Coral Tour Championship Final !!!

Alex0paul wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:

Wildey wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:These two are mates. Wonder if Judd is wondering if a 155k per man deal has been cut??

That would be a ban for both players.

Players make deals with prize money quite a lot

If you know that how come World Snooker doesn't and ban them pending an enquiry.

Because it has nothing to do with match fixing. Ken Doherty talks about it in his book. Griffiths tried making a deal with Virgo in the 1979 UK Championship final

Of course its match fixing and yea I guess it did go on back then when you didn't have the integrity units looking in to every small thing you do

How is it match fixing? If you agree to split the winnings then how is that fixing an outcome of a match?

Wildey wrote:Of course its match fixing and yea I guess it did go on back then when you didn't have the integrity units looking in to every small thing you do

Well it’s not really match fixing because it doesn’t mean they’re not trying to win. It just means that they come out with equal money whoever wins.

Mark Williams used to do it quite a bit too I think. Didn’t doherty once get the hump with him when he suggested it?

If you deliberately play at shot at less than 100% its dodgy Mr Allen

Alex0paul wrote:How is it match fixing? If you agree to split the winnings then how is that fixing an outcome of a match?

This. Has nothing to do with the outcome of the match, they are just splitting the money regardless of result. Has been done forever

Iranu wrote:

Wildey wrote:Of course its match fixing and yea I guess it did go on back then when you didn't have the integrity units looking in to every small thing you do

Well it’s not really match fixing because it doesn’t mean they’re not trying to win. It just means that they come out with equal money whoever wins.

Mark Williams used to do it quite a bit too I think. Didn’t doherty once get the hump with him when he suggested it?

If Stephen Maguire wins its £155,000 each if Mark Allen wins its £105,000 each now how is that not match fixing and why it should never happen in any circumstance.

Why do they get different prize money depending on who wins?

Hasnt been done forever and what would the bookies say?

To be fair I forgot about the bonus complicating matters a little in this instance.

It still doesn’t necessarily mean it’s match fixing though, unless they’ve specifically agreed to make sure Mags wins. Just saying “we’ll split the winnings equally” is different.

Scooper wrote:Why do they get different prize money depending on who wins?

Stephen Maguire could win the Coral cup and a bonus of 100K


Mark Allen is not up for that.

Held back from backing Maguire because I think someone will mark their cards. Foulds and McManus looked embarrassed at the end.

Iranu wrote:To be fair I forgot about the bonus complicating matters a little in this instance.

It still doesn’t necessarily mean it’s match fixing though, unless they’ve specifically agreed to make sure Mags wins. Just saying “we’ll split the winnings equally” is different.

That's the thing isn't it by saying that's OK its basically making things complicated if they out law that then this scenario couldn't crop up.

I very much hope Mark Allen wins now to put these rumours to bed.

The sport has got a problem if a sponsor has engineered a bonus that could mean both finalists earn less if one of them wins.

Wildey wrote:

Iranu wrote:To be fair I forgot about the bonus complicating matters a little in this instance.

It still doesn’t necessarily mean it’s match fixing though, unless they’ve specifically agreed to make sure Mags wins. Just saying “we’ll split the winnings equally” is different.

That's the thing isn't it by saying that's OK its basically making things complicated if they out law that then this scenario couldn't crop up.

Maybe they will. It’s only been relevant since the bonuses became a thing, so it’s pretty recent.

And let’s remind ourselves that at present this is just a rumour with no basis other than some unusual shot choices. And unusual shot choices happen all the time.

SnookerEd25 wrote:I very much hope Mark Allen wins now to put these rumours to bed.

The sport has got a problem if a sponsor has engineered a bonus that could mean both finalists earn less if one of them wins.

Sounds like a silly system to me, though I’m ignorant of the details

Also, even if the conversation has happened there’s no guarantee the bonus is even included in it! It’s not winnings afterall.

Was funny Foukds saying that no quarter would be given tonight despite them being mates...haaa!!! Fouldsy's not daft...wouldnt mind betting that either foulds or McManus are texting the pair o them as we speak...

SnookerEd25 wrote:I very much hope Mark Allen wins now to put these rumours to bed.

The sport has got a problem if a sponsor has engineered a bonus that could mean both finalists earn less if one of them wins.

Yea totally agree if they want these bonus things they got to make it clear sharing price money should not be happening.


Of course Trump could have made a deal with Allen £145,000 each which would have been stupid of Allen lol

Consistently strange choice shots in one session are not commonplace...unless your name ends in Lee or Burnett...

Iranu wrote:Also, even if the conversation has happened there’s no guarantee the bonus is even included in it! It’s not winnings afterall.

I think its really sad that's happening to be honest nobody would be having a penny from me.

gallantrabbit wrote:Was funny Foukds saying that no quarter would be given tonight despite them being mates...haaa!!! Fouldsy's not daft...wouldnt mind betting that either foulds or McManus are texting the pair o them as we speak...

This is said every time friends play each other, not sure there’s anything in that statement!

Foulds was just trying to cover for them.

gallantrabbit wrote:Foulds was just trying to cover for them.

Jesus Christ.
Are pundits covering for players every time they say it then? They say this all the time.

If Allen and Maguire have made the agreement, why do you think it’s some huge conspiracy rather than something two people have decided to do?

Iranu wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:Foulds was just trying to cover for them.

Jesus Christ.
Are pundits covering for players every time they say it then? They say this all the time.

If Allen and Maguire have made the agreement, why do you think it’s some huge conspiracy rather than something two people have decided to do?

Yea if it's been discussed the chances of them texting Foulds to tell him is very doubtful lol

Wildey wrote:If Stephen Maguire wins its £155,000 each if Mark Allen wins its £105,000 each now how is that not match fixing and why it should never happen in any circumstance.

Does this take into account the runners-up prize?

Not a huge conspiracy just that Allen hasnt just missed the odd ball or chosen poorly. I watched every ball and it was a very poor show from Allen. He missed one simple red to the middle by three inches...

No way they split the money.

1. It would mean neither player bothered about winning which would impact people betting and in longer term the profits of the bookies.

2. Players' accounts are open to scrutiny if foul play is suspected and their suspension would be immediate.

Risk far outweighs reward,

Not saying they texted Foulds. Foulds is trying to save the integrity of the game. Hes not involved just embarrassed by this nonsense.

gallantrabbit wrote:Not a huge conspiracy just that Allen hasnt just missed the odd ball or chosen poorly. I watched every ball and it was a very poor show from Allen. He missed one simple red to the middle by three inches...

edited

gallantrabbit wrote:Not a huge conspiracy just that Allen hasnt just missed the odd ball or chosen poorly. I watched every ball and it was a very poor show from Allen. He missed one simple red to the middle by three inches...

By conspiracy I’m referring to Foulds knowing about it and covering for them. I don’t see how he’d enter into their discussions.