Contentious? Laudrup interview

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Beat me to it, Cam. Very controversial in the U.K and it's not something that most football fans would approve of here. I suspect that it's common practice in Spain which is where he's spent most of his career.

But let's not get hysterical like some of those who've left comments on that page. He is not advocating match fixing.
 
Exactly, he's only saying other teams should be allowed to give financial motivation for a team who's already safe to go out and win the game. It's paying teams to win! It's not guaranteed nor fully in that teams control (the oppo have something to say about it) unlike it is for the case of being paid to lose a game
 
I listened to the full interview yesterday and within the context of the entire sequence of questions relating to this topic I heard nothing wrong. In fact the utterance of paying teams to win was just that, an utterance and I admit I didn't even pick up on it. Clearly somebody scanned that interview for something controversial and extracted that fragment out of context and proportion.

It's an interesting point of debate. Football matches are ideally played to win - at the very least played not to lose. Paying (ie bribing) a player or team to perform contrary to their obligation is different from paying (ie. motivating) a player or team to fulfill their obligation. Should a third party be permitted to "interfere" in the contest between two others in any manner is another matter - for sake of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety probably not, but it could easily be argued in some cultures that paying to motivate is acceptable. I don't think it's criminal to pay to motivate in favor of obligation, ethically I think it's neutral.
 
Basically, paying someone to lose is wrong but paying someone to win is ok as their trying to do that anyway. Although I'd question why they'd need to be paid as they are professionals and should already be giving 100% effort and commitment with or without the financial incentives.
 
yes i read this and it has misquote written all over it for me....

havent heard the interview and context and i suspect this is the work of a journalist trying to make something controversial out of nothing.......<ok>
 
I think ML should keep his trap shut and not comment on these shameful discussions, He should be concentrating on how we are going to beat everton and the rest of our fixtures, Match fixing is a taboo subject that anyone at Swansea should not be associated with whatever your views are....
 
Yankee_Jack said:
I would hope that going forward he will be more circumspect in choosing what to answer and avoid.
Click to expand...

Agree Yankee, yet in a curious way this type of comment from him actually enhances his reputation - he is clearly steeped in integrity; speaks his mind in an open, frank and honest way.
 
I couldn't give a rats @rse - Media just looking for something out of nothing..... Oh, I think its wrong to pay someone to win - how stupid does that sound, and that's probably why he said he can't see anything wrong in it... Is it really that controversial? It's nice to finally get in the press though eh!, price of doing well I guess....... It'll soon pass and there will be something or someone else up for media target practice....
 
The headline is what journos want as headlines these days, something to sound contentious & create confusion & derision! Put it another way, was it wrong for our players to get a bonus for that win at Wembley. we paid them a sum of money because we won. That`s a different take on it I know, but the principle is the same.

Now to the point, is it wrong for say, Man. City to pay us to beat Man. Utd. in the last game, so they can win the title, the incentive is there for us to win? It is wrong for Man. Utd. to pay us to lose to them so they can win the title. Two different scenarios, two different outcomes. I`m sure that Man. Utd. would have offered QPR a massive win bonus last game of the season.

It`s a clear response & leaves little or no room for ambiguity, rightly or wrongly. Paying someone to win is OK, paying someone to lose is cheating.
 
Ml will be carefully monitored throughout the season now, and he only has himself to blame, silly man...
 
"Monitored" by whom exactly? <doh> Don't talk bollox. He's not "silly", he was answering a question and giving an honest view. But as usual you but the negative spin on everything.
 
don't bet against it kangaroo ...when he says its ok to pay another team to beat someone then he will be monitored......they are talking about it on other boards as a stupid thing to say....
 
Michael Laudrup is the antithesis to the silly men who will get their knickers in a twist about this up and down the country.
Morons the lot of 'em
 
One point nobody at all has made: What he is saying is within the laws of the game, so what's the fuss?

If "other boards" are saying things, since when does that concern us? **** 'em.
 
I wonder what shefflied fans would say about this. Last game of the season in 2008, Manchester united have already won the title and face West Ham at home. West ham need to be win to survive. Manchester United field a weakened team, West Ham win, Sheffield get relegated. Now they are plying their trade in league one. I wonder if they would have payed Manchester United to field a full strength team if they were able.
What Michael Laudrup says actually makes a lot of sense. It would make football more even rather than advantage the teams who are playing against under strengthens sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back