Thomas Piketty: "... wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labour. Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future. The consequences for the long-term dynamics of wealth distribution are potentially terrifying, especially when one adds that the size of the initial stake and that the divergence in the wealth distribution is occurring on a global scale."

While virtually all advocacy, transparency and tax avoidance entities focus on offshore financial centres, money laundering and current abuses of the template of capital, the real wealth inequalities exist on the basis of old money and all those forgotten crimes.
For privately educated individuals enhancing their existences via private income in their non-meritocratic NGOs, the critical nature of historical wealth and inheritance is carefully ignored.

Josiah Wedgwood: " Political democracies that don't democratise their economic systems are inherently unstable."

Ponzi Capitalism

Capitalism has been a Ponzi scheme throughout its history - political scientists from Marx to Piketty have understood this fact.

Since 1700, the average annual rate of growth of the global economy has been 0.8%...
... and the average annual demographic growth in global population has been 0.8%.

Growth in income is expected to fall further throughout the 21st Century as the birth rate declines in lockstep across the world whilst, in parallel, systemic issues relating to planetary climatic stability move into primary focus.

The Ponzi scheme is running towards its precipitous conclusion and all that remains is the opportunity for imposition of redistributive policies to prevent the same fools from performing the same self-harming in a world of post-capitalist bliss.

There is only one solution to the first stage of the deconstruction of late capitalism - a markedly progressive tax on the largest fortunes worldwide (targeting both capital and income) to both prevent inheritance trumping meritocracy and to enforce an efficient use of capital for global rather than proprietary benefit.
Additionally, with such a progressive tax in place, the incentive to amass huge fortunes in the first place would be undermined.

Taxing Capital Progressively

Piketty: "... most countries' taxes have (or will soon) become regressive at the top of the income hierarchy. For example, a detailed study of French taxes in 2010, which looked at all forms of taxation, found that the overall rate of taxation... broke down as follows. The bottom 50% of the income distribution pay a rate of 40-45%; the next 40% pay 45-50%; but the top 5% and even more the top 1% pay lower rates, with the top 0.1% paying only 35%."

The annual global returns on capital are conservatively estimated at 5-6% while income growth is expected to struggle above zero this century.
Piketty: "Note, too, that inequality of income from capital may be greater than inequality of capital itself, if individuals with large fortunes somehow manage to obtain a higher return than those with modest to middling fortunes... Whenever the rate of return on capital is significantly and durably higher than the growth rate of the economy, it is all but inevitable that inheritance (the fortunes accumulated in the past) predominate over savings (wealth accumulated in the present)."

"... the ideal policy for avoiding an endless inegalitarian spiral and regaining control over the dynamics of accumulation would be a progressive global tax on capital. Such a tax would also have another virtue: it would expose wealth to democratic scrutiny, which is a necessary condition for effective regulation of the banking system and international capital flows."

"There are two distinct justifications of a capital tax; a contributive justification and an incentive justification... The primary purpose of the capital tax is not to finance the social state but to regulate capitalism."

The conventional focus on taxing income and targeting money laundering is merely a part of the jigsaw of fiscal justice - much more importantly, capital needs to be progressively taxed to avoid the inefficient use of such capital, the excessive returns generated by such non-meritocratic wealth and an end to austerity-based matrices of social injustice.

The most farcical argument against progressive income and capital taxes is that the elite would simply move to more tax-friendly locations. With global tax co-operation and an end to the opacity of offshore financial centres, there would moreover be nowhere left to slink off to.
Anyway - Piketty: "The idea that all US executives would immediately flee to Canada and Mexico and nobody with the competence or motivation to run the economy would remain is not only contradicted by historical experience and by all the firm level data at our disposal; it is also devoid of common sense."

Income Inequality - The Root Of All Financial Crises

National wealth has become markedly privatised in the last four decades.

Furthermore, as Piketty states, "... given the fact that the share of the upper decile in US national income has peaked twice in the past century, once in 1928 (on the eve of the Depression of 1929) and again in 2007 (on the eve of the recession of 2008, the question [does increasing inequality cause financial crisis?] is difficult to avoid."

Currently in the US, incomes are as unequally distributed as has ever been observed anywhere anytime - the top 1% gain 35% of income while the bottom 50% of population earn just 25%.

Piketty: "Effective tax rates (expressed as a percentage of economic income) are extremely low at the top of the wealth hierarchy, which is problematic, since it accentuates the explosive dynamics of wealth inequality, especially when larger fortunes are able to garner larger returns... The goal is first to stop the indefinite increase in the inequality of wealth, and second to impose effective regulation on the financial and banking system to avoid crises."

There are only three tools for getting rid of the current levels of debt in the developed nations - taxes on capital, inflation and austerity.
Austerity isn't a prerequisite, it is an option.

The privatisation of wealth in the last 40 years has seen huge rewards for "super-managers" - such rewards are not commensurate with performance.
Piketty: "... there is no statistically significant relationship between the decrease in top marginal tax rates and the rate of productivity growth in the developed countries since 1980. Concretely, the crucial fact is that the rate of per capita GDP growth has been almost exactly the same in all the rich countries since 1980. In contrast to what many people in Britain and the United States believe, the true figures on growth ... show that Britain and the United States have not grown any more rapidly since 1980 than Germany, France, Japan, Denmark or Sweden."

Of course, the mainstream media, governments and the financial system en masse don't want any focus on private wealth with their collective attempts to get us to pay attention to immediate income rather than long-term capital wealth. But their myopia is complete in that all Ponzi's possess the seeds of their own destruction.
Piketty: "... capitalists do indeed dig their own grave: either they tear each other apart in a desperate attempt to combat the falling rate of profit..., or they force labour to accept a smaller and smaller share of national income, which ultimately leads to a proletarian revolution and general expropriation. In any event capital is undermined by its internal contradictions."
Stiglitz has made a similar point.

Meanwhile, in a parallel sociopathic world, George Osborne increased the inheritance tax threshold this month.

Piketty: "To regulate the globalised patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century, rethinking the twentieth-century fiscal and social model and adapting it to today's world will not be enough. To be sure, appropriate updating of the last century's social-democratic and fiscal-liberal program is essential... But if democracy is to regain control the globalised financial capitalism of this century, it must also invent new tools, adapted to today's challenges. The ideal tool would be a progressive global tax on capital, coupled with a very high level of international financial transparency. Such a tax would provide a way to avoid an endless inegalitarian spiral and to control the worrisome dynamics of global capital concentration."

"Whistleblowers are outliers of probability, and if they are to be effective as a political force, it’s critical that they maximize the amount of public good produced from scarce seed."
_________________________________________________________________________________

"I've been waiting 40 years for someone like you.” Those were the first words Daniel Ellsberg spoke to me when we met last year. Dan and I felt an immediate kinship; we both knew what it meant to risk so much — and to be irrevocably changed — by revealing secret truths.

One of the challenges of being a whistleblower is living with the knowledge that people continue to sit, just as you did, at those desks, in that unit, throughout the agency, who see what you saw and comply in silence, without resistance or complaint. They learn to live not just with untruths but with unnecessary untruths, dangerous untruths, corrosive untruths. It is a double tragedy: What begins as a survival strategy ends with the compromise of the human being it sought to preserve and the diminishing of the democracy meant to justify the sacrifice.

But unlike Dan Ellsberg, I didn’t have to wait 40 years to witness other citizens breaking that silence with documents. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other newspapers in 1971; Chelsea Manning provided the Iraq and Afghan War logs and the Cablegate materials to WikiLeaks in 2010. I came forward in 2013. Now here we are in 2016, and another person of courage and conscience has made available the set of extraordinary documents that are published in The Assassination Complex, the new book out today by Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The Intercept. (The documents were originally published last October 15 in The Drone Papers.)

We are witnessing a compression of the working period in which bad policy shelters in the shadows, the time frame in which unconstitutional activities can continue before they are exposed by acts of conscience. And this temporal compression has a significance beyond the immediate headlines; it permits the people of this country to learn about critical government actions, not as part of the historical record but in a way that allows direct action through voting — in other words, in a way that  empowers an informed citizenry to defend the democracy that “state secrets” are nominally intended to support. When I see individuals who are able to bring information forward, it gives me hope that we won’t always be required to curtail the illegal activities of our government as if it were a constant task, to uproot official lawbreaking as routinely as we mow the grass. (Interestingly enough, that is how some have begun to describe remote killing operations, as “cutting the grass.”)

A single act of whistleblowing doesn’t change the reality that there are significant portions of the government that operate below the waterline, beneath the visibility of the public. Those secret activities will continue, despite reforms. But those who perform these actions now have to live with the fear that if they engage in activities contrary to the spirit of society — if even a single citizen is catalyzed to halt the machinery of that injustice — they might still be held to account. The thread by which good governance hangs is this equality before the law, for the only fear of the man who turns the gears is that he may find himself upon them.

Hope lies beyond, when we move from extraordinary acts of revelation to a collective culture of accountability within the intelligence community. Here we will have taken a meaningful step toward solving a problem that has existed for as long as our government.


Not all leaks are alike, nor are their makers. Gen. David Petraeus, for instance, provided his illicit lover and favorable biographer information so secret it defied classification, including the names of covert operatives and the president’s private thoughts on matters of strategic concern. Petraeus was not charged with a felony, as the Justice Department had initially recommended, but was instead permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Had an enlisted soldier of modest rank pulled out a stack of highly classified notebooks and handed them to his girlfriend to secure so much as a smile, he’d be looking at many decades in prison, not a pile of character references from a Who’s Who of the Deep State.

