Spot Fixing?

[D/L]

I’d be in favour of their being compensated, SP. Who pays ultimately could be decided later, but in the meantime, the ECB could put their hand in their pocket and look upon it as the price of a valuable lesson learned about which teams to invite to tour.

I agree with that, but we all know that it won't happen..because money dictates everything....

I think there’s a chance that it will, SP. The ECB seem to be wisely keeping their powder dry at the moment. Any words spoken before any decision to cancel the tour must be carefully chosen and they may be investigating ways of ensuring that English cricket does not ultimately pay for the whole sorry spectacle.

No doubt too, the players are currently making angry representations to the ECB about Mr. Butt's words.

[SaintPowelly]

The only way I can see the 5th ODI not taking place..is if England refuse to play today.but then Pakistan will win by forfeit and England won't want that.

The 'accusations' aren't well founded or based on anything other than England being poor..with the Pakistan trio there is video footage to suggest match fixing..this time its just words.

It would be like me accusing you of murder - it'd be easy for me to say - but without a body or video proof, nothing can be done about it

[D/L]

...Anyone starting to feel sorry for a certain Mr Hair? It was a similar attempt that effectively ended his career!

Only in that a good umpire was denied the opportunity to finish his career, SP. I doubt he lost out financially; quite the reverse, actually. There were out of court settlements and probably a soon to be published autobiography that should sell in its millions. I bet he’ll even send a free copy to Mr. Butt.

[D/L]

The only way I can see the 5th ODI not taking place..is if England refuse to play today...

I doubt the ECB, or the players, would put thousands of people through the misery caused by refusing to play at such short notice, SP.

Words they may only be, but to any honest player, they are very offensive words. The ECB may realise that in the long run they may be better served by putting principle before short term profit.

[SaintPowelly]

The only way I can see the 5th ODI not taking place..is if England refuse to play today...

I doubt the ECB, or the players, would put thousands of people through the misery caused by refusing to play at such short notice, SP.

Words they may only be, but to any honest player, they are very offensive words. The ECB may realise that in the long run they may be better served by putting principle before short term profit.

Remember this is the same ECB that think Sussex deserve more prize money than Lancs - they clearly have no logic when it comes to money.

Also no individual has been 'accused' -If something along the lines of ' Graeme Swann was asked to score 0 ' then there would be reason to panic (if it could be proved)

At the moment it is a bitter PCB, who know they are going down and are trying to drag others with them.

[yorker_129-7]

With regards to the cancellations, would it not be possible to do whatever with todays game, then play the last ODI against Ireland, or maybe against the Warwickshire side which won at Lord's on Saturday, thereby killing several birds with one stone?

[SaintPowelly]

With regards to the cancellations, would it not be possible to do whatever with todays game, then play the last ODI against Ireland, or maybe against the Warwickshire side which won at Lord's on Saturday, thereby killing several birds with one stone?

well not Ireland because they are in Zimbabwe..but hypothetically they could play England vs Warwickshire - but would either side or the crowd care ?

[yorker_129-7]

I expect some might turn up, some cricket is better than no cricket after all. If not Ireland, maybe Scotland or the Netherlands?

Could even play it as a T20 game rather than a full 50 over game, might lure some more people in.

[Aidan11]

I think if I paid £50 or so several months ago to watch England v Pakistan, then the ECB changed it to Ireland, Warwickshire, Holland or whoever, then I would be demanding a refund.

[yuppie]

This is getting tasty now.

This from cricinfo

http://www.cricinfo.com/england-v-pakis ... 77928.html

Of course the games will go on, but the ECB will be taking legal action against Butt.

[DeltaAlpha]

...The PCB Chairman has just accused the English team of being paid to throw a match. That is one big accustation...

Actually, I don’t think he has.

“There is talk in [insert profession] circles that [insert innuendo]” is a well known way of suggesting wrongdoing without leaving oneself liable to a legal action for slander. How could anyone prove that there hadn’t been such talk amongst an unidentified group of bookies? Mr. Butt is on safe ground here, I think.

I've been thinking again about this and now disagree with what D/L says.

Butt said, "There is loud and clear talk in bookie circles that some English players were paid enormous amounts of money to lose. No wonder there was total collapse of the English side."

