Snooker
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 125 comments are related to the topic:
Mark King syspended with immediate effect
Mark King syspended with immediate effect
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 125
|
By:
Three calendar months tomorrow since King made it known that he'd had his hearing the previous week. Still nothing from WST/WPBSA on the matter.....
|
|
By:
Few bits from Ferguson here, including on King. Doesn't say a lot but does at least confirm that everything is done and we're all just waiting - and waiting - for a verdict. Interesting he describes the case as "very complex" which definitely suggests King was able to mount a meaningful defence.
Interesting bit about Zhao Xintong whose WpBSA ban is up soon but longer Chinese ban would last another season basically. Ferguson says they'd welcome him back regardless so two federations possibly not singing off the same hymn sheet on these matters. Talking a load of shyte about Michael Shyte at the end. https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/16/jason-ferguson-gives-latest-crucible-snookers-olympic-hopes-zhao-xintong-21437717/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.native |
|
By:
Thanks for that, mate - I would have likely missed it.
So it's the independent tribunal that are still to put it all out there, as it were. I guess that's fair enough, and means my criticism of the powers that be has been rather unjust. Knew the CPBSA had given Xintong an extra 6 months to the WPBSA, but the WPBSA had maintained they would honour the CPBSA's ban initially. Does sound like they are now considering (if not actively) backtracking on that. |
|
By:
No worries mate. I wouldn't be so fast in letting them off the hook tbh, just waiting to see how it all ends up. Perry also refers to the case in a separate piece, sounds pretty upset at how he was treated almost as if he's suggesting they treated him as a suspect too for a time. Just another layer to add to the intrigue. On a tangent, interesting he says he's acting as a "mentor" to robbo which sounds unusual but could be a smart move by both.
https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/18/joe-perry-remotivated-fight-career-serious-thoughts-retirement-21442874/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.native |
|
By:
Knew Perry and Robbo were working together, but that is interesting about the King stuff!
 |
|
By:
Thanks for the reminder, Joe! So we're now just 5.5 months on from the hearing, and I've still not read anything about an outcome?!
|
|
By:
Did my fellow gent mention King on live commentary? He'll be warned about that afterwards
 My latest (and most likely useless) guess: the case has been resolved. King has signed an NDA and walked away with a pretty decent settlement. They won't announce it or even mention it until they have to which could be the fifteenth of never never. |
|
By:
Joe Johnson made reference to the scenes when King won here, mate.
I went on Twitter after my post and noticed someone else had asked Phil Haigh to find out what was going on just an hour before Joe mentioned him! I also noticed that King is back on Twitter, and quite a few people were asking what the score was and when he'd be back. No response.... |
|
By:
Ah, wrong Joe! Didn't know that about King mate, very interesting.
|
|
By:
Amazing....a resolution and it's not good news for Mark King. Whole case has been a headwrcker since the start and every assumption I've had about it pretty much turned out to be totally wrong, including final judgment
  King might yet appeal i guess https://www.wst.tv//news/2024/november/15/wpbsa-statement---mark-king/ |
|
By:
Just relieved really it's resolved but still intrigued it all took this long. Await the more detailed judgement with interest.
|
|
By:
Justice. Horrible cheat.
|
|
By:
Ooooh, I had all but given up on there ever being an announcement.
Very interesting that the match involving JB that they were looking at was thrown out.... Definitely needs some more flesh adding to the bones. |
|
By:
It has been some fcking saga in fairness, compelling in its own way but incredibly frustrating too. Assuming now bets will finally be paid out or voided, or resolved in some way?
|
|
By:
Given their lack of desire to do anything up to this point, I won't hold my breath about them doing anything before the appeal window has closed.
|
|
By:
(I've not checked yet)
|
|
By:
Just looked. Still not settled.
|
|
By:
its for life because he will not pay the fine
|
|
By:
It's costs isnt it, rather than a fine, so i think he might have to fork out or face consequences.
|
|
By:
https://t.co/JJsfo0pOeg
Won't get to this till tomorrow at the earliest but some interesting reading by all accounts. |
|
By:
Some might be rather surprised to learn it, but snooker today is squeaky clean compared to the 70s, 80s and 90s.
|
|
By:
Folks in rose-tinted spectacles could scarcely imagine how bent the game was back then, especially within the top amateur ranks of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
It was a different time altogether. |
|
By:
Only on p26, but I am starting to appreciate why it took so long!