There are authorized leaks and also permitted disclosures. It is rare for senior administration officials to explicitly ask a subordinate to leak a CIA officer’s name to retaliate against her husband, as appears to have been the case with Valerie Plame. It is equally rare for a month to go by in which some senior official does not disclose some protected information that is beneficial to the political efforts of the parties but clearly “damaging to national security” under the definitions of our law.

This dynamic can be seen quite clearly in the al Qaeda “conference call of doom” story, in which intelligence officials, likely seeking to inflate the threat of terrorism and deflect criticism of mass surveillance, revealed to a neoconservative website extraordinarily detailed accounts of specific communications they had intercepted, including locations of the participating parties and the precise contents of the discussions. If the officials’ claims were to be believed, they irrevocably burned an extraordinary means of learning the precise plans and intentions of terrorist leadership for the sake of a short-lived political advantage in a news cycle. Not a single person seems to have been so much as disciplined as a result of the story that cost us the ability to listen to the alleged al Qaeda hotline.


If harmfulness and authorization make no difference, what explains the distinction between the permissible and the impermissible disclosure?

The answer is control. A leak is acceptable if it’s not seen as a threat, as a challenge to the prerogatives of the institution. But if all of the disparate components of the institution — not just its head but its hands and feet, every part of its body — must be assumed to have the same power to discuss matters of concern, that is an existential threat to the modern political monopoly of information control, particularly if we’re talking about disclosures of serious wrongdoing, fraudulent activity, unlawful activities. If you can’t guarantee that you alone can exploit the flow of controlled information, then the aggregation of all the world’s unmentionables — including your own — begins to look more like a liability than an asset.


Truly unauthorized disclosures are necessarily an act of resistance — that is, if they’re not done simply for press consumption, to fluff up the public appearance or reputation of an institution. However, that doesn’t mean they all come from the lowest working level. Sometimes the individuals who step forward happen to be near the pinnacle of power. Ellsberg was in the top tier; he was briefing the secretary of defense. You can’t get much higher, unless you are the secretary of defense, and the incentives simply aren’t there for such a high-ranking official to be involved in public interest disclosures because that person already wields the influence to change the policy directly.

At the other end of the spectrum is Manning, a junior enlisted soldier, who was much nearer to the bottom of the hierarchy. I was midway in the professional career path. I sat down at the table with the chief information officer of the CIA, and I was briefing him and his chief technology officer when they were publicly making statements like “We try to collect everything and hang on to it forever,” and everybody still thought that was a cute business slogan. Meanwhile I was designing the systems they would use to do precisely that. I wasn’t briefing the policy side, the secretary of defense, but I was briefing the operations side, the National Security Agency’s director of technology. Official wrongdoing can catalyze all levels of insiders to reveal information, even at great risk to themselves, so long as they can be convinced that it is necessary to do so.

Reaching those individuals, helping them realize that their first allegiance as a public servant is to the public rather than to the government, is the challenge. That’s a significant shift in cultural thinking for a government worker today.

I’ve argued that whistleblowers are elected by circumstance. It’s not a virtue of who you are or your background. It’s a question of what you are exposed to, what you witness. At that point the question becomes Do you honestly believe that you have the capability to remediate the problem, to influence policy? I would not encourage individuals to reveal information, even about wrongdoing, if they do not believe they can be effective in doing so, because the right moment can be as rare as the will to act.

This is simply a pragmatic, strategic consideration. Whistleblowers are outliers of probability, and if they are to be effective as a political force, it’s critical that they maximize the amount of public good produced from scarce seed. When I was making my decision, I came to understand how one strategic consideration, such as waiting until the month before a domestic election, could become overwhelmed by another, such as the moral imperative to provide an opportunity to arrest a global trend that had already gone too far. I was focused on what I saw and on my sense of overwhelming disenfranchisement that the government, in which I had believed for my entire life, was engaged in such an extraordinary act of deception.

At the heart of this evolution is that whistleblowing is a radicalizing event — and by “radical” I don’t mean “extreme”; I mean it in the traditional sense of radix, the root of the issue. At some point you recognize that you can’t just move a few letters around on a page and hope for the best. You can’t simply report this problem to your supervisor, as I tried to do, because inevitably supervisors get nervous. They think about the structural risk to their career. They’re concerned about rocking the boat and “getting a reputation.” The incentives aren’t there to produce meaningful reform. Fundamentally, in an open society, change has to flow from the bottom to the top.

As someone who works in the intelligence community, you’ve given up a lot to do this work. You’ve happily committed yourself to tyrannical restrictions. You voluntarily undergo polygraphs; you tell the government everything about your life. You waive a lot of rights because you believe the fundamental goodness of your mission justifies the sacrifice of even the sacred. It’s a just cause.

And when you’re confronted with evidence — not in an edge case, not in a peculiarity, but as a core consequence of the program — that the government is subverting the Constitution and violating the ideals you so fervently believe in, you have to make a decision. When you see that the program or policy is inconsistent with the oaths and obligations that you’ve sworn to your society and yourself, then that oath and that obligation cannot be reconciled with the program. To which do you owe a greater loyalty?

One of the extraordinary things about the revelations of the past several years, and their accelerating pace, is that they have occurred in the context of the United States as the “uncontested hyperpower.” We now have the largest unchallenged military machine in the history of the world, and it’s backed by a political system that is increasingly willing to authorize any use of force in response to practically any justification. In today’s context that justification is terrorism, but not necessarily because our leaders are particularly concerned about terrorism in itself or because they think it’s an existential threat to society. They recognize that even if we had a 9/11 attack every year, we would still be losing more people to car accidents and heart disease, and we don’t see the same expenditure of resources to respond to those more significant threats.

What it really comes down to is the political reality that we have a political class that feels it must inoculate itself against allegations of weakness. Our politicians are more fearful of the politics of terrorism — of the charge that they do not take terrorism seriously — than they are of the crime itself.

As a result we have arrived at this unmatched capability, unrestrained by policy. We have become reliant upon what was intended to be the limitation of last resort: the courts. Judges, realizing that their decisions are suddenly charged with much greater political importance and impact than was originally intended, have gone to great lengths in the post-9/11 period to avoid reviewing the laws or the operations of the executive in the national security context and setting restrictive precedents that, even if entirely proper, would impose limits on government for decades or more. That means the most powerful institution that humanity has ever witnessed has also become the least restrained. Yet that same institution was never designed to operate in such a manner, having instead been explicitly founded on the principle of checks and balances. Our founding impulse was to say, “Though we are mighty, we are voluntarily restrained.”


When you first go on duty at CIA headquarters, you raise your hand and swear an oath — not to government, not to the agency, not to secrecy. You swear an oath to the Constitution. So there’s this friction, this emerging contest between the obligations and values that the government asks you to uphold, and the actual activities that you’re asked to participate in.
These disclosures about the Obama administration’s killing program reveal that there’s a part of the American character that is deeply concerned with the unrestrained, unchecked exercise of power. And there is no greater or clearer manifestation of unchecked power than assuming for oneself the authority to execute an individual outside of a battlefield context and without the involvement of any sort of judicial process.

Traditionally, in the context of military affairs, we’ve always understood that lethal force in battle could not be subjected to ex ante judicial constraints. When armies are shooting at each other, there’s no room for a judge on that battlefield. But now the government has decided — without the public’s participation, without our knowledge and consent — that the battlefield is everywhere. Individuals who don’t represent an imminent threat in any meaningful sense of those words are redefined, through the subversion of language, to meet that definition.

Inevitably that conceptual subversion finds its way home, along with the technology that enables officials to promote comfortable illusions about surgical killing and nonintrusive surveillance. Take, for instance, the Holy Grail of drone persistence, a capability that the United States has been pursuing forever. The goal is to deploy solar-powered drones that can loiter in the air for weeks without coming down. Once you can do that, and you put any typical signals collection device on the bottom of it to monitor, unblinkingly, the emanations of, for example, the different network addresses of every laptop, smartphone, and iPod, you know not just where a particular device is in what city, but you know what apartment each device lives in, where it goes at any particular time, and by what route. Once you know the devices, you know their owners. When you start doing this over several cities, you’re tracking the movements not just of individuals but of whole populations.

By preying on the modern necessity to stay connected, governments can reduce our dignity to something like that of tagged animals, the primary difference being that we paid for the tags and they’re in our pockets. It sounds like fantasist paranoia, but on the technical level it’s so trivial to implement that I cannot imagine a future in which it won’t be attempted. It will be limited to the war zones at first, in accordance with our customs, but surveillance technology has a tendency to follow us home.

Here we see the double edge of our uniquely American brand of nationalism. We are raised to be exceptionalists, to think we are the better nation with the manifest destiny to rule. The danger is that some people will actually believe this claim, and some of those will expect the manifestation of our national identity, that is, our government, to comport itself accordingly.

Unrestrained power may be many things, but it’s not American. It is in this sense that the act of whistleblowing increasingly has become an act of political resistance. The whistleblower raises the alarm and lifts the lamp, inheriting the legacy of a line of Americans that begins with Paul Revere.

The individuals who make these disclosures feel so strongly about what they have seen that they’re willing to risk their lives and their freedom. They know that we, the people, are ultimately the strongest and most reliable check on the power of government. The insiders at the highest levels of government have extraordinary capability, extraordinary resources, tremendous access to influence, and a monopoly on violence, but in the final calculus there is but one figure that matters: the individual citizen.

And there are more of us than there are of them.

The Tow Center for Digital Journalism’s Emily Bell spoke to Edward Snowden over a secure channel about his experiences working with journalists and his perspective on the shifting media world. This is an excerpt of that conversation, conducted in December 2015. It will appear in a forthcoming book: Journalism After Snowden: The Future of the Free Press in the Surveillance State, which will be released by Columbia University Press in 2016.

Emily Bell: Can you tell us about your interactions with journalists and the press?

