Post by QPR Report on Apr 24, 2009 6:33:43 GMT
Independent/Nick Harris
Betting scam is 'just the tip of a match-fixing iceberg'
Exclusive: FA 'powerless' in landmark investigation - despite CCTV evidence of players' wagers
How The Independent highlighted the growing dangers of gambling in football on 6 March
Substantial illegal bets placed by footballers last year on their own team to lose a league match are "just the tip of the iceberg" of a far-reaching, organised scam, according to several senior insiders from both within the sport itself and the gambling industry.
The sources have told The Independent that "large six-figure sums" were involved, but the full extent of the corruption is only now beginning to emerge following an investigation by this newspaper. The investigation in question surrounds Accrington Stanley's home defeat to Bury in May 2008, and has discovered that some of the Football Association charges against six players were brought on the basis of CCTV evidence showing players wagering large cash sums in local betting shops. Cash betting is thought to be a more anonymous means of gambling than using telephone or online betting accounts.
Charges were brought by the FA against six players, five of whom wagered amounts up to £4,000. But the betting industry is now estimated to have taken up to £800,000 on the game, around 10 times the expected levels.
Related articles
Bets, files and videotape – inside the 'Stanley Sting'
Yet in a candid admission of how impotent the FA is in potential match-fixing cases, an informed source has told The Independent that the FA "is highly unlikely to charge a player with match-fixing" and will not do so in this case. Match-fixing is simply too hard to prove, to specific legal satisfaction, whereas infringements of football's own betting rules are more clear-cut and more likely to end in convictions, though the matter remains within the sport's governing body.
The only scenario where the FA can envisage match-fixing charges would be if a whistle-blower, involved in a crime, admitted it and implicated others. That remains unlikely.
It is still possible, however, that the police could become involved in the Accrington affair, once the FA has finished with the case, and depending on whether the Gambling Commission – the industry watchdog – advises there could be grounds to suspect a conspiracy to defraud. The handling of the case will also test the resolve of the football authorities and the commission to root out betting corruption.
The case took a fresh twist yesterday when five players, all charged by the FA on 7 April with breaches of FA betting rules, were given an extra fortnight to take more legal advice over how they will plead. As a consequence, the verdict will now be delivered after the end of the domestic football season. If convicted, the defendants would be the first British professional footballers in decades to be found guilty of betting on their own team to lose, and the first in decades to be found guilty of any irregular betting.
Repercussions could be widespread. Speaking yesterday, the Uefa president, Michel Platini, echoed a previous investigation by this newspaper as he declared "The greatest danger to football is match-fixing," and vowed to combat the problem.
David Mannix, Jay Harris, Robert Williams and Peter Cavanagh were all on Accrington Stanley's books on 3 May 2008 when they allegedly bet sums of £4,000, £2,000, £1,000 and £5 respectively on their side to lose to Bury that day. Accrington lost 2-0. No player is allowed to bet on a match in which he or his team is involved or can influence. The investigation has learnt that Mannix's bet represents 50 weeks of his basic pay.
Another player, Andrew Mangan, formerly with Accrington but attached to Bury on that day, allegedly bet £3,500 on Bury, while a sixth player, Leighton McGivern, an Accrington substitute, faces an FA charge of failing to provide information to an investigation. McGivern has pleaded not guilty. The others, due to plead yesterday, will now do so around 7 May, with personal hearings later, and punishments or exoneration thereafter.
Mannix and Harris now play for Chester City. Williams and Cavanagh remain with Accrington. Mangan plays for Forest Green Rovers and Leighton is with Liverpudlian non-league side Waterloo Dock.
The "Stanley Sting", as some North-west bookies have termed the case, unfolded in the days running up to 3 May last year, the last day of the regular League Two season.
Accrington were originally the favourites until backers starting piling "unusually large sums", in cash, on Bury to win. The betting was concentrated at high-street shops in the North-west, mainly around Merseyside. Bury's odds continued to come in before suspicious bookies suspended the betting.
The FA, having been alerted to the rush of cash, even changed the referee and all the match officials at short noticed. The result still came out as the money predicted.
There was no innocent explanation for the crash in Bury's odds. Pre-match team news cited Bury with key injuries and absences. Initial reports suggested the money for Bury came in after reports of a stag night scheduled for the eve of the game involving an Accrington player. But there was no such party. "That was just a red herring [after the event]," said one well-placed source. "The situation stinks all the way through."