It's a gripping read! No wonder Perry felt like he was the accused as well given his association with the bloke (other than King) at the centre of it all! The volumes and contextual comments show how dumb these people are/were. |
|
By:
Interesting point at 95b(iii)! Has nobody told them that gambling winnings are non-taxable, regardless of your 'status'?
(though I imagine if you have putters-on the position is, legally, different) |
|
By:
Should the preamble in 97 say "Mr King's performance" rather than "Mr Perry's performance"?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Hoping to get stuck in later today, seems fairly riveting stuff.
|
|
By:
Love the idea in 178b that King losing to JB would convince people involved that he could be trusted to lose to Perry, as if he wouldn't (most likely) have lost to JB anyway, fix or otherwise!
 |
|
By:
All very interesting, and "on the balance of probabilities" pretty difficult to argue with the outcome.
The betting volumes part are still the most striking for me (for a variety or reasons, not least how you could think it wouldn't draw attention given typical amounts matched on those markets). The one thing that I still have trouble with, though, is that King was (allegedly) prepared to do that for £15k. It would have been interesting if they'd included how much those bets stood to win, but I would guess (without the absence of specific breakdowns of the correct score bets and the associated odds - there was defo a collapse in the odds in the hour prior to the off), we are conceivably talking in excess of EUR500k. |
|
By:
I remember a certain Scouse player who has some extremely dodgy matches back in the day, particularly towards end of his career
|
|
By:
Sounds like King was pretty desperate for cash around that time, not sure is that drawn out or not? One figure i saw mentioned was £140K which was the total bet on the world final between ronnie and judd, which puts the whole thing into perspective. A figure of £190K for a bog standard ranking match is instantly going to set off any number of alarm bells, will be keen to see how they thought they might get away with it. Though this case had me all over the place, i never for an instant was sure King was innocent, just that they might not be able to definitively link him to the bets. Obviously, i was wrong there!
|
|
By:
Sounds like King was permanently desperate for cash, mate! They categorise it as "getting by", which was considered to be his norm.
|
|
By:
*characterise
|
|
By:
Hawkins look value later. Ronnie , to me ,is coming towards the end of the road now.
|
|
By:
Sorry, mate, you've been Latted!
 |
|
By:
There used to be a saying back in the day before online betting… “if there is more money on the outside than the inside, beware.”
Essentially, it means if there is significantly more money being wagered on the rails than is in the players’ prize pot then there is a definite chance that the game might be bent. At some of the tournaments I frequented it often seemed like most game were dodgy on some level. The only truly safe bet was on oneself. Having said all that negativity, I loved those days! |
|
By:
The most memorable incident for me was a 1989 match between two top professionals.
Many on the Birmingham snooker scene knew that the match was bent to finish 5-2 in favour of the underdog. The bookmakers were fleeced that day and, to the best of my knowledge, paid out without suspicion. |
|
By:
1989 match between two top professionals.
A pro match and tournament? Can't imagine all that much bookie markets if it was a side tournament, or maybe there was in those days...? |
|
By:
My (admittedly suspect) memories of 80s/90s was that you could definitely get a decent bet on with most high street books, match markets and frames score for sure, not sure about handicap. Think it was Bet365 that started to introduce betting on qualifiers/lower grade matches around 2005 or thereabouts and that was a gamechanger. Plenty of opportunity for shenanigans there i reckon.
|