Edward Snowden: One of the most challenging things about the changing nature of the public’s relationship to media and the government’s relationship to media is that media has never been stronger than it is now. At the same time, the press is less willing to use that sort of power and influence because of its increasing commercialization. There was this tradition that the media culture we had inherited from early broadcasts was intended to be a public service. Increasingly we’ve lost that, not simply in fact, but in ideal, particularly due to the 24-hour news cycle.

We see this routinely even at organizations like The New York Times. The Intercept recently published The Drone Papers, which was an extraordinary act of public service on the part of a whistleblower within the government to get the public information that’s absolutely vital about things that we should have known more than a decade ago. These are things that we really need to know to be able to analyze and assess policies. But this was denied to us, so we get one journalistic institution that breaks the story, they manage to get the information out there. But the majors—specifically The New York Times—don’t actually run the story, they ignore it completely. This was so extraordinary that the public editor, Margaret Sullivan, had to get involved to investigate why they suppressed such a newsworthy story. It’s a credit to the Times that they have a public editor, but it’s frightening that there’s such a clear need for one.

In the UK, when The Guardian was breaking the NSA story, we saw that if there is a competitive role in the media environment, if there’s money on the line, reputation, potential awards, anything that has material value that would benefit the competition, even if it would simultaneously benefit the public, the institutions are becoming less willing to serve the public to the detriment of themselves. This is typically exercised through the editors. This is something that maybe always existed, but we don’t remember it as always existing. Culturally, we don’t like to think of it as having always existed. There are things that we need to know, things that are valuable for us, but we are not allowed to know, because The Telegraph or the Times or any other paper in London decides that because this is somebody else’s exclusive, we’re not going to report it. Instead, we’ll try to “counter-narrative” it. We’ll simply go to the government and ask them to make any statement at all, and we will unquestioningly write it down and publish it, because that’s content that’s exclusive to us. Regardless of the fact that it’s much less valuable, much less substantial than actual documented facts that we can base policy discussions on. We’ve seemingly entered a world where editors are making decisions about what stories to run based on if it’ll give oxygen to a competitor, rather than if it’s news.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, because while I do interact with media, I’m an outsider. You know media. As somebody who has worked in these cultures, do you see the same thing? Sort of the Fox News effect, where facts matter less?


Bell: It’s a fascinating question. When you look at Donald Trump, there’s a problem when you have a press which finds it important to report what has happened, without a prism of some sort of evaluation on it. That’s the Trump problem, right? He says thousands of Muslims were celebrating in the streets of New Jersey after 9/11 and it’s demonstrably not true. It’s not even a quantification issue, it’s just not true. Yet, it dominates the news cycle, and he dominates the TV, and you see nothing changing in the polls—or, rather, him becoming more popular.

There are two things I think here, one of which is not new. I completely agree with you about how the economic dynamics have actually produced, bad journalism. One of the interesting things which I think is hopeful about American journalism is that within the last 10 years there’s been a break between this relationship, which is the free market, which says you can’t do good journalism unless you make a profit, into intellectually understanding that really good journalism not only sometimes won’t make a profit, but is almost never going to be anything other than unprofitable.

I think your acts and disclosures are really interesting in that it’s a really expensive story to do, and it is not the kind of story that advertisers want to stand next to. Actually people didn’t want to pay to read them. Post hoc they’ll say, we like The Guardian; we’re going to support their work. So I agree with you that there’s been a disjuncture between facts and how they are projected. I would like to think it’s going to get better.

You’re on Twitter now. You’re becoming a much more rounded out public persona, and lots of people have seen Citizenfour. You’ve gone from being this source persona, to being more actively engaged with Freedom of the Press Foundation, and also having your own publishing stream through a social media company. The press no longer has to be the aperture for you. How do you see that?

Snowden: Today, you have people directly reaching an audience through tools like Twitter, and I have about 1.7 million followers right now (this number reflects the number of Twitter followers Snowden had in December 2015). These are people, theoretically, that you can reach, that you can send a message to. Whether it’s a hundred people or a million people, individuals can build audiences to speak with directly. This is actually one of the ways that you’ve seen new media actors, and actually malicious actors, exploit what are perceived as new vulnerabilities in media control of the narrative, for example Donald Trump.

At the same time these strategies still don’t work […] for changing views and persuading people on a larger scope. Now this same thing applies to me. The director of the FBI can make a false statement, or some kind of misleading claim in congressional testimony. I can fact-check and I can say this is inaccurate. Unless some entity with a larger audience, for example, an established institution of journalism, sees that themselves, the value of these sorts of statements is still fairly minimal. They are following these new streams of information, then reporting out on those streams. This is why I think we see such a large interplay and valuable interactions that are emerging from these new media self-publication Twitter-type services and the generation of stories and the journalist user base of Twitter.

If you look at the membership of Twitter in terms of the influence and impact that people have, there are a lot of celebrities out there on Twitter, but really they’re just trying to maintain an image, promote a band, be topical, remind people that they exist. They’re not typically effecting any change, or having any kind of influence, other than the directly commercial one.

Bell: Let’s think about it in terms of your role in changing the world, which is presenting these new facts. There was a section of the technology press and the intelligence press who, at the time of the leaks, said we already know this, except it’s hidden in plain sight. Yet, a year after you made the disclosures, there was a broad shift of public perception about surveillance technologies. That may recede, and probably post-Paris, it is receding a little bit. Are you frustrated that there isn’t more long-term impact? Do you feel the world has not changed quickly enough?

Snowden: I actually don’t feel that. I’m really optimistic about how things have gone, and I’m staggered by how much more impact there’s been as a result of these revelations than I initially presumed. I’m famous for telling Alan Rusbridger that it would be a three-day story. You’re sort of alluding to this idea that people don’t really care, or that nothing has really changed. We’ve heard this in a number of different ways, but I think it actually has changed in a substantial way.

Now when we talk about the technical press, or the national security press, and you say, this is nothing new, we knew about this, a lot of this comes down to prestige, to the same kind of signaling where they have to indicate we have expertise, we knew this was going on. In many cases they actually did not. The difference is, they knew the capabilities existed.

This is, I think, what underlies why the leaks had such an impact. Some people say stories about the mass collection of internet records and metadata were published in 2006. There was a warrantless wiretapping story in The New York Times as well. Why didn’t they have the same sort of transformative impact? This is because there’s a fundamental difference when it comes down to the actionability of information between knowledge of capability, the allegation that the capability could be used, and the fact that it is being used. Now what happened in 2013 is we transformed the public debate from allegation to fact. The distance between allegation and fact, at times, makes all the difference in the world.

That, for me, is what defines the best kind of journalism. This is one of the things that is really underappreciated about what happened in 2013. A lot of people laud me as the sole actor, like I’m this amazing figure who did this. I personally see myself as having a quite minor role. I was the mechanism of revelation for a very narrow topic of governments. It’s not really about surveillance, it’s about what the public understands—how much control the public has over the programs and policies of its governments. If we don’t know what our government really does, if we don’t know the powers that authorities are claiming for themselves, or arrogating to themselves, in secret, we can’t really be said to be holding the leash of government at all.

One of the things that’s really missed is the fact that as valuable and important as the reporting that came out of the primary archive of material has been, there’s an extraordinarily large, and also very valuable amount of disclosure that was actually forced from the government, because they were so back-footed by the aggressive nature of the reporting. There were stories being reported that showed how they had abused these capabilities, how intrusive they were, the fact that they had broken the law in many cases, or had violated the Constitution.

When the government is shown in a most public way, particularly for a president who campaigned on the idea of curtailing this sort of activity, to have continued those policies, in many cases expanded them in ways contrary to what the public would expect, they have to come up with some defense. So in the first weeks, we got rhetorical defenses where they went, nobody’s listening to your phone calls. That wasn’t really compelling. Then they went, “It’s just metadata.” Actually that worked for quite some time, even though it’s not true. By adding complexity, they reduced participation. It is still difficult for the average person in the street to understand that metadata, in many cases, is actually more revealing and more dangerous than the content of your phone calls. But stories kept coming. Then they went, well alright, even if it is “just metadata,” it’s still unconstitutional activity, so how do we justify it? Then they go—well they are lawful in this context, or that context.

They suddenly needed to make a case for lawfulness, and that meant the government had to disclose court orders that the journalists themselves did not have access to, that I did not have access to, that no one in the NSA at all had access to, because they were bounded in a completely different agency, in the Department of Justice.

This, again, is where you’re moving from suspicion, from allegation, to factualizing things. Now of course, because these are political responses, each of them was intentionally misleading. The government wants to show itself in the best possible light. But even self-interested disclosures can still be valuable, so long as they’re based on facts. They’re filling in a piece of the puzzle, which may provide the final string that another journalist, working independently somewhere else, may need. It unlocks that page of the book, fills in the page they didn’t have, and that completes the story. I think that is something that has not been appreciated, and it was driven entirely by journalists doing follow-up.

There’s another idea that you mentioned: that I’m more engaged with the press than I was previously. This is very true. I quite openly in 2013 took the position that this is not about me, I don’t want to be the face of the argument. I said that I don’t want to correct the record of government officials, even though I could, even though I knew they were making misleading statements. We’re seeing in the current electoral circus that whatever someone says becomes the story, becomes the claim, becomes the allegation. It gets into credibility politics where they’re going, oh, you know, well, Donald Trump said it, it can’t be true. All of the terrible things he says put aside, there’s always the possibility that he does say something that is true. But, because it’s coming from him, it will be analyzed and assessed in a different light. Now that’s not to say that it shouldn’t be, but it was my opinion that there was no question that I was going to be subject to a demonization campaign. They actually recorded me on camera saying this before I revealed my identity. I predicted they were going to charge me under the Espionage Act, I predicted they were going to say I helped terrorists, blood on my hands, all of that stuff. It did come to pass. This was not a staggering work of genius on my part, it’s just common sense, this is how it always works in the case of prominent whistleblowers. It was because of this that we needed other voices, we needed the media to make the argument.