There are two sentences, but only the first refers to bookies. The second is Butt's own conclusion from the first and is not part of the "talk in bookie circles".

If Butt had linked the two sentences with "and that there is", then I would agree with D/L... but he didn't.

I think the lawyers will have fun with this!

[Durhamfootman]

...The PCB Chairman has just accused the English team of being paid to throw a match. That is one big accustation...

Actually, I don’t think he has.

“There is talk in [insert profession] circles that [insert innuendo]” is a well known way of suggesting wrongdoing without leaving oneself liable to a legal action for slander. How could anyone prove that there hadn’t been such talk amongst an unidentified group of bookies? Mr. Butt is on safe ground here, I think.

With people like him in charge though, it is hardly any wonder that Pakistan cricket is in the state it is. This morning, on the BBC TV news, not only did he not provide direct answers to questions, he uttered an expletive in the middle of what can best be described as an incoherent rant.

The impression given is that Mr. Butt is lashing out because of the action taken against his own players; action that would seem to be entirely justified on the evidence provided; evidence that makes many people think the players are as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo. It seems that Mr. Butt is desperate that Pakistan cricket should not be taking nearly all the flak for the dishonesty that people see in the game. His words and his actions, however, seem only to give additional credence to the perception.

It is too late to cancel today’s game, but the 5th ODI should be cancelled and people refunded their ticket money. Let the entire team, and all its officials, get the first plane home tomorrow.

I listened to him on sky sports news this morning. A fine example of filibustering (is that the right word?) in order that his claims could not be examined any closer. At one point I thought the interviewer was going to pull the plug on the interview, but he didn't have the bottle.

Incoherant rant is the right description for Mr Butts comments.

[D/L]

...The PCB Chairman has just accused the English team of being paid to throw a match. That is one big accustation...

Actually, I don’t think he has.

“There is talk in [insert profession] circles that [insert innuendo]” is a well known way of suggesting wrongdoing without leaving oneself liable to a legal action for slander. How could anyone prove that there hadn’t been such talk amongst an unidentified group of bookies? Mr. Butt is on safe ground here, I think.

I've been thinking again about this and now disagree with what D/L says.

Butt said, "There is loud and clear talk in bookie circles that some English players were paid enormous amounts of money to lose. No wonder there was total collapse of the English side."

There are two sentences, but only the first refers to bookies. The second is Butt's own conclusion from the first and is not part of the "talk in bookie circles".

If Butt had linked the two sentences with "and that there is", then I would agree with D/L... but he didn't.

I think the lawyers will have fun with this!

I don’t think a good lawyer would have much trouble putting doubt in the mind that the second sentence was tantamount to an accusation, DA, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Butt has since stated unequivocally (for him) that he is not making any accusations.

He was probably simply lashing out, angered at the the opprobrium being heaped (possibly quite rightly) upon Pakistan cricket, using the old trick of "I've heard others say...". No wonder Pakistan cricket is in such a mess with someone like Mr. Butt at the helm.

Of course, the ECB are consulting their lawyers, but I would be surprised if any action ensues.

[DeltaAlpha]

I don’t think a good lawyer would have much trouble putting doubt in the mind that the second sentence was tantamount to an accusation, DA, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Butt has since stated unequivocally (for him) that he is not making any accusations.

He was probably simply lashing out, angered at the the opprobrium being heaped (possibly quite rightly) upon Pakistan cricket, using the old trick of "I've heard others say...". No wonder Pakistan cricket is in such a mess with someone like Mr. Butt at the helm.

Of course, the ECB are consulting their lawyers, but I would be surprised if any action ensues.

Well, I'm not so sure that any lawyer could successfully cast doubt on Butt's second sentence being an accusation, and the fact that Butt has denied making any accusations leads me to think that he, or someone advising him, realises this.

The fact that he may have been "lashing out" makes no difference at all - he said what he said, and that's all that matters.

I see some lawyers rubbing their hands...!

[D/L]

That’s the trouble with lawyers. Unless they are engaged on a “no win, no fee” basis, they often recommend action in a case they privately have little hope of winning.

The "lashing out" comment was not meant to mitigate the offensiveness of Mr. Butt's remarks, by the way, but merely as a possible explanation for his motives.