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