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/betting-scam-is-just-the-tip-of-a-matchfixing-iceberg-1673342.html
Independent
Bets, files and videotape – inside the 'Stanley Sting'
A year ago, five players backed their own side to lose a match. Now investigations have unearthed hundreds of thousands in suspect wagers. Nick Harris follows the trail of evidence
Here's a proposition for you. Make one bet on the football team you support to lose an end-of-season game where nothing is at stake in terms of relegation or promotion. You gamble, say, a year's basic pay on that outcome, and if your side lose, then you make a profit of somewhere in the region of a year-and-a-half's pay. Does that sound an attractive deal? Or a scheme that is just awfully, awfully risky, for comparatively little gain, in case your team go and win? And what might you think if you weren't a fan but a player?
According to charges laid by the Football Association, and to sources capable of placing good estimates on basic pay levels at Accrington Stanley at the time they lost to Bury on 3 May last year, a similar dilemma was faced by at least one Accrington player who backed his team to lose that day.
The midfielder David Mannix, 23, is a former teenage prodigy who played for Liverpool's Under-17s aged just 13, and won England youth caps. It is understood he was on a basic weekly deal of just £80 at Stanley at the time. The League Two club's small size and low crowds dictate lower basic pay levels than many clubs in the non-league game, let alone at clubs in the Football League. Contracts are heavily weighted to appearance money and bonuses, with Mannix on around £300 per actual game played back then.
Related articles
Betting scam is 'just the tip of a match-fixing iceberg'
But he did not play in that game. And so, when his weekly basic wage of £80 is set against the £4,000 that the FA allege he bet on his own side to lose that day, it is possible to see that he was not dealing in pin money. Quite why a player would risk so much might become apparent in the fullness of time, but the fact that Mannix and four other players related to Accrington wagered a combined sum of £10,505 on Bury to win, according to FA charges, suggests this was not a typical day's punting. Or if it was, then never have so many alarm bells sounded before.
Asking the gambling industry to open up and let you into their secrets is never going to get you far, but even long-suffering veterans in the trade were surprised at the levels of cash on Bury. They were so surprised that at least three separate firms independently alerted the FA, the Gambling Commission and the Association of British Bookmakers about suspicious betting patterns on or before Friday 2 May.
And some, if not all, of those bookmakers are also likely to have played a role in almost a year of forensic detective work by the FA's understaffed compliance unit to find out who was betting, where, and why.
Amazingly, even with the cloud of suspicion hanging over the game after the result had followed the money, some bookies paid out to winners who had placed "dodgy" bets.
But as one impeccable bookmaking source told The Independent: "When we suspect something iffy is going on [with a winning bet] we pay out as a matter of policy by cheque. Of course, if we want, we can then follow it. It's our way of saying 'we know something is going on, and now you know we know, so watch it'."
The Independent does not know whether that specific bookmaker's cheques have been or will be used to trace the people who made bets. Most bookmakers are reluctant to give up too much information unless forced. Some fear a tag of "snitches" which might keep punters away. Some want nothing to do with substantiating claims of dodgy betting in case the knock-on effects damage the industry.
Yet under Gambling Commission powers, bookmakers can be asked for all kinds of detail and, if necessary, be forced to provide it. It would seem the FA has done some meticulous work on this case, viewing CCTV from shops where bets were placed and then trying to match footage with faces and cross-match with betting records.
Whether all bets were examined is doubtful in the extreme. Theoretically it should be possible to discover total wagers to the last penny. All bookmakers, on the high street and online, should keep detailed accounts, and if the Gambling Commission demanded disclosure, it could find out. Chains including William Hill, Coral and Paddy Power saw big suspicious sums, prompting reports to regulators. Industry insiders think up to between £500,000-£800,000 was wagered across all platforms, up to 10 times expected levels.
Betfair, the main online firm, saw increased trade, but not suspicious trade. Around £281,000 was wagered with them alone, but a lot of that was on the Saturday morning after rumours of a sting had emerged, but before kick-off. This was from general punters. The Independent understands no FA charges arose from Betfair data. The company is famous for its electronic audit trail of every bet back to the gamblers. "If you are going to get involved in a dodgy bet, you are not likely nowadays to go down the path of likely detection," said a source.
The Independent also understands the FA requested phone records, bank account access and betting account details from a number of "football people", and that at least some of its charges arose from this work.
Compared to many countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, England has remained largely free of serious malpractice related to betting and football. Certainly proven cases are few and far between. The hope at the FA is things can stay that way, but nobody in the corridors of power is complacent. Especially not in an era when placing a bet – be it legitimate or otherwise – is only a mouse-click away.
