Bruce Grobbelaar advertising online gambling
- Thread starter JJ Sefton
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
cooperblade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,152
- Reaction score
- 4,838
I work in the marketing department of a bookmaker and I'm amazed they've used Grobbelaar. Hardly does the industry any favours.
I assume, as right minded Blades fans, you'll all be closing your Paddy Power accounts and betting in William Hill shops instead?
:thumbup:
I assume, as right minded Blades fans, you'll all be closing your Paddy Power accounts and betting in William Hill shops instead?
:thumbup:
D
Deleted member 2102
Guest
Everything to do with United, remember Everton's dramtic come back against Wimbledon on the last day of a certain Premier League season?
Bath Blade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 2,712
- Reaction score
- 3,853
Grobelaar was allegedly (although cleared) part of a match-fixing ring, also including Hans Segers (also cleared) who performed very suspiciously in the game which relegated us in 1994. I believe that makes it Blades-related, and not just any old bollox (sic).
Jim Chimmerney
Can hear the 'Cod Army' roar from his back garden
Wasn't Fashanu also part of that enquiry ? I seem to remember him punching the ball in the penalty area down at Wimbledon when we were on our winning streak in early '91 (think Deano scored from the spot). I think he tried it again just after that but it went unnoticed.
Grobelaar fell victim to that well known disease that affects people who get involved with the law - not to quit when you win on one case against the odds, but to carry on chancing your arm.
He was, of course, cleared in the criminal case, but then sued the Sun for libel (they had famously videoed him arranging the fixing of matches with an undercover reporter posing as a gambler). His argument was that he was just playing along with the alleged gambler to gather evidence. He had intended to go to the police, but the Sun ran the story before he had a chance to do so.
He called expert evidence from Bob Wilson amongst others who analysed then footage where he had allegedly let in goals and said that they thought BG had made every effort to save the shots in question.
Astonisngly, the jury bought his story and awarded him oodles of damages. The Sun appealed on the grounds that the jury verdict went against all the evidence - despite the notorious difficulty in appealing jury verdicts on such grounds. The Court of Appeal concluded that the jury could only have found for BG on the basis that he had promised to cheat, but had actually not gone through with the cheating - i.e. he had doubled crossed the gamblers - so whilst it was technically a libel to call BG a "cheat" as the Sun did, he was, in fact, a liar and a double crosser and, given this, incorrectly calling him a cheat hardly effected his reputation at all. This meant that his damages should be tiny and he got £1 and had to pay the costs which, I believe, bankrupted him.
He was, of course, cleared in the criminal case, but then sued the Sun for libel (they had famously videoed him arranging the fixing of matches with an undercover reporter posing as a gambler). His argument was that he was just playing along with the alleged gambler to gather evidence. He had intended to go to the police, but the Sun ran the story before he had a chance to do so.
He called expert evidence from Bob Wilson amongst others who analysed then footage where he had allegedly let in goals and said that they thought BG had made every effort to save the shots in question.
Astonisngly, the jury bought his story and awarded him oodles of damages. The Sun appealed on the grounds that the jury verdict went against all the evidence - despite the notorious difficulty in appealing jury verdicts on such grounds. The Court of Appeal concluded that the jury could only have found for BG on the basis that he had promised to cheat, but had actually not gone through with the cheating - i.e. he had doubled crossed the gamblers - so whilst it was technically a libel to call BG a "cheat" as the Sun did, he was, in fact, a liar and a double crosser and, given this, incorrectly calling him a cheat hardly effected his reputation at all. This meant that his damages should be tiny and he got £1 and had to pay the costs which, I believe, bankrupted him.
Fiery Blade
Well-Known Member
BG advert - brilliant Lighten up everyone - its obviously been succesful everyones talking about it even on the wrong forum!
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?