests here?

* And while we're at it, why does the EPL allow leading bookmakers/professional gamblers to own clubs? When Brighton and Hove Albion are eventually promoted, two EPL clubs will be directly under such ownership while others have similar arrangements at arm's length.
Are there not conflicts of interest here?

* Fry supports Manchester United (because he is not from Manchester). In that Man Utd have not had a penalty or sending off against them but 24 such decisions in favour of them in the last season and three-quarters in the EPL, the fact that the United CEO Gill has appointed a United fan as chairman is problematical.
Are there not conflicts of interest here?

* Manchester United and Stoke City enjoy a very close relationship on a range of inappropriate levels. The fact is that 50% of the selection committee was, in effect, a duopoly.
Are there not conflicts of interest here?

If this structure existed in any other sector, there would be questions being asked in high places.

As it is just the fragmented cartel known as the Premier League, it is instead seen as just another shoddy decision made by the people who have allowed for the criminalisation of the sport of football in England.

Footballers aren't allowed to bet.
But bookmakers are allowed to own EPL clubs.
And bookmakers are allowed to appoint those who make the EPL rules.
Something stinks here...
... and its not rancid sour fermenting curdling clotting cows' milk.



Cows Have Rights...

© Football is Fixed 2006-2013

A Massive Insider Gamble On FC Bayern München Vs Barcelona

Not The 2013/14 Barcelona Away Kit But Erythropoietin (EPO) Which Makes Footballers Run Faster          

Throughout yesterday, there was a one-way betting market emanating from the Asian underground supportive of FC Bayern defeating Barcelona.

Some of the largest individual trades seen this season were on such an outcome.
An ex-broker who exists on the periphery of the illegal Asian betting markets tells me that he has never seen such one-directional volume on such a competitive match (a Champions League semi final).

Before assessing the "public" data on the match, let us consider why this latter point is so key.

Two horse races - one a 3:15 at Catterick on a Tuesday afternoon with prize money for the winner of £3,000, a well backed favourite and a total betting market on and off course of £1 million. The dominant money is in the betting market not the prize money and a fixed race may be established with all connections making more money than would otherwise have been the case. The bookies are happy and the mugs have been mugged.
The favourite that has been bought off will go off at a longer price in its next race due to the underperformance and the insiders (bookies and connections) will all make money on this race too at the expense of the bewildered.
The second race is the Derby. The winner will receive £750,000 and kudos and breeding rights and a place in history - this is much harder (although not impossible) to buy off utilising the betting volume as a lubricant.
Only in these Group 1 events is racing integrity virtually assured.

So it is with football.

Champions League Second Phase events have entirely different betting patterns than a Bet365/Stoke City match or a late season agreed draw in Serie A.
The matches are truly competitive as agents and clubs insist that their players perform on the big stage for future profit in the former case and "club loyalty" in the latter.

So when a Champions League match becomes an insider betting event, it stands out like a sore thumb.
And FC Bayern v Barca was an insider betting event.

So, what was behind this Asian underground money?
The options are...

1) Match Referee Viktor Kassai - FC Bayern's second goal was offside and the third was preceded by a Thomas Muller foul but he also denied the Germans a first half penalty in a performance of considerable ineptitude. Verdict: Useless rather than corrupt although UEFA solicited complaints from Barca over the refereeing of their 1st Leg in Paris in the previous round..

2) The Decision to play Lionel Messi - Covered less yardage than any other starter. The maestro was unfit and should not have been playing. Verdict: Messi's injury was public information and not the reason for the insider trading.

3) Jordi Roura - The Barcelona assistant coach is not Tito Vilanova and Tito's fight against cancer is a severe disadvantage. Verdict: Public knowledge and historical and therefore not relevant.

4) Pep Guardiola - The future FC Bayern manager helped his new employers with a dossier on his former team which will have been a major benefit. Verdict: Will have improved FC Bayern's chances and similar structures historically have seen insider betting on manipulated outcomes eg Man Utd v Real Madrid earlier in the year. But not at this degree of volume nor with such marked dynamics.

5) Performance Enhancing Substances (PESs) - As a team FC Bayern covered over 70 metres per minute more than Barcelona - an extra 6.5 km over the whole match. Verdict: Both these teams appear to have utilised PESs in the past - Barca have been linked with disgraced Spanish cycling doper Dr Eufemiano Fuentes and FC Bayern have windows where their fitness increases beyond what is achievable via legitimate means. So Barca cannot really complain about Bayern's Little Helpers.

A combination of Guardiola's input and the possible use of PESs and a UEFA-inspired inept referee cumulatively might offer some explanation for this massive and succesful insider gamble in the Asian underground.
But the sheer volume and one-sidedness of the professional trading suggests certainty rather than probability.
For reasons of libel, we'll allow you to make your own assessment of the dominant input(s) to the outcome of this fixed match.