Because of the nature of the abuse of classification authorities in the United States, there is no one that’s ever held a security clearance who’s actually able to make these arguments. Modern media institutions prefer never to use their institutional voice to factualize a claim in a reported story, they want to point to somebody else. They want to say this expert said, or this official said, and keep themselves out of it. But in my mind, journalism must recognize that sometimes it takes the institutional weight to assess the claims that are publicly available, and to make a determination on that basis, then put the argument forth to whoever the person under suspicion is at the time, for example, the government in this case, and go—look, all of the evidence says you were doing this. You say that’s not the case, but why should we believe you? Is there any reason that we should not say this?

This is something that institutions today are loath to do because it’s regarded as advocacy. They don’t want to be in the position of having to referee what is and is not fact. Instead they want to play these “both sides games” where they say, instead we’ll just print allegations, we’ll print claims from both sides, we’ll print their demonstrations of evidence, but we won’t actually involve ourselves in it.

Because of this, I went the first six months without giving an interview. It wasn’t until December 2013 that I gave my first interview to Barton Gellman of TheWashington Post. In this intervening period my hope was that some other individual would come forth on the political side, and would become the face of this movement. But more directly I thought it would inspire some reflection in the media institutions to think about what their role was. I think they did a fairly good job, particularly for it being unprecedented, particularly for it being a segment in which the press has been, at least in the last 15 years, extremely reluctant to express any kind of skepticism regarding government claims at all. If it involved the word “terrorism,” these were facts that wouldn’t be challenged. If the government said, look, this is secret for a reason, this is classified for a reason, journalists would leave it at that. Again, this isn’t to beat up on The New York Times, but when we look at the warrantless wiretapping story that was ready to be published in October of an election year, that [election] was decided by the smallest margin in a presidential election, at least in modern history. It’s hard to believe that had that story been published, it would not have changed the course of that election.

Bell: Former Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson has said her paper definitely made mistakes, “I wish we had not withheld stories.” What you’re saying certainly resonates with what I know and understand of the recent history of the US press, which is that national security concerns post-9/11 really did alter the relationship of reporting, particularly with administration and authority in this country. What we know about drone programs comes from reporting, some of it comes from the story which The Intercept got hold of, and Jeremy Scahill’s reporting on it, which has been incredibly important. But a great deal of it has also come from the ground level. The fact that we were aware at all that drones were blowing up villages, killing civilians, crossing borders where they were not supposed to be really comes from people who would report from the ground.

Something interesting has definitely happened in the last three years, which makes me think about what you are telling us about how the NSA operates. We’re seeing a much closer relationship now between journalism and technology and mass communication technology than we’ve ever seen before. People are now completely reliant on Facebook. Some of that is a commercial movement in the US, but you also have activists and journalists being regularly tortured or killed in, say, Bangladesh, where it’s really impossible to operate a free press, but they are using these tools. It is almost like the American public media now is Facebook. I wonder how you think about this? It’s such a recent development.

Snowden: One of the biggest issues is that we have many more publishers competing for a finite, shrinking amount of attention span that’s available. This is why we have the rise of these sort of hybrid publications, like a BuzzFeed, that create just an enormous amount of trash and cruft. They’re doing AB testing and using scientific principles. Their content is specifically engineered to be more attention getting, even though they have no public value at all. They have no news value at all. Like here’s 10 pictures of kittens that are so adorable. But then they develop a news line within the institution, and the idea is that they can drive traffic with this one line of stories, theoretically, and then get people to go over onto the other side.

Someone’s going to exploit this; if it’s not going to be BuzzFeed, it’s going to be somebody else. This isn’t a criticism of any particular model, but the idea here is that the first click, that first link is actually consuming attention. The more we read about a certain thing, that’s actually reshaping our brains. Everything that we interact with, it has an impact on us, it has an influence, it leaves memories, ideas, sort of memetic expressions that we then carry around with us that shape what we look for in the future, and that are directing our development.

Bell: Yes, well that’s the coming singularity between the creation of journalism and large-scale technology platforms, which are not intrinsically journalistic. In other words, they don’t have a primary purpose.

Snowden: They don’t have a journalistic role, it’s a reportorial role.

Bell: Well, it’s a commercial role, right? So when you came to Glenn and The Guardian, there wasn’t a hesitation in knowing the primary role of the organization is to get that story to the outside world as securely and quickly as possible, avoiding prior restraint, protecting a source.

Is source protection even possible now? You were extremely prescient in thinking there’s no point in protecting yourself.

Snowden: I have an unfair advantage.

Bell: You do, but still, that’s a big change from 20 years ago.

Snowden: This is something that we saw contemporary examples of in the public record in 2013. It was the James Rosen case where we saw the Department of Justice, and government more broadly, was abusing its powers to demand blanket records of email and call data, and the AP case where phone records for calls that were made from the bureaus of journalism were seized.

That by itself is suddenly chilling, because the traditional work of journalism, the traditional culture, where the journalist would just call their contact and say, hey, let’s talk, suddenly becomes incriminating. But more seriously, if the individual in question, the government employee who is working with a journalist to report some issue of public interest, if this individual has gone so far to commit an act of journalism, suddenly they can be discovered trivially if they’re not aware of this.

I didn’t have that insight at the time I was trying to come forward because I had no relationship with journalists. I had never talked to a journalist in any substantive capacity. So, instead I simply thought about the adversarial relationship that I had inherited from my work as an intelligence officer, working for the CIA and the NSA. Everything is a secret and you’ve got two different kinds of cover. You’ve got cover for status, which is: You’re overseas, you’re living as a diplomat because you have to explain why you’re there. You can’t just say, oh, yeah, I work for the CIA. But you also have a different kind of cover which is what’s called cover for action. Where you’re not going to live in the region for a long time, you may just be in a building and you have to explain why you’re walking through there, you need some kind of pretext. This kind of trade-craft unfortunately is becoming more necessary in the reportorial process. Journalists need to know this, sources need to know this. At any given time, if you were pulled over by a police officer and they want to search your phone or something like that, you might need to explain the presence of an application. This is particularly true if you’re in a country like Bangladesh. I have heard that they’re now looking for the presence of VPN [virtual private network software] for avoiding censorship locks and being able to access uncontrolled news networks as evidence of opposition, allegiance, that could get you in real trouble in these areas of the world.

At the time of the leaks I was simply thinking, alright the government—and this isn’t a single government now—we’re actually talking about the Five Eyes intelligence alliance [the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Canada] forming a pan-continental super-state in this context of sharing, they’re going to lose their minds over this. Some institutions in, for example, the UK, can levy D notices, they can say, look, you can’t publish that, or you should not publish that. In the United States it’s not actually certain that the government would not try to exercise prior restraint in slightly different ways, or that they wouldn’t charge journalists as accomplices in some kind of criminality to interfere with the reporting without actually going after the institutions themselves, single out individuals. We have seen this in court documents before. This was the James Rosen case, where the DOJ had named him as sort of an accessory—they said he was a co-conspirator. So the idea I thought about here was that we need institutions working beyond borders in multiple jurisdictions simply to complicate it legally to the point that the journalists could play games, legally and journalistically more effectively and more quickly than the government could play legalistic games to interfere with them.

Bell: Right, but that’s kind of what happened with the reporting of the story.

Snowden: And in ways that I didn’t even predict, because who could imagine the way a story like that would actually get out of hand and go even further: Glenn Greenwald living in Brazil, writing for a US institution for that branch, but headquartered in the UK, TheWashington Post providing the institutional clout and saying, look, this is a real story, these aren’t just crazy leftists arguing about this, and Der Spiegel in Germany with Laura [Poitras]. It simply represented a system that I did not believe could be overcome before the story could be put out. By the time the government could get their ducks in a row and try to interfere with it, that would itself become the story.

Bell: You’re actually giving a sophisticated analysis of much of what’s happened to both reporting practice and media structures. As you say, you had no prior interactions with journalists. I think one of the reasons the press warmed to you was because you put faith in journalists, weirdly. You went in thinking I think I can trust these people, not just with your life, but with a huge responsibility. Then you spent an enormous amount of time, particularly with Glenn, Laura, and Ewen [MacAskill] in those hotel rooms. What was that reverse frisking process like as you were getting to know them? My experience is as people get closer to the press, they often like it less. Why would you trust journalists?

Snowden: This gets into the larger question—how did you feel about journalists, what was the process of becoming acquainted with them? There’s both a political response and a practical response. Specifically about Glenn, I believe very strongly that there’s no more important quality for a journalist than independence. That’s independence of perspective, and particularly skepticism of claims. The more powerful the institution, the more skeptical one should be. There’s an argument that was put forth by an earlier journalist, I.F. Stone: “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.” In my experience, this is absolutely a fact. I’ve met with Daniel Ellsberg and spoken about this, and it comports with his experience as well. He would be briefing the Secretary of Defense on the airplane, and then when the Secretary of Defense would disembark right down the eight steps of the plane and shake hands with the press, he would say something that he knew was absolutely false and was completely contrary to what they had just said in the meeting [inside the place] because that was his role. That was his job, his duty, his responsibility as a member of that institution.

