365 & next Stoke manager

They're also conspicuous in their refusal to offer next Everton, Chelsea and City manager markets too. If they did offer manager markets and offered Stoke they'd be accused of having inside information. For simplicity sake it makes sense that they do not offer a Stoke market even if they did offer other markets.

They have been offering odds on Everton, Man City & Chelsea (go to oddschecker and click on a candidate and all history and you will see they have been).  What I am saying is if 365 do not consider it proper to ok odds on next Stoke manager, then why is it ok for them to offer odds on Stoke, the Premier League, and the FA Cup.

After all the FA rules  ( http://www.sportsbettinggroup.org/docs/FA%20Betting%20Education%20Booklet.pdf ) on betting clearly state:
“The FA has a number of rules relating to betting which affect all players, managers, coaches,
club medical staff and other Participants (e.g. Directors, Licensed agents). The purpose
of this guide is to tell you what these rules are, what they mean and how they affect you.”

And:

“The Rules
• Betting can be done online, over the telephone, in a betting shop or even with friends.
• You are not allowed to place any bet on a game involving your club;
• You are not allowed to place any bet on a game in a competition
(such as cup competitions or the league itself) in which your club plays;
• This includes competitions that your club is due to play in but has not
yet started and competitions that your club has been knocked out of;
• You are not allowed to place a bet on a game or competition in which you have any
influence, either direct or indirect;”

^ proper to offer odds, not proper to ok odds

While not quite the same, there were 5 teams sponsored by Bookies or Casinos in the Prem and 2 in the Championship. Far from ideal and certainly not in the spirit of the game (as if that means anything any more).

terrible liquidity in this market! and i am red for the first time ever in a manager market. arent there stoke supporters with money to gamble with?

The difference is surely that Peter Coates has a direct influence on the decision of next Stoke manager.

He doesn't have direct influence on the results of Stoke City.

How do you know that emeraldg?

I'm not casting aspersions on Coates, Stoke City, or anyone else, but I do think it is somewhat naive of you, given what we know about the corruption in sport, to think that anyone is above such manipulation of events.

Coates and his family bankroll Stoke City. If they wanted to influence Stoke City's results, no-one would be in a better position than them, and they certainly wouldn't let you know about it.

Sorry, I should have put "in theory".

I don't "know" anything.  I did make the assumption that Peter Coates isn't fixing matches, however.  I've seen odds-on draws in Italy, I am well aware fixes happen.  I know no-one would tell me, but somebody would get told and the odds would be affected more than they have been for Stoke matches.  Also, I trust that the FA/Premier League are aware of the situation and are obviously okay with it.

But surely you can see how the two matters are different? On face value one is more heavily linked to him being chairman of the football club than the other.

Bet 365 (effectively) can decide who the next Stoke manager is .

They can't decide that Stoke are going to win at Old Trafford .

All seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I suppose they withdrew from manager markets after Pulis left?

Maybe because they will get to hear about what is really going on with the candidates, making it unfair. THat is probably the line that would be crossed IMHO.

Surely if a line has been crossed then the line is of the chairman and his family's company laying bets every match on their own club to lose.

365 make money from laying bets on anything that are  7% or 8% less likely to happen than the odds suggest

wtf would they need to be fixing Stoke matches

Of course they wouldn't be fixing Stoke matches, no-one is actually suggesting they are. But that's not the point as on the face of it, it seems to be going against the FA's own rules.

It sets a precedent which could lead to problems in the future if less trustworthy companies / individuals found themselves in a similar situation.

I would suspect and hope 365 checked it all with the FA years ago and were given the green light.