But where is the explanation as to why UEFA, Europol, Early Warning, legitimate bookmakers etc all failed to spot a potentially fixed event when independent traders, brokers and market makers were all aware that something fishy was going on?
Were any FC Bayern players drug tested after the match?
Why was Kassai chosen when he and his team serially underperform - it was they that missed the Ukrainian "goal" against England in Euro 2012?
And why is the issue of PESs usage by major G14 clubs never on the agenda - Guardiola was banned for 4 months as a player for use of a banned substance, Guardiola/Barcelona/Fuentes is a drug-related PR disaster waiting to happen and Guardiola is, next year, to be the manager of a team that shows all the patterns that we would generally associate with the illegal use of an Erythropoietin (EPO)-type substance?

What do WADA do?

© Football is Fixed 2006-2013

Goal-Line Technology Is Not Enough

On Friday, Dutch referee Serdar Gozubuyuk called for the introduction of video technology to help officials make the correct decisions after he denied Ajax Amsterdam two certain penalties in their home draw against Heerenveen.
The Amsterdam giants felt they should have been awarded a spot kick after Ramon Zomer handled the ball early in the first half, while they also called for a penalty after a foul on Christian Eriksen just inside the area.

"This seems pretty clear. I cannot see the incident properly because I'm looking at (Lasse) Schone's back," Gozubuyuk told Eredivisie Live after reviewing Zomer's handball.

"If it's up to me we would introduce video technology as soon as possible. That will prevent this kind of situation where I have to explain decisions that I could not see properly.

"We are all ready for the introduction of video technology. It's starting to become annoying to be criticised for decisions we have to take in a split second. Everybody else gets the chance to see an incident five or six times before judging."

Meanwhile, in England, the probable FA Cup winners and the teams able to avoid relegation from the Premier League continue to be decided by erroneous and questionable decisions by referees and their assistants.
And, although Hawk-Eye will be introduced for goal-line decisions from next season, there is no desire among the powers-that-be to introduce further transparency into the game.
Keith Hackett, the former head of the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMOB), publicised the fact that Hawk-Eye has been ready for implementation for six years but foot dragging by these same powers-that-be prevented numerous travesties of justice from being prevented.

Why?

Harry Redknapp Questioning The Marital Status Of Chris Foy's Parents After Fake Penalty Decision Relegates Asian Club

Chris Foy should have sent off two Manchester City players and given Chelsea a penalty in the FA Cup Semi Final at Wembley last week...
... video technology would have prevented these errors.
Yesterday, Foy gave Bet365/Stoke City a fake penalty for the sort of shirt holding that occurs in multiple at every corner.
Meanwhile, Sunderland survived two penalty appeals against Danny Rose courtesy of Phil Dowd after being helped on their way to victory over Newcastle last week by Howard Webb (who was demoted to the League One game between Colchester and Shrewsbury as punishment)...
... Newcastle were given their own survival fillip when Mike Jones failed to give West Brom a stonewall penalty yesterday deciding that the infringement had happened two metres to the right and hence outside the box.

In a tight relegation struggle, these points for Sunderland, Bet365/Stoke City and Newcastle might prove critical.

With so much money riding on Premier League survival, the sooner that referees are forced to face the amateurish nature of some of their key decision making, the better for the integrity of the game.

Video technology would make the game cleaner as it would be difficult for a crooked official to maintain a patently incorrect decision in the face of repeated video evidence.
Errors are too frequently the result of corruption.

Still, Sir Ferguson will be relieved if Bet365/Stoke City survive.

And, in that Man Utd still await the first penalty or sending off against their interests in the Premier League this season, one must presume that he most certainly would not welcome video technology and the meritocracy that would come in its wake.

Yet another good reason for introducing it then...

© Football is Fixed 2006-2013

Gideon Osborne, Carmen Reinhart And Ken Rogoff Are Charlatans

On the day that UK unemployment jumped 70,000 and one of the architects of that steady stream of unemployment and minimum wage slavery was buried, something else was buried too...
... the revelation that the academic paper that all austerity policies are based on - "Growth in a Time of Debt" by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart - is based on a fallacious and malicious analysis of the data.

         
                     Carmen Reinhart Contemplating The Children She Will Eat For Breakfast

"Sloppy statistics" according to Robert Harding in Wednesday's Financial Times.

Rogoff and Reinhart found that growth falls to a mean average of minus 0.1 per cent when public debt is greater than 90% of output.
But researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst find a figure of plus 2.2% when repeating the analysis.

"Coding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary statistics led to serious errors that inaccurately represent the data between public debt and GDP growth."

"Unsupportable statistical techniques..."