Now Glenn Greenwald, if we think about him as an archetype, really represents the purest form of that. I would argue that despite the failings of any journalist in one way or another, if they have that independence of perspective, they have the greatest capacity for reporting that a journalist can attain. Ultimately, no matter how brilliant you are, no matter how charismatic you are, no matter how perfect or absolute your sourcing is, or your access, if you simply take the claims of institutions that have the most privilege that they must protect, at face value, and you’re willing to sort of repeat them, all of those other things that are working in your favor in the final calculus amount to nothing because you’re missing the fundamentals.

There was the broader question of what it’s like working with these journalists and going through that process. There is the argument that I was naïve. In fact, that’s one of the most common criticisms about me today—that I am too naïve, that I have too much faith in the government, that I have too much faith in the press. I don’t see that as a weakness. I am naïve, but I think that idealism is critical to achieving change, ultimately not of policy, but of culture, right? Because we can change this or that law, we can change this or that policy or program, but at the end of the day, it’s the values of the people in these institutions that are producing these policies or programs. It’s the values of the people who are sitting at the desk with the blank page in Microsoft Office, or whatever journalists are using now.

Bell: I hope they’re not using Microsoft Office, but you never know.

Snowden: They have the blank page …

Bell: They have the blank page, exactly.

Snowden: In their content management system, or whatever. How is that individual going to approach this collection of facts in the next week, in the next month, in the next year, in the next decade? What will the professor in the journalism school say in their lecture that will impart these values, again, sort of memetically into the next cohort of reporters? If we do not win on that, we have lost comprehensively. More fundamentally, people say, why did you trust the press, given their failures? Given the fact that I was, in fact, quite famous for criticizing the press.

Bell: If they had done their job, you would be at home now.

Snowden: Yeah, I would still be living quite comfortably in Hawaii.

Bell: Which is not so bad, when you put it that way.

Snowden: People ask how could you do this, why would you do this? How could you trust a journalist that you knew had no training at all in operational security to keep your identity safe because if they screw up, you’re going to jail. The answer was that that was actually what I was expecting. I never expected to make it out of Hawaii. I was going to try my best, but my ultimate goal was simply to get this information back in the hands of the public. I felt that the only way that could be done meaningfully was through the press. If we can’t have faith in the press, if we can’t sort of take that leap of faith and either be served well by them, or underserved and have the press fail, we’ve already lost. You cannot have an open society without open communication. Ultimately, the test of open communication is a free press. If they can’t look for information, if they can’t contest the government’s control of information, and ultimately print information—not just about government, but also about corporate interests, that has a deleterious impact on the preferences of power, on the prerogatives of power. You may have something, but I would argue it’s not the traditional American democracy that I believed in.

So the idea here was that I could take these risks because I already expected to bear the costs. I expected the end of the road was a cliff. This is actually illustrated quite well in Citizenfour because it shows that there was absolutely no plan at all for the day after.

The planning to get to the point of working with the journalists, of transmitting this information, of explaining, contextualizing—it was obsessively detailed, because it had to be. Beyond that, the risks were my own. They weren’t for the journalists. They could do everything else. That was by design as well, because if the journalists had done anything shady—for example, if I had stayed in place at the NSA as a source and they had asked me for this document, and that document, it could have undermined the independence, the credibility of the process, and actually brought risks upon them that could have led to new constraints upon journalism.

Bell: So nothing you experienced in the room with the team, or what happened after, made you question or reevaluate journalism?

Snowden: I didn’t say that. Actually working more closely with the journalists has radically reshaped my understanding of journalism, and that continues through to today. I think you would agree that anybody who’s worked in the news industry, either directly or even peripherally, has seen journalists—or, more directly, editors—who are terrified, who hold back a story, who don’t want to publish a detail, who want to wait for the lawyers, who are concerned with liability.

You also have journalists who go out on their own and they publish details which actually are damaging, directly to personal safety. There were details published by at least one of the journalists that were discussing communication methods that I was still actively using, that previously had been secret. But the journalists didn’t even forewarn me, so suddenly I had to change all of my methods on the fly. Which worked out OK because I had the capabilities to do that, but dangerous.

Bell: When did that happen?

Snowden: This was at the height of public interest, basically. The idea here is that a journalist ultimately, and particularly a certain class of journalist, they don’t owe any allegiance to their source, right? They don’t write the story in line with what the sources desires, they don’t go about their publication schedule to benefit, or to detriment, in theory, the source at all. There are strong arguments that that’s the way it should be: public knowledge of the truth is more important than the risks that knowledge creates for a few. But at the same time, when a journalist is reporting on something like a classified program implicating one of the government’s sources, you see an incredibly high standard of care applied to make sure they can’t be blamed if something goes wrong down the road after publication. The journalists will go, well we’ll hold back this detail from that story reporting on classified documents, because if we name this government official it might expose them to some harm, or it might get this program shut down, or even if it might cause them to have to rearrange the deck chairs in the operations in some far away country.

That’s just being careful, right? But ask yourself—should journalists be just as careful when the one facing the blowback of a particular detail is their own source? In my experience, the answer does not seem to be as obvious as you might expect.

Bell: Do you foresee a world where someone won’t have to be a whistleblower in order to reveal the kinds of documents that you revealed? What kinds of internal mechanisms would that require on behalf of the government? What would that look like in the future?

Snowden: That’s a really interesting philosophical question. It doesn’t come down to technical mechanisms, that comes down to culture. We’ve seen in the EU a number of reports from parliamentary bodies, from the Council of Europe, that said we need to protect whistleblowers, in particular national security whistleblowers. In the national context no country really wants to pass a law that allows individuals rightly, or wrongly, to embarrass the government. But can we provide an international framework for this? One would argue, particularly when espionage laws are being used to prosecute people, they already exist. That’s why espionage, for example, is considered a political offense, because it’s just a political crime, as they say. That’s a fairly weak defense, or fairly weak justification, for not reforming whistleblower laws. Particularly when, throughout Western Europe they’re going, yeah, we like this guy, he did a good thing. But if he shows up on the doorstep we’re going to ship him back immediately, regardless of whether it’s unlawful, just because the US is going to retaliate against us. It’s extraordinary that the top members of German government have said this on the record—that it’s realpolitik; it’s about power, rather than principle.

Now how we can fix this? I think a lot of it comes down to culture, and we need a press that’s more willing and actually eager to criticize government than they are today. Even though we’ve got a number of good institutions that do that, or that want to do that, it needs a uniform culture. The only counterargument the government has made against national security whistleblowing, and many other things that embarrassed them in the past, is that well, it could cause some risk, we could go dark, they could have blood on their hands.

Why do they have different ground rules in the context of national security journalism?

We see that not just in the United States, but in France, Germany, the UK, in every Western country, and of course, in every more authoritarian country by comparison they are embracing the idea of state secrets, of classifications, or saying, you can’t know this, you can’t know that.

We call ourselves private citizens, and we refer to elected representatives as public officials, because we’re supposed to know everything about them and their activities. At the same time, they’re supposed to know nothing about us, because they wield all the power, and we hold all of the vulnerability. Yet increasingly, that’s becoming inverted, where they are the private officials, and we are the public citizens. We’re increasingly monitored and tracked and reported, quantified and known and influenced, at the same time that they’re getting themselves off and becoming less reachable and also less accountable.

Bell: But Ed, when you talk about this in those terms, you make it sound as though you see this as a progression. Certainly there was a sharp increase, as you demonstrated, in overreach of oversight post-9/11. Is it a continuum?

It felt from the outside as though America, post-9/11, for understandable reasons, it was almost like a sort of national psychosis. If you grew up in Europe, there were regular terrorist acts in almost every country after the Second World War, though not on the same scale, until there was a brief, five-year period of respite, weirdly running up to about 2001. Then the nature of the terrorism changed. To some extent, that narrative is predictable. You talk about it as an ever increasing problem. With the Freedom Act in 2015, the press identified this as a significant moment where the temperature had changed. You don’t sound like you really think that. You sound as though you think that this public/private secrecy, spying, is an increasing continuum. So how does that change? Particularly in the current political climate where post-Paris and other terrorist attacks we’ve already seen arguments for breaking encryption.

Snowden: I don’t think they are actually contradictory views to hold. I think what we’re talking about are the natural inclinations of power and vice, what we can do to restrain it, to maintain a free society. So when we think about where things have gone in the USA Freedom Act, and when we look back at the 1970s, it was even worse in terms of the level of comfort that the government had that it could engage in abuses and get away with them. One of the most important legacies of 2013 is not anything that was necessarily published, but it was the impact of the publication on the culture of government. It was a confirmation coming quite quickly in the wake of the WikiLeaks stories, which were equally important in this regard. That said, secrecy will not hold forever. If you authorize a policy that is clearly contrary to law, you will eventually have to explain that.

The question is, can you keep it under wraps long enough to get out of the administration, and hopefully for it to be out of the egregious sort of thing where you’ll lose an election as a result. We see the delta between the periods of time that successive administrations can keep a secret is actually diminishing—the secrets are becoming public at an accelerated pace. This is a beneficial thing. This is the same in the context of terrorism.

There is an interesting idea—when you were saying it’s sort of weird that the US has what you described as a collective psychosis in the wake of 9/11 given that European countries have been facing terrorist attacks routinely. The US had actually been facing the same thing, and actually one would argue, experienced similarly high-impact attacks, for example, the Oklahoma City bombing, where a Federal building was destroyed by a single individual or one actor.

Bell: What do you think about the relationship between governments asking Facebook and other communications platforms to help fight ISIS?

Snowden: Should we basically deputize companies to become the policy enforcers of the world? When you put it in that context suddenly it becomes clear that this is not really a good idea, particularly because terrorism does not have a strong definition that’s internationally recognized. If Facebook says, we will take down any post from anybody who the government says is a terrorist, as long as it comes from this government, suddenly they have to do that for the other government. The Chinese allegations of who is and who is not a terrorist are going to look radically different than what the FBI’s are going to be. But if the companies try to be selective about them, say, well, we’re only going to do this for one government, they immediately lose access to the markets of the other ones. So that doesn’t work, and that’s not a position companies want to be in.