Even Uefa's president, Michel Platini, reiterated yesterday that eradicating corruption linked to betting is his organisation's top priority. "The greatest danger to football is match-fixing," Platini said. "Uefa is investing a lot to combat match-fixing."
So, slowly but surely, are authorities in Britain.
How last match of season unfolded for Accrington
The action as it happened: the following is a verbatim contemporary match report from the Press Association, 3 May 2008...
"Andy Bishop, Bury's highly rated striker, took his tally to 25 goals for the season with both goals in the 2-0 win at Accrington. Bishop fired home from the penalty spot in the 21st minute after Phil Edwards had chopped down Nicky Adams.
"Then, on the stroke of half-time, the 26-year-old burst through and finished superbly past Kenny Arthur for the mid-table side. Stanley, safe from relegation, had chances in the first half, but Bury 'keeper Jim Provett did well to thwart Paul Mullin and Bobby Grant. The home side dominated after the break but were wasteful.
"Andy Todd blasted over in a good position, substitute Leighton McGivern scuffed a golden opportunity and Mullin was denied by Provett from close range to end a disappointing season for Accrington."
The next phases: The key remaining questions
Who made the bets?
The million-dollar question, almost literally. According to Football Association charges against five footballers, it is alleged that they collectively bet £10,505 on Bury, and have apparently been identified doing so convincingly enough for charges to be brought against them. But that still leaves hundreds of thousands of pounds of other bets struck by other people. Huge amounts of detective work would be needed to find out who they were. The footballers, at least, were relatively famous and easier to trace.
Why are only footballers in the dock?
Because the FA only has a remit to look at breaches of its rules, which govern only players, managers and officials.
Whose job is it to investigate whether there was a wider conspiracy?
Possibly the police, but probably only at the request of the FA and/or the Gambling Commission, who are undecided what to do yet.
How will the players plead, and what action might their pleas lead to?
It is possible that at least one and maybe several of the players will plead guilty, arguing mitigating circumstances such as their ignorance of the rules on gambling. They might even say that the money was somebody else's.
Whose?
Excellent question. Hard to answer.
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/bets-files-and-videotape-ndash-inside-the-stanley-sting-1673340.html
Betting scam is 'just the tip of a match-fixing iceberg'
Exclusive: FA 'powerless' in landmark investigation - despite CCTV evidence of players' wagers
How The Independent highlighted the growing dangers of gambling in football on 6 March
Substantial illegal bets placed by footballers last year on their own team to lose a league match are "just the tip of the iceberg" of a far-reaching, organised scam, according to several senior insiders from both within the sport itself and the gambling industry.
The sources have told The Independent that "large six-figure sums" were involved, but the full extent of the corruption is only now beginning to emerge following an investigation by this newspaper. The investigation in question surrounds Accrington Stanley's home defeat to Bury in May 2008, and has discovered that some of the Football Association charges against six players were brought on the basis of CCTV evidence showing players wagering large cash sums in local betting shops. Cash betting is thought to be a more anonymous means of gambling than using telephone or online betting accounts.
Charges were brought by the FA against six players, five of whom wagered amounts up to £4,000. But the betting industry is now estimated to have taken up to £800,000 on the game, around 10 times the expected levels.
Related articles
Bets, files and videotape – inside the 'Stanley Sting'
Yet in a candid admission of how impotent the FA is in potential match-fixing cases, an informed source has told The Independent that the FA "is highly unlikely to charge a player with match-fixing" and will not do so in this case. Match-fixing is simply too hard to prove, to specific legal satisfaction, whereas infringements of football's own betting rules are more clear-cut and more likely to end in convictions, though the matter remains within the sport's governing body.
The only scenario where the FA can envisage match-fixing charges would be if a whistle-blower, involved in a crime, admitted it and implicated others. That remains unlikely.
It is still possible, however, that the police could become involved in the Accrington affair, once the FA has finished with the case, and depending on whether the Gambling Commission – the industry watchdog – advises there could be grounds to suspect a conspiracy to defraud. The handling of the case will also test the resolve of the football authorities and the commission to root out betting corruption.
The case took a fresh twist yesterday when five players, all charged by the FA on 7 April with breaches of FA betting rules, were given an extra fortnight to take more legal advice over how they will plead. As a consequence, the verdict will now be delivered after the end of the domestic football season. If convicted, the defendants would be the first British professional footballers in decades to be found guilty of betting on their own team to lose, and the first in decades to be found guilty of any irregular betting.