Financial Times: "The Amherst researchers said that Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff had made an error in their spreadsheet, missed several years of data and then averaged their results in a way that put unusual weight on short episodes in particular countries."

Robert Pollin and Michael Ash: "The main policy plank is riddled with faults."

The original paper and the arbitrary nature both of the 90% threshold and the general manner that economic/econometric "science" is addressed show the ludicrous nature of depending on the dismal science to produce anything other than dismal science.

Although the pseudo-case for austerity doesn't solely depend on Rogoff and Reinhart, other supportive sources have also recently been discredited.

And Rogoff and Reinhart produced their propaganda in 2010...
... why has it taken three years for anyone to check the figures when global economic policy has been based on the austerity that the paper proposes?
Because Rogoff and Reinhart refused to release the data, that's why!
They were that confident of their analyses!!

Paul Krugman: "For the truth is that Reinhart-Rogoff faced substantial criticism from the start, and the controversy grew over time... many economists pointed out that a negative correlation between debt and economic performance need not mean that high debt causes low growth. It could be the other way around... (T)he Reinhart-Rogoff fiasco needs to be seen in the broader context of austerity mania: the obviously intense desire of policy makers, politicians and pundits across the Western world to turn their backs on the unemployed and instead use the economic crisis as an excuse to slash social programs."

We're either being run by entirely incompetent fools or by malicious psychopaths.

Incompetent Fool Or Malicious Psychopath? Too Busy Selling His Cheshire Estate Two Days Before High Speed Rail Route Announced To Notice That The "Intellectual" Authority Underpinning His Class War Perversion Was Of No Merit

A former professor of mine, Neville Topham, told me about a high level consultancy document that he had written showing that house prices increase more than average for properties directly under the flight paths at Heathrow Airport.

"You can show anything with data in economics" was the justification for his fee.
 
© Football is Fixed 2006-2013

Police and Thieves - How the Premier League Demolishes Rogue Foreign Owners

In the mid-nineties and beyond, the Asian underground betting markets entirely dominated match outcomes in the English Premier League (EPL).
These markets were/are very liquid and very illegal with brokers moving from country to country and firms changing names with the police/Interpol in hot pursuit.

One of the first Europeans to move in on these markets was Tony Bloom (then working for Gibraltar-based bookmaker Victor Chandler and now the owner of Brighton and Hove Albion).
He once informed me that £1 million bets on any EPL match didn't even solicit a blink from the underground market makers which gives some indication of the degree of liquidity that existed in such markets nearly 20 years ago.
And turnover has increased markedly in the intervening period.

                                      Anthony Grant Bloom pretending to be a reptile

As ever in the world of monied corruption, the murkier areas of the police soon became a part of the issue and if you wish to piece together a narrative of the structures involved in these collaborations then we would point you in the direction of Birmingham City chairman Peter Pannu.

                                        Peter Pannu pretending to be a policeman

Corruptions, like species, evolve.

The sheer mass of money produced in the Asian betting markets produced a whole spectrum of mafiosi (from Carsten Yeung, the billionaire former barber and Birmingham City owner currently on trial for money laundering to Thaksin Shinawatra and his chum, the QPR chairman Tony Fernandes).

As crime moves effortlessly across borders, the monies yielded from control of betting markets was surpassed by the desire to have direct control over EPL clubs to enable trading strategies to be totally watertight.

So the EPL has seen a progression of Asian "businessmen" move into the English game and the East Europeans soon followed.

The chief executive of the EPL, Richard Scudamore, and his backers were simply not willing to countenance this takeover of their turf and, like any individuals exhibiting psychopathic personality disorder traits, moves have been made to offset these influences.

To the EPL, ownership of English clubs by Americans who have made their money from pathological capitalism is fine and dandy. This generosity even extends to similar individuals of other nationalities so long as they slot seemlessly into the English establishment (think Abramovich or Al Fayed or Al Fahim at Chelsea, Fulham and Man City, for example).

But lower down the feeding chain, the EPL took non-meritocratic actions to remove the offending teams from the cash cow known as the EPL.

Check the recent relevant relegations...

This year, Reading (Anton Zingarevich) and QPR (Fernandes) have slipped through the trap door.
Previously, we have seen the removal of Birmingham (Pannu/Yeung), Portsmouth (Gaydamek), Blackburn (Venky brothers) and Blackpool (Belokon).

Meanwhile, recent match decisions in games involving Watford (the Pozzo family), Nottingham Forest (Fawaz Al Hasawi) and Leicester (Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha) make it quite clear that such outfits are not welcome in the EPL.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Cardiff City with their owner Tan Sri Dato' Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun when they arrive in Scudamoreworld.
Despite having made his money on the Malaysian gambling markets via his company, the Berjaya group, Tan is on the global Forbes Billionaire Rich List which might mean that he is allowed to stay in the Greed is Good League.