However, even if they could do this, there are already policies in place for them to do that. If Facebook gets a notification that says this is a terrorist thing, they take it down. It’s not like this is a particularly difficult or burdensome review when it comes to violence.

The distinction is the government is trying to say, now we want them to start cracking down on radical speech. Should private companies be who we as society are reliant upon to bound the limits of public conversations? And this goes beyond borders now. I think that’s an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to be embracing, and, in turn, irresponsible for American leaders to be championing.

The real solutions here are much more likely to be in terms of entirely new institutions that bound the way law enforcement works, moving us away from the point of military conflict, secret conflict, and into simply public policing.


There’s no reason why we could not have an international counter-terrorism force that actually has universal jurisdiction. I mean universal in terms of fact, as opposed to actual law.

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a pannic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty, 
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee, 
Wi' murd'ring pattle! 

I'm truly sorry man's dominion, 
Has broken nature's social union, 
An' justifies that ill opinion, 
Which makes thee startle 
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion, 
An' fellow-mortal! 

I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve; 
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live! 
A daimen icker in a thrave 
'S a sma' request; 
I'll get a blessin wi' the lave, 
An' never miss't! 

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin! 
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin! 
An' naething, now, to big a new ane, 
O' foggage green! 
An' bleak December's winds ensuin, 
Baith snell an' keen! 

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' waste, 
An' weary winter comin fast, 
An' cozie here, beneath the blast, 
Thou thought to dwell- 
Till crash! the cruel coulter past 
Out thro' thy cell. 

Thy wee bit heap o' leaves an' stibble, 
Has cost thee mony a weary nibble! 
Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble, 
But house or hald, 
To thole the winter's sleety dribble, 
An' cranreuch cauld! 

But, Mousie, thou art no thy-lane, 
In proving foresight may be vain; 
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men 
Gang aft agley, 
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, 
For promis'd joy! 

Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me 
The present only toucheth thee: 
But, Och! I backward cast my e'e. 
On prospects drear! 
An' forward, tho' I canna see, 
I guess an' fear!

ROBERT BURNS "To A Mouse" (1785)

BUNCH OF TIM'ROUS BEASTIES

At our meeting on Monday, a colleague said to me "They will slaughter you if they ever get the chance" - "they" being the mafia behind corruption in UK football.
On Tue I was injured and my vintage car written off in a hit and run attack.

— FOOTBALL is FIXED (@footballisfixed) 

Internal Document:

Given the evidence now in our possession we must assume that this was intended as an extreme (and potentially fatal) intimidation - my car had neither air bags nor side impact bar protection and according to my mechanic I was 0.1 seconds from death i.e. my speed of reaction in instant braking saved my life.

          Well that ups the ante somewhat. Let's see how that works out for █████ then.

We've been a-hackin'█████ since the incident.

Here are our findings.

Check Tiraspol 2.0 Server

— FOOTBALL is FIXED (@footballisfixed) 

I've returned to Kerkyra to recuperate from my near-death experience - https://t.co/45Bl7Kbwpe

Kerkyra is like a European Barbados...
... only better in that one is surrounded by Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian & Albanian mafia rather than US/UK.
A far more robust grouping.

— FOOTBALL is FIXED (@footballisfixed) 

________________________________________________________________________________

In Affectionate Remembrance of English Football which died in a Mafia Takeover at Gloucester Place in London on October 2nd 2019 Deeply lamented by a large circle of friends and fans, whose sport is now no more than an insider trading spectacle
RIP

N.B. -- The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Gibraltar
__________________________________________________________________

The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum

David Skipwith Pemsel's first act as forthcoming CEO of the EPL was to delete his Twitter account.
Hours later the Guardian newspaper were championing the man's "integrity" as his appointment was announced.

The newspaper most linked with the systemic matchfixing destroying UK football (the Guardian) provides the new chief executive officer (David Skipwith Pemsel - a venture capitalist fund founder with a whiff of the offshore about him) to the most corrupt football league on the planet, the Premier League.
... a corrupt paper, a corrupt league, a corrupt industry sector and a man whose parents were weird enough to plump for Skipwith. What could possibly go wrong?

The Kath Viner/ David Pemsel window of governance at the Guardian has seen the paper morph into an ID politics fake news outlet - the front page fake story on Manafort & Assange and, less critically, serial disinformation and corruption-based hidden agendas in the football section.

The Guardian ceased to be a newspaper under his stewardship...
... and we'll see what a corrupt neoliberalism does to football.

But, expect fake spectacle with a pseudo-moral conscience.

Integrity is not on the continuum of Pemsel's curriculum vitae.

Nor John Colquhoun's.

We have been exposing corruption linking the Guardian, John Colquhoun, the PGMOB and the Premier League for 13 years - check out our archive (5% of our posts are online at any given time).

This appointment represents the death knell for football of integrity in the EPL as it transforms the current external mafia-led matchfixing and corruption infrastructure into an internal one (with all the benefits of institutional opacity).

Having assessed scenario analytics and the futurescanning of our options, we confirm that we are taking the Football is Fixed Network private and underground only surfacing within the flux when undertaking consultancy work (as we are now for a Premier League club owner).

We will be publishing our book on the Football is Fixed blog on November 12th - thirteen years and one day after our first ever article.

The book is entitled "Who Killed Cock Robin?"

And never forget...
... John "Fifty Shades of Alias"Colquhoun - that White Man, has got a God Complex...



_______________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
_______________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.

                                                     Does David Skip With The Mafia?
                                                
Those behind the appointment of David Skipwith Pemsel to the throne of chief executive of the Premier League are attempting to paint a public portrait of a man who exhibits heightened integrity.

We oppose that narrative.

Here we put together a list of twenty pertinent questions to ask of Integrity Man regarding the Premier League template of systemic corruption that he not only inherits but also helped to enable.

In our humble opinion, Integrity Man is not a Fit and Proper Person to run the Premier League.

****************************************************************************************************************

Question One:

On the systemic corruption & matchfixing template currently controlling the Premier League

Since Scudamore scooted off with his £5 million facilitation bonus, a systemic corruption and matchfixing template has been implanted on the Premier League. The lack of any effective oversight (the reason Richard Masters failed to be considered for the permanent CEO role apparently) has produced extensive issues of integrity-lite games.

Around two-thirds of Premier League matches are known to have been insider trading and/or matchfixing events in the post-Scudamore window.

Integrity Man, will any strategies be developed to prevent future occurrences of this systemic matchfixing and will any action be taken against those individuals within your orbit who have orchestrated this gross conversion of the soul of football for criminalised private wealth creation?

Or, Integrity Man, is everything black market, grey market or white seen as a valid revenue stream for a Premier League under your stewardship?

************************************************************************

Question Two:

On the illicit linkages between the Guardian newspaper and certain football agents during Skipwith's period as chief executive of Guardian Media Group

The Guardian stands out in one way from other mainstream sports media - the control of output by rogue agents. It began a decade ago with John Colquhoun and Key Sports Management clients like Theo Walcott receiving extensive advertorial coverage in the periods leading up to new contract negotiations with Arsenal FC. But, during Skipwith's window of control of the newspaper, the situation has become ludicrous infecting not only allegedly factual articles but also match reports - the reality of games being rewritten for future agent gains.

The nadir of unjournalism was reached when Unique Sports Management was formed by   █████ █████ and entire campaigns of promotional disinformation were perpetrated repeatedly - the campaign to inflate the value of Wilfried Zaha in the summer of 2019 was as manipulative as it was unsuccessful. The Guardian repeatedly priced a player at up to £100 million when neutral arbiters were valuing at £40 million. That £60 million profit, if it had been successful, would have been a tidy £9 million bonus for the agent with trickledown for 'associates'.

Integrity Man, we have had it suggested to us by interested parties that the Guardian Media Group has inappropriately close linkages with Unique Sports Management - please say it ain't so IntegrityMan, because surely that couldn't be appropriate, could it?

And, Integrity Man, how will this alleged association impact upon your role of CEO of the EPL?
Will Mr Colquhoun remain a puppet-master?

************************************************************************

Question Three:

On the deliberate use of a fake news lead story at the Guardian in November 2018 in an attempt to influence a legal ruling about to be made regarding the extradition to the US of Julian Assange

The fake Manafort/Assange headline has been shown to be a fabrication see - The Wikileaks' Thread - The Futures Of Julian Assange And Journalism Are Inextricably Linked - and yet editor Kath Viner hasn't apologised nor removed the invented content from Guardian servers. To maliciously interfere in such an important judicial case for the future of real journalism to the detriment of the profession that creates a newspaper suggests that Integrity Man is not interested in real journalism nor real judicial process.

Thomas Scripps has shown (see the 'Wikileaks' link above) that the Guardian is a willing mouthpiece for the intelligence community presumably being rewarded for their acquiescence to deep state agendas e.g. the persecution of a journalist who exposed US & UK war crimes.

The Guardian fall to fake began in earnest when Viner and Pemsel took the reins. The entire culture of the newspaper altered with overheads slashed and 'intriguing' new forms of (sometimes highly questionable, or even illicit) revenue streams created.

Even former editor Alan Rusbridger markedly disagrees with the new regime stencilling the Guardian to the detriment of journalism - see US Efforts To Jail Assange For Espionage Are A Grave Threat To A Free Media.

The Guardian is no longer a newspaper of consequence due to Integrity Man's neoliberal agendas and █████ strategies.

Integrity Man, will you be employing similarly skewed strategies at the Premier League and, if so, may we assume that the fans matter not one fucking jot?

