Bookies Investigate Red Card

[deJaya]

I'm only going by what I've read in this thread but am I right in saying that there were two bets (Liverpool and Manchester) and that they staked £500? If so, and based on the 10/1 that has been quoted here, then I don't see a problem. £500 is buttons to a professional gambler and if 10/1 really was on offer then it represents good value - Craigan, Jennings and Blackman were all on yellows and the referee had shown that he was an incompetent, impetuous buffoon. The new account aspect doesn't ring any alarm bells either - the Pro's are forever opening new accounts because bookies restrict the betting limits of successful accounts to the point that they're of no use to them.

 

If there's anything wrong here, it's that the bookie offered such a ridiculous price, not that people saw the value and took it.

 

Assuming that I've read the thread correctly.

 

i tend to agree cakes ... i think this will eventually be dismissed [possibly in several months time?] ... i'm guessing the odds were high because there were only 8 minutes left .. but even so .. who wouldn't be tempted with those odds in a pretty fiery game involving hearts?

 

seems mental.

[Guest]

I heard Jeffries swear twice on the telly.

 

ITS A CONSPIRACY!

[Cakes]

i tend to agree cakes ... i think this will eventually be dismissed [possibly in several months time?] ... i'm guessing the odds were high because there were only 8 minutes left .. but even so .. who wouldn't be tempted with those odds in a pretty fiery game involving hearts?

 

seems mental.

 

The In-Play aspect is part of it as the prices lengthen as the clock ticks down but even then I'd say that 10/1 was a ridiculous price to be offering. They can't be running about crying if they were daft enough to be laying at that price.

 

Again, assuming that I've followed this properly.... and that there wasn't a scam.

[star sail]

I'm only going by what I've read in this thread but am I right in saying that there were two bets (Liverpool and Manchester) and that they staked £500? If so, and based on the 10/1 that has been quoted here, then I don't see a problem. £500 is buttons to a professional gambler and if 10/1 really was on offer then it represents good value - Craigan, Jennings and Blackman were all on yellows and the referee had shown that he was an incompetent, impetuous buffoon. The new account aspect doesn't ring any alarm bells either - the Pro's are forever opening new accounts because bookies restrict the betting limits of successful accounts to the point that they're of no use to them.

 

If there's anything wrong here, it's that the bookie offered such a ridiculous price, not that people saw the value and took it.

 

Assuming that I've read the thread correctly.

 

Which makes me feel that there must be more to this. £5000 seems like pocket money to these guys so there must be more to it than that, potentially involving larger sums of money.

[kmmfc]

The fact that Jennings got sent off for foul and abusive language seemed absolutely ridiculous at the time as this would happen in every match if the refs took that view. Now that there is a booking scandal, I would think the limelight would fall directly onto the referee firstly, due to how bizarre a decision it was. Jennings reaction both on and off the park suggested he was pissed off to be red carded at such a late and crucial stage in the game. I said in the immediate aftermath of the game that the ref should be investigated as there was something weird going on. It now seems like a possibility.

 

As for not appealing, I would urge Motherwell to view the footage again and you can clearly see the ref telling Jennings to "Get tae f*ck". I realise two wrongs don't make a right, however, if they stick by the red card decision, then I'd hope anyone who uses foul and abusive language in the future is shown a straight red, else it is a case of one rule for some and one rule for others.

[Cakes]

Which makes me feel that there must be more to this. £5000 seems like pocket money to these guys so there must be more to it than that, potentially involving larger sums of money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the big-timers were the ones who took the action last night but someone did. £500 isn't even a large bet to a lot of punters - not sure these days but in the WTFC days, the Coupon Time thread had many bets that were for more than that. I'm small-time but if I wanted to lump a £500 bet on, I'd probably look for a new site as they always offer incentives to join up - first bet matched, stake x amount and we'll give you y amount of "free" bets, etc. Even outwith that, the new account could have been someone who simply didn't have an existing account with whichever chump was offering 10/1.

[softie]

from Dunfermline game saturday(There was anger in the home ranks when in 74 minutes, Pars playmaker Wullie Gibson was red carded for what referee Stevie O'Reilly deemed a stamp on Stephen McKenna.) guy likes his reds

[faddythedaddy]

Hardly irregular betting patterns by the sounds of things.

 

I dont go on betfair anymore but it would surprise you the amount that was actually traded on that game last night if it was in-play.

[Al Pacino]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that the referee only reacted to Jennings foul and abusive language when he was touched on the arm. It will be interesting to hear exactly what Jennings has said to make the referee almost tear his pocket off trying to get the card out.

 

In a game where the majority of fans were dumbfounded by the referees performance I find it astonishing that any suspicion should fall on Jennings. If the referee wanted to send someone off he can't guarantee there's going to be a tackle worthy of a red or second yellow but by winding one of the teams up by giving strange decisions against them he can pretty much guarantee somebody's going to swear at him.

[Cakes]

... it would surprise you the amount that was actually traded on that game last night if it was in-play.

It probably would surprise most folk. £500 is hee-haw in this context.