An external and parallel example of murkiness is at FIFA where the Secretary General of Interpol, Ronald Noble, supported the appointment of  Michael Garcia as FIFA chief investigator of corruption when Garcia's review of the FIFA/ISL scandal is seen as a cover up by Reform consultant Mark Pieth and FIFA judge Joachim Eckert.
Why would a global policeman wish to appoint an individual who is surrounded by doubts over his integrity?

And when there are a number of policemen refereeing in the EPL, the holistic structure becomes rather more murky as, from our data, each of these match officials are problematical.

A key question is where the threshold of allowed corruption occurs.
Are Stoke City (owner Bet 365 supremo Peter Coates) and Brighton (under Tony Bloom) above this threshold?

The policing of corruption would appear to be a dichotomous structure.
Corruption is to be applauded at the top tiers of the game but lower down the pecking order the EPL will not allow such abuses of match results and league realities.

So, there you go...
Forbes billionaires doing corruption is hunky dory but woe betide lesser beings lining their pockets illegally.

Just like free market capitalism!

© Football is Fixed 2006-2013

Pot Calling Kettle

Insider gambling and the control of match outcomes by agents are the death-knell for football.

Mourinho Congratulating Business Colleague After Old Trafford Sending Off


When Sir Ferguson refused to attend the post-match press conference after Real Madrid had knocked Manchester United out of the Champions League, there was conspiratorial talk in the air of the home dressing room.

Pierluigi Collina, the UEFA Official Match Observer, had given full marks to match referee Cüneyt Çakır who had controversially sent off Nani, which was weird...
...weirder still was the fact that one agent, Jorge Mendes of Gestifute, owned the following individuals involved in the match - Ronaldo, Di Maria, Pepe, Coentrão of Real Madrid plus Jose Mourinho, the Real Madrid manager, and Nani!

As players are with agents for life but move between clubs with regularity, this structure raises serious questions about the integrity of the match and, indeed, football in general.

World Soccer magazine, for example, suggests that next season Ronaldo will be at Paris St Germain (PSG), Di Maria at PSG or Manchester United, Mourinho at PSG or Chelsea and Nani is going to Juventus or Porto!

World Soccer: "...FIFA's new "transfer matching system", which aims to introduce transparency to traditionally secretive deals between clubs, will not solve the problem. In the meantime, FIFA's existing agent-licensing system is being wound down - and criminal gangs are taking advantage..."

Still...
It was just like going to the theatre, with all the major actors playing a part - Di Maria limps off injured, Nani gets sent off, Mourinho makes an inspired substitution, Ronaldo scores the winner but doesn't celebrate and gets applauded by the audience, Mourinho commiserates with Ferguson and claims the better team lost.

Value fucking added!!!

The Theatre of Dreams, apparently.

    PC Howard Webb Trying Out Cross-Dressing Prior To A Man Utd Match


Yet Sir Ferguson bleats only about corruptions against his interests.
Ten Premier League referees have statistically "biased" data favouring Manchester United.
This season, Man Utd have not had ONE SINGLE penalty or sending off given against them in the EPL - the first time in history where a title will be won with such an "advantage".

Meanwhile, in the key away matches at Chelsea and Liverpool, United were provided with three sendings off, a penalty and an offside winning goal to help them on their way - in just two games!?
And, on Monday next, when the title will be all but secured at Old Trafford against the Noisy Neighbours, we have Mike Dean refereeing (Dean regarded Ferguson's abuse of an assistant referee during the Newcastle match in December as "reasonable and rational", and sent off Wilshire when United defeated Arsenal) and Howard Webb will stand next to Ferguson on the touchline helping events on their way as 4th Official.

   Ferguson Walks Away After Shaking Rafa's Hand And Offering Advice


Then there are the betting patterns on Monday's FA Cup replay between Chelsea and Man Utd.

One of the most major sustained gambles that we have ever witnessed existed on this match with almost all major bookmakers being aware of the one-track market by kick off.
Despite the teams being each-of-two in the market at the start of April Fool's Day, much more money and virtually all of the voluminous underground trades (literally) were on Chelsea to win.
This is absolutely not a normal betting pattern on a competitive FA Cup Quarter Final between two managers who hate one another!

Now where did this market knowledge emanate from?
Shouldn't someone be blowing the whistle?

Or is it prefered that we should all get worked up about a dodgy American billionaire sacking a multi-millionaire and replacing him with a dodgy Italian fascist multi-millionaire, while "our own" multi-millionaires stash their money offshore or, in the case of Sir Ferguson, at Goldman Sachs, and the new Man Utd CEO is a multi-millionaire former investment banker from JP Morgan?

Football you can believe in :)

© Football is Fixed 2006-2013