************************************************************************

Question Four:

On the offshore underground entity that is the Scott Trust and examples of the Guardian business model under Skipwith's stewardship where fake news influenced sporting realities to private agendas

The entire Guardian edifice exists under the Scott Trust.
This is a very secretive entity.
This is not a good thing - there must be a declaration of the real ownership of a newspaper (just like there needs to be with a footballer).
In both cases hidden ownership creates corruption.

Under Skipwith, the Guardian repeatedly explored regime change, orchestrating fake realities to achieve integrated commercial gains.

Take the removal of Mark Sampson from the post of manager of England Women's team.
The whole process was a Guardian coup.
Agencies e.g. Tongue Tied (linked to █████ █████) formed a network to share disinformation on Sampson and inflated promotion of Eni Aluko (soon to be appointed a Guardian'journalist') and, even though nothing was proven against Sampson, the coup was successful when the FA found a historical reason to remove him.
The parallel campaign to bring in Phil Neville was also a Guardian hidden agenda and the manner in which the paper dealt with "Neville's battering the missus" comment was a triumph of edited bias.

Meanwhile, four members of the England Lionesses are represented by an agent who is a known mafia man (having been convicted in Italy) and who has a global ban on intermediary activities.
Surprisingly, the Guardian doesn't publish this information in their comic as it doesn't fit with the spectacularly fake narrative.

Or take the equivalent bifurcation between the Guardian campaign against Jose Mourinho and all things Gestifute in comparison to the fairy tales created for managers linked to Mr Colquhoun - Roy Hodgson, Brendan Rodgers, Steve McClaren etc etc. And Mr Colquhoun was amply rewarded when Manchester United and Mourinho parted company when the incoming manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer thought it wise to further extend the contract of the inept Phil Jones.

So, Integrity Man, we guess that you approved these campaigns at the newspaper where you are chief executive. How will this impact on your new role as an independent non-biased overseer of the English top league?

And, are mafia agents okay? Is regime change based on fallacy a prerequisite for all of your strategies? And why is the Scott Trust so hidden? What do they have to hide?

Why is everything so murky around you, Integrity Man?

N.B. The Guardian, we have been informed, now want Phil Neville sacked as there is a new more malleable persona on hand for managing the Lionesses, but I guess you are more than aware of that, Integrity Man?

************************************************************************

Question Five:

On the weaponisation of identity politics to aid corruption and control of markets - transfer and betting

The business model developed by Skipwith at the Guardian is allegedly inspirational...
... but it is only inspirational in that short-termist sort of way so beloved of disaster capitalists and fascistic neoliberals like Skipwith and Colquhoun.

Punters pay to keep the Guardian afloat because the paper panders to their identity politics while pretending that it is a force for good in the wider world.
Once this pretence fails, there is nothing left - just a bubble and a lot of befuddled liberals wondering where there feelgood pseudo-reality has gone.

The Guardian has no value because it is nothing.
It is a vacuum.
Or, if it is anything, it is a collection of white and grey market strategies (directly linked to the black) that create profits behind a front of fake media - just like the carpet shops that were fronts for cocaine importation in the UK before the Albanian Shqiptare mafia took control of the trade outside of Merseyside.

We live in a narcissistic world and Skipwith's entire strategy is based on selling a lie while telling readers that they are amazing.
Short-termism is a disease and not a fault that will sit well in oversight of the Premier League.

Integrity Man, under your control of the Guardian, why has the paper developed a business model akin to the Albanian mafia? Is that what football can expect from the Premier League under your tutelage in future - a fake front hiding lucrative corruption?

We are taking the piss here with this question, Integrity Man, because we know you know that we know you know the answer.

************************************************************************

Question Six:

On the very specific issue of matchfixing and insider trading that has reached epidemic proportions in the Premier League

The problem with mafia templates is that once they are firmly ensconced in the landscape, they are largely immovable other than by other mafia entities moving onto their patch.
And once established there can be only limited policing and the reactive construction of any regulatory barriers (suitably loopholed for future corruptions, of course).

In allowing this period of cowboy free market matchfixing in the post-Scudamore era, the Premier League (under the interim board) has given mafia absolute control of the English game.

The sport has become theatre, but a dark underground theatre where outcomes of games are set to investments made on those results.

Of course, Integrity Man, you will have garnered most of this sort of stuff from Mr Colquhoun but how on earth do you intend to rid the Premier League of mafia influences?
In fact, do you intend to rid the Premier League of mafia influences.?...
... therein lies the rub.

************************************************************************

Question Seven:

On venture capitalism

Mirabile dictu, although not as fucked up as private equity, venture capitalists are still a wunch of bankers.

And they live in a world of make-believe according to the Economist whose view is that venture capitalists are unable to perceive the value of their investments due to a lack of perspective even though they cast themselves, in their egotistically bubbled infallibility, as the ultimate arbiters of value.

"... it is good to see public investors shouting when an entrepreneur, for all his chutzpah, has no clothes."

A primary problem with both private equity and venture capital is short-termism.
Aside from enlightened strategic investors like Munger and Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway, the short-term is the beam of focus for the vast majority of the institutional investors.

Now short-termism works on matters like fixing a football match or inflating a transfer fee (or an initial public offering) or sacking lots of people, stripping out the value but persuading a few fuckwits that the emperor is really wearing clothes while running his newspaper; but optimising business strategies for the immediate term means, by choice, that there's a lack of positive correlation between current actions and longer term strategies and development.

And then chaos reigns...
... eventually.

In businesses like the Premier League where image is everything, this lack of strategic planning will be its downfall - when the degree of matchfixing and insider trading plus the extent to which certain media and institutions are involved in these criminalities breaks through into the zeitgeist of public opinion, the ability to sell Zaha for a few quid more will be freakily pointless.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, Integrity Man, but we will soon be able to see that you stand there stark bollock naked.

Integrity Man, how do you intend to develop real sustainable strategy within your myopic short-termism?

Or, Integrity Man, is it the case that you have no intention of anything other than grabbing as much booty as possible and then doing a runner with your chums once all the value has been sucked out of English football?

And football will be left to function like that Sport of Kings horseracing - as a betting medium for insiders, patsies and crooks?

************************************************************************

Question Eight:

On 'Football Leaks' and the commercialisation of crime

Although the Guardian largely sat on the sidelines in the latter phases of the utilisation of the criminal entity'Football Leaks', that was only because the Football is Fixed Network had exposed that John Colquhoun was the wee man behind this farce. This prevented the paper taking ownership of the story which ended up being doled out by Der Spiegel.

Rui Pinto is a blackmailer who was coerced to act as a fall guy for the physical theft of documents to the benefit of a cartel of UK soccer agents and to the detriment of Gestifute and Doyen Sports.

Mr Colquhoun has a bit of a fetish for secrecy - he was also behind the 'Secret Footballer' nonsense at the Guardian and used scores of different aliases in contacts with members of the Football is Fixed Network - the man has a complication of personality disorders underpinning his psychopathy.

The irony is that the illegality of Third Party Ownership (TPO) was allegedly the campaigning reason why the Guardian initially promoted the 'Football Leaks' releases and yet TPO is widespread now across the English game.

The commercial reasons the Guardian got involved relate to external battles over turf and complex contractual interplays allowing profit to be internalised in secret.
Is this how venture capital now works, Integrity Man?

So.
Integrity Man.
Any chance of following through and addressing TPO in the Premier League or under the control of UK agents in other leagues?

I could give you a bunch of names.

************************************************************************

Question Nine:

On the Professional Game Match Officials Board and systemic matchfixing

The PGMOB refereeing body is a corrupt Stalinist entity that is rotten to the core - over 90% of the systemic matchfixing in the Premier League has the PGMOB at its roots. Mike Riley, the alleged controller of this criminal grouping, should be sacked with immediate effect. The Select Group of referees should be disbanded because the shit has truly risen to the top. There should be a far wider network of officials (including from other countries) and no officials should get more than a handful of games per season.

The creation of an elite group of referees hasn't worked.
It has produced a small grouping who have been incorporated into a mafia.

The Premier League has the most compromised grouping of match officials of any of the other major leagues.

Integrity Man, we understand that some of your mates are well rewarded by the illicit structures of the PGMOB but what are you going to do now you are CEO regarding referee-based corruption in the EPL?

Are you going to do something positive for football or just regard referee matchfixing as a necessary input to betting market control and hence valid for the profit margins?

************************************************************************

Question Ten:

On VAR and mafia influence of match decisions

In all other leagues, VAR has been a success yet in the Premier League it has been made a tool of the corruption rather than an enhancer of integrity. Obviously, the PGMOB entity is a problem here but the technology implementation and corruption of personnel are where the real matchfixing loci reside.

See - The VAR Room - The Twilight Zone Where All Future Matchfixing Will Be Orchestrated

The Premier League and the PGMOB are flouting the IFAB rules on the use of video technology. Originally the PGMOB planned not to have pitchside monitors at all and, when forced to employ them, they simply instructed the referees never to use them.

The EPL version of VAR is opaque and primed for matchfixing.
This situation isn't helped by Neil Swarbrick being Head of VAR at the PGMOB which, given his relationship with matchfixing agent John Colquhoun, is surely problematical.

Integrity Man, why can't we have a version of VAR that promotes integrity and improves the sport? Why do we have a version that increases matchfixing and insider trading? Will VAR just be another illicit input to your revenue streams?

************************************************************************

Question Eleven:

On the issues of corruption in the English Championship and the lower leagues

Although Skipwith's territory is to be the Premier League, inevitably the culture developed at the top table influences developments further down.
The Championship already functions like a very very very corrupt casino and is obviously ripe for a Premier League takeover.