Repercussions could be widespread. Speaking yesterday, the Uefa president, Michel Platini, echoed a previous investigation by this newspaper as he declared "The greatest danger to football is match-fixing," and vowed to combat the problem.
David Mannix, Jay Harris, Robert Williams and Peter Cavanagh were all on Accrington Stanley's books on 3 May 2008 when they allegedly bet sums of £4,000, £2,000, £1,000 and £5 respectively on their side to lose to Bury that day. Accrington lost 2-0. No player is allowed to bet on a match in which he or his team is involved or can influence. The investigation has learnt that Mannix's bet represents 50 weeks of his basic pay.
Another player, Andrew Mangan, formerly with Accrington but attached to Bury on that day, allegedly bet £3,500 on Bury, while a sixth player, Leighton McGivern, an Accrington substitute, faces an FA charge of failing to provide information to an investigation. McGivern has pleaded not guilty. The others, due to plead yesterday, will now do so around 7 May, with personal hearings later, and punishments or exoneration thereafter.
Mannix and Harris now play for Chester City. Williams and Cavanagh remain with Accrington. Mangan plays for Forest Green Rovers and Leighton is with Liverpudlian non-league side Waterloo Dock.
The "Stanley Sting", as some North-west bookies have termed the case, unfolded in the days running up to 3 May last year, the last day of the regular League Two season.
Accrington were originally the favourites until backers starting piling "unusually large sums", in cash, on Bury to win. The betting was concentrated at high-street shops in the North-west, mainly around Merseyside. Bury's odds continued to come in before suspicious bookies suspended the betting.
The FA, having been alerted to the rush of cash, even changed the referee and all the match officials at short noticed. The result still came out as the money predicted.
There was no innocent explanation for the crash in Bury's odds. Pre-match team news cited Bury with key injuries and absences. Initial reports suggested the money for Bury came in after reports of a stag night scheduled for the eve of the game involving an Accrington player. But there was no such party. "That was just a red herring [after the event]," said one well-placed source. "The situation stinks all the way through."
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/betting-scam-is-just-the-tip-of-a-matchfixing-iceberg-1673342.html
Independent
Bets, files and videotape – inside the 'Stanley Sting'
A year ago, five players backed their own side to lose a match. Now investigations have unearthed hundreds of thousands in suspect wagers. Nick Harris follows the trail of evidence
Here's a proposition for you. Make one bet on the football team you support to lose an end-of-season game where nothing is at stake in terms of relegation or promotion. You gamble, say, a year's basic pay on that outcome, and if your side lose, then you make a profit of somewhere in the region of a year-and-a-half's pay. Does that sound an attractive deal? Or a scheme that is just awfully, awfully risky, for comparatively little gain, in case your team go and win? And what might you think if you weren't a fan but a player?
According to charges laid by the Football Association, and to sources capable of placing good estimates on basic pay levels at Accrington Stanley at the time they lost to Bury on 3 May last year, a similar dilemma was faced by at least one Accrington player who backed his team to lose that day.
The midfielder David Mannix, 23, is a former teenage prodigy who played for Liverpool's Under-17s aged just 13, and won England youth caps. It is understood he was on a basic weekly deal of just £80 at Stanley at the time. The League Two club's small size and low crowds dictate lower basic pay levels than many clubs in the non-league game, let alone at clubs in the Football League. Contracts are heavily weighted to appearance money and bonuses, with Mannix on around £300 per actual game played back then.
Related articles
Betting scam is 'just the tip of a match-fixing iceberg'
But he did not play in that game. And so, when his weekly basic wage of £80 is set against the £4,000 that the FA allege he bet on his own side to lose that day, it is possible to see that he was not dealing in pin money. Quite why a player would risk so much might become apparent in the fullness of time, but the fact that Mannix and four other players related to Accrington wagered a combined sum of £10,505 on Bury to win, according to FA charges, suggests this was not a typical day's punting. Or if it was, then never have so many alarm bells sounded before.
Asking the gambling industry to open up and let you into their secrets is never going to get you far, but even long-suffering veterans in the trade were surprised at the levels of cash on Bury. They were so surprised that at least three separate firms independently alerted the FA, the Gambling Commission and the Association of British Bookmakers about suspicious betting patterns on or before Friday 2 May.
And some, if not all, of those bookmakers are also likely to have played a role in almost a year of forensic detective work by the FA's understaffed compliance unit to find out who was betting, where, and why.