[johnstone]

Take on board everones comments on this, but the one thing is that why would the bookies make this story public if there wasn't something in it? There is no way they want egg on their faces. So it makes me think there has been more than a few bets on this.

 

This could run and run.

[Modernist]

It probably would surprise most folk. £500 is hee-haw in this context.

 

Correct. Utter pish in my opinion.

 

Clicky

[joeseppy]

William Hill and Ladbrokes, the two biggest bookmakers were 3/1 and 4/1 on a red card. I doubt whether any of these two bookmakers would have accepted £500 on an established account on what is a 'novelty' market. The story about a new account placing £500 at 10/1 with a smaller bookmaker doesn't stack up.

[phoenix]

The way I see it is, the REF booked Jennings for his first challenge (soft), when he could have let it go, Jennings is then on a yellow for the rest of the game, the REF lets more challenges go unpunished therefore if another booked player makes a daft challenge he just needs to yellow him then red, as the game goes on and the odds go up he then decides to send one of the (early) booked players off for hee haw, what's stange is it's a straight red. Non story for me but well done to the guys who won money betting on a Ref who was shit to send a player off. One of my mates in Fleetwood bets on this quite a lot for Scottish and English games, wisnae him unfortunately

[joeseppy]

Two bookies were involved, one was Blue Square and the market was pre-match only and it was a Motherwell player to get a red card at 10/1. Blue Square would not lay a bet on a new account for £5,000.

[phoenix]

Two bookies were involved, one was Blue Square and the market was pre-match only and it was a Motherwell player to get a red card at 10/1. Blue Square would not lay a bet on a new account for £5,000.

 

 

That adds another twist and implicates the ref as he didnae book many Hearts players when he should have

[Richie]

Not sure how relevant this is but on blue square first bet for new customers refunded if it loses. Given the odds and zero loss guarantee some people maybe just went for it. Remember everyone firing money on porter when he was silly odds for first goalscorer.

[faddythedaddy]

Two bookies were involved, one was Blue Square and the market was pre-match only and it was a Motherwell player to get a red card at 10/1. Blue Square would not lay a bet on a new account for £5,000.

 

No doubt about it, blue square can afford a 5 grand loss but it would have gone to a trader before the bet was taken.

 

The fact that it was a new account I think they would be extra vigilant as they cant check the individuals betting patterns.

 

Risky bet to take although the bookies will have had it layed to avoid losing a shitload

[faddythedaddy]

Not sure how relevant this is but on blue square first bet for new customers refunded if it loses. Given the odds and zero loss guarantee some people maybe just went for it. Remember everyone firing money on porter when he was silly odds for first goalscorer.

 

Will only be refunded up to £50 maximum and even at that it wont be as straighforward as withdrawing your refund

[Finlay]

Not sure what to think in all of this. What I do know though is this is a crap thing to happen at the wrong time. What a thoroughly shitty couple of weeks.

[rambunctious]

Not sure what to think in all of this. What I do know though is this is a crap thing to happen at the wrong time. What a thoroughly shitty couple of weeks.

 

This has been a crazy week. This board has never been busier

[LadywellToi]

Finlay's right, can the snow, sleekit agents, over zealous council employees and 'honourable' old gents just bugger off for a bit and give us a breather.

 

For 2p worth, I'd ban betting on events that can be easily influenced by players. Bookies will still make a lot of money with the traditional half-time full-time, first goalscorer and perms without having to rely on the more recent bets on first corner or spread betting on the number of shy's.

 

For me, Jennings yellow was over the top reaction. There then followed 3 other incidents of greater severity that weren't acted upon at all by the referee.

 

I'm constantly surprised that linesmen (sorry, "assistant referee's" as they now insist on being called) repeatedly fail to intervene and cede to the referees. I can't understand in any way how the Main stand linesman didn't flag and alert the referee to the 2 yard wall freekick incident.

 

Therefore, for me the referee and his two assistants have to take some of the blame as I recognised and pointed out to my mate (and the TV commentary too) that the Motherwell players may perceive his behaviour as being unjust and lose their discipline accordingly.

 

10-1 for a red in a game of this nature seems long odds and a huge oversight by the underwriter.

 

Don't expect any answers tomorrow night either, the club will use the "we can't comment on an ongoing investigation" disclaimer.

[phoenix]

When was the last time Hearts made it through a game without a yellow card?

[Finlay]

Have Hearts made it through a game without a yellow card?

 

No.

[Guest 'Flow]

Folks,

 

As we've told the media, there's very little we can say now other than confirming we've been informed of the investigation by the SPL.

 

It wouldn't be appropriate to comment publically until the club are made aware of the full facts of the matter. When we are, we'll say something more substantial.

 

On the 'appeal' - the decision was made early this morning (before anything on the above was known incidentally) to not appeal the card on the basis of what we were informed the card was for (foul and abusive language).

 

Sorry for not updating quicker - as you can imagine, it's been a hectic time for everyone at Fir Park what with the continued manager search, the after match of an SPL game and other projects that are ongoing.

 

Cheers