Amazingly, even with the cloud of suspicion hanging over the game after the result had followed the money, some bookies paid out to winners who had placed "dodgy" bets.
But as one impeccable bookmaking source told The Independent: "When we suspect something iffy is going on [with a winning bet] we pay out as a matter of policy by cheque. Of course, if we want, we can then follow it. It's our way of saying 'we know something is going on, and now you know we know, so watch it'."
The Independent does not know whether that specific bookmaker's cheques have been or will be used to trace the people who made bets. Most bookmakers are reluctant to give up too much information unless forced. Some fear a tag of "snitches" which might keep punters away. Some want nothing to do with substantiating claims of dodgy betting in case the knock-on effects damage the industry.
Yet under Gambling Commission powers, bookmakers can be asked for all kinds of detail and, if necessary, be forced to provide it. It would seem the FA has done some meticulous work on this case, viewing CCTV from shops where bets were placed and then trying to match footage with faces and cross-match with betting records.
Whether all bets were examined is doubtful in the extreme. Theoretically it should be possible to discover total wagers to the last penny. All bookmakers, on the high street and online, should keep detailed accounts, and if the Gambling Commission demanded disclosure, it could find out. Chains including William Hill, Coral and Paddy Power saw big suspicious sums, prompting reports to regulators. Industry insiders think up to between £500,000-£800,000 was wagered across all platforms, up to 10 times expected levels.
Betfair, the main online firm, saw increased trade, but not suspicious trade. Around £281,000 was wagered with them alone, but a lot of that was on the Saturday morning after rumours of a sting had emerged, but before kick-off. This was from general punters. The Independent understands no FA charges arose from Betfair data. The company is famous for its electronic audit trail of every bet back to the gamblers. "If you are going to get involved in a dodgy bet, you are not likely nowadays to go down the path of likely detection," said a source.
The Independent also understands the FA requested phone records, bank account access and betting account details from a number of "football people", and that at least some of its charges arose from this work.
Compared to many countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, England has remained largely free of serious malpractice related to betting and football. Certainly proven cases are few and far between. The hope at the FA is things can stay that way, but nobody in the corridors of power is complacent. Especially not in an era when placing a bet – be it legitimate or otherwise – is only a mouse-click away.
Even Uefa's president, Michel Platini, reiterated yesterday that eradicating corruption linked to betting is his organisation's top priority. "The greatest danger to football is match-fixing," Platini said. "Uefa is investing a lot to combat match-fixing."
So, slowly but surely, are authorities in Britain.
How last match of season unfolded for Accrington
The action as it happened: the following is a verbatim contemporary match report from the Press Association, 3 May 2008...
"Andy Bishop, Bury's highly rated striker, took his tally to 25 goals for the season with both goals in the 2-0 win at Accrington. Bishop fired home from the penalty spot in the 21st minute after Phil Edwards had chopped down Nicky Adams.
"Then, on the stroke of half-time, the 26-year-old burst through and finished superbly past Kenny Arthur for the mid-table side. Stanley, safe from relegation, had chances in the first half, but Bury 'keeper Jim Provett did well to thwart Paul Mullin and Bobby Grant. The home side dominated after the break but were wasteful.
"Andy Todd blasted over in a good position, substitute Leighton McGivern scuffed a golden opportunity and Mullin was denied by Provett from close range to end a disappointing season for Accrington."
The next phases: The key remaining questions
Who made the bets?
The million-dollar question, almost literally. According to Football Association charges against five footballers, it is alleged that they collectively bet £10,505 on Bury, and have apparently been identified doing so convincingly enough for charges to be brought against them. But that still leaves hundreds of thousands of pounds of other bets struck by other people. Huge amounts of detective work would be needed to find out who they were. The footballers, at least, were relatively famous and easier to trace.
Why are only footballers in the dock?
Because the FA only has a remit to look at breaches of its rules, which govern only players, managers and officials.
Whose job is it to investigate whether there was a wider conspiracy?
Possibly the police, but probably only at the request of the FA and/or the Gambling Commission, who are undecided what to do yet.
How will the players plead, and what action might their pleas lead to?
It is possible that at least one and maybe several of the players will plead guilty, arguing mitigating circumstances such as their ignorance of the rules on gambling. They might even say that the money was somebody else's.
Whose?
Excellent question. Hard to answer.
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/bets-files-and-videotape-ndash-inside-the-stanley-sting-1673340.html