But as profit never trickles down in neoliberal structures, the lower leagues only have two routes to sustainability - a sugar daddy (often laundering ill-gotten gains) or matchfixing.
Or both.

When Bury FC were driven to extinction while two of the three richest teams in the world sit in the same locale, the Economist commented that there is no hope for lower league clubs to breakeven as the clubs are not sustainable and there are no redistributive networks - the lower tier clubs know that survival depends on fighting in every available market (illicit or not).

So you get outfits like Billericay or AFC Wimbledon who would appear to primarily function as gambling stables teams.

Integrity Man, I'm sure you don't give a flying fuck, but will you take any measures at all that are progressive and allow poorer brethren to exist as community football teams without bookmakers taking control?

************************************************************************

Question Twelve:

On systemic corruption and matchfixing underpinning the 2019/20 season and comparisons with a broadly equivalent template throughout the post-Scudamore window

None of our offices in England, Geece or Romania bother subscribing to live Premier League footage anymore - the interest resides elsewhere in the hierarchical global markets.
Life is short and there is not enough time to spend a couple of hours watching a boiler room scam of an agreed result where Liverpool defeat Brighton & Hove Albion (but absolutely only by one goal).

In Skipwith's world, everybody wins...
... apart from fans, media out of the loop, the gamblers being exploited and the integrity of the game.

Of course, the Football is Fixed Network pay others to watch the matches on our behalf as the visuals are immensely revealing in football compared to other very fixed sports like horseracing or snooker or cricket.

When Joe Hart was on one, fans knew it.
When Mike Dean is fluttering around, we know the score.
When a high percentage of the mistakes that lead to goals are made by clients of a small number of agents or players who are third party owned, the analyst knows that the fixing is systemic.

Fake commentary inputs can only disguise these crimes for a while and the corrupt implementation of VAR will eventually result in the refereeing body being fully exposed as a criminalised body that it has been since Riley took over.

Last season, the EPL was systemically fixed.
So is this season.
And this season the corruption template is more extensive and more robust.

Liverpool were always going to win the Premier League in 2019/20 because when you accumulate all the legal marginal gains and sum them with the bigger body of illegal ones, you gain success.
Like with Team Sky in le Tour de France, the titles are gained but they are tainted and temporary as in the end, all corruption will be Lance Armstronged.

Integrity Man, what are your views of criminalised marginal gains?

************************************************************************

Question Thirteen:

On the very central role of mafia in all aspects of the Premier League

"I am told that myself and my network should be careful as we are being spied upon. 'Don't trust anyone, not even your colleagues', they say. Then there are the threats, the pitiful hacking and murder attempts that are aimed to act as a Chinese water torture - drip, drip, drip..."

"A whistleblower is killed slowly, day after day, before bombs explode or cars are crushed. The mafia never kills non-mafiosi just for vendetta. There is always another reason - to eliminate a person who has discovered something that must not be discovered."

"Who are these men of the state who, by negotiating with mafia, have allowed them to take control of football. The state doesn't want whistleblowers investigating their crimes. They hate us.  But the state plays a dangerous game - when a mafia infects a state, it is a cancer and a mafia state is always the creation."

"We now live in a mafia state - a state that, in order to preserve the status quo, has to remove whistleblowers who want justice. Why is the state so weak that it becomes an accomplice in systemic crime?"

"We must rebel against this system and this mafia method."

Like Nino Di Matteo, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Julian Assange, Jan Kuciak and Victoria Marinova, the Football is Fixed Network stand up against this mafia method...
... but, in future, we do so entirely from the underground.

Integrity Man, just fuck right off.
No questions asked.

************************************************************************

Question Fourteen:

On the helicopter occurrence that killed Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha a year ago

In three weeks time it will have been a year since the helicopter incident that killed Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha and four others after the fixed BT Sport-covered match between Leicester City and West Ham United refereed by Michael Oliver.

Two key aspects stand out over this event.

Firstly, having spoken with pilots, aircraft engineers, the intelligence community contacts in our network and military specialists, there is widespread incredulity at the official story that there were issues with the helicopter and that these deaths were an accident - and one of these individuals has worked with Jim Swire on the Lockerbie bombing and previously designed aircraft engines for Rolls Royce so we are not talking conspiracy theory here.

Secondly, the betting market control of Leicester City games had been coordinated since 2015/16 by a small cartel until just prior to the fatal match against West Ham United when the entire market infrastructure fell to bits. Considering the sheer volume traded on Leicester City matches, the loss of market control was a major financial hit. The Football is Fixed Network believe that the warfare over betting market control was a contributory input to this affair.

Integrity Man, it would help if the report into the aircrash might happen this side of Armageddon. But will you undertake to explore the other narratives regarding this dreadful crash? And, after Emiliano Sala's fatal plane crash related to illicit intermediaries and half-cocked regulations, will you endeavour to move football away from these concentric mafia circles and return the sport to its rightful place in society?

And, Integrity Man, the Guardian newspaper and John Colquhoun worked very closely on the regime change at Leicester City where Claude Puel was given agent-led player underperformance so that Brendan Rodgers could be stolen from Celtic. As the betting markets linked to Leicester City have continued to be "interesting" post-coup and given your fortuitous links, perhaps you could try and solve how the outcomes of the Foxes games are always known pre-match?
Could you do that for football, Integrity Man?

************************************************************************

Question Fifteen:

On the extensive corruption in the transfer market, the increasing presence of third party ownership, the creation of new agencies for specific purposes and how hidden ownership of players solicits matchfixing

As we touched on above, Third Party Ownership (TPO) is a real issue.

Markets depend on efficiency - the belief that all information is reflected in a price.
This is not the case in a corrupt market.

If Liverpool are definitely going to beat Brighton & Hove Albion by one goal to nil then there are a whole load of markets that should be priced as certainties.

Similarly, but to a different template, with the transfer market.

Skipwith's paper repeatedly shows how to inflate the transfer fees of clients from Key Sports Management, Base Agency, Unique Sports Management and Stellar by using newspaper output.
The transfer market is hence made inefficient for proprietary benefit.

But these two corruption templates merge with TPO.

When the ownership of a player is invisible then we have a problem.
The vast majority of TPO players engage in matchfixing on behalf of their 'owners'...
... who are, of course, invisible.

So, when █████ █████ lets in the goal, we know it is an 'error created by the market' but we don't know who is profiting to what degree or in which offshore centre or mafia state the money will eventually be laundered.

TPO is akin to tax evasion - it is underground, non-democratic and destroys whatever it was leeched from - a country, a business, a league, a club, a sport...

Integrity Man, we understand that you developed a real interest in the area of TPO when theGuardian was avidly promoting Jadon Sancho after he had been stolen from Manchester City and prior to his new representation by the Elite Project Group.

So, Integrity Man, as CEO of the EPL will you say no to TPO?

************************************************************************

Question Sixteen:

On the issue of club owners who are neither fit nor proper

A club only has as much integrity as its owner.

There is both an absence of any meaningful Fit & Proper Person Test (FPPT) for club custodians in the Premier League and there is an equivalent absence of any obstructive regulation between a club owner and a variety of corruptions.

Matchfixing is a given if the club owner is a bookmaker or a high stakes professional gambler who runs a betting consortium for other Premier League entities, for example.

If there are no FPPTs then the efficiency of  the transfer market becomes distorted by private concerns (with appropriate media backing of the sort Slipwith's newspaper provides), and the result is backhanders and kickbacks as agents and owners lubricate revenue flows accordingly - as a Blackpool FC fan it was disappointing to hear that such practices are already surfacing at the Seasiders post-Oyston.

Many of these corruptions lead to money laundering and offshore activities that privatise the status of the game into criminalised tax evasion spheres.

Integrity Man, unless gambling interests are removed from Premier League football, the game is up.

If club owners engage in insider trading and offering brokerage facilities for other insider traders then there are numerous occasions where the financial requirements of the owner are at odds with the fan.
You have dealt closely (yet obviously unknowingly) with individuals who are involved in systemic matchfixing so it would be facile for you to create an overview of how to address rogue owners undertaking matchfixing.

The question is, Integrity Man, will you fucking well do it?

************************************************************************

Question Seventeen:

On the widespread prevalence of doping in the EPL

In the football season after Skipwith became chief executive of theOrwellian, Leicester City robbed the Premier League title via extensive doping (Dr Mark Bonar, MAPEI, Team Sky-influenced) and the most biased refereeing that our analysts have witnessed in any major football league as far back as our records go - see The End Of Play (Extra Time).

UK Anti Doping is pro-doping...
... or, rather, pro-looking the other way while doping becomes systemic.

Insiders like doping because it rigs markets unbeknown to non-insiders.
Football teams like doping as it provides a competitive advantage.
Media like doping as it enhances the action if players are running around like headless chickens.
And big pharma likes doping because it creates markets for their illicit products - remember Bayer Leverkusen and the Champions League Final year.

But doping is anti-sporting.
In the last round of Champions League group games, Slavia Prague (by no means a young side) covered 128 kilometres in their game while Paris St Germain ran just 105 kilometres in their match - that equivalenced to every one of the outfield Slavia players covering 22 metres more every minute than PSG ones.
How?
Perhaps CITIC or Sonobo (Slavia's owners) know?

Doping is rampant in the Premier Leaguetoo and is accepted as a legitimate form of advantage by the powers-that-be because doping is highly regressive - it is the richest teams that have bespoke doping, not Buxton Town.

For a start, Integrity Man, perhaps you could explain why the player and team yardage covered figures for the Premier League are regarded as a trade secret with none of the media sharing this data with their audience or readership?
Why can't we see the variation in yardage covered by Jamie Vardy over a season?

You're not going to bother doing anything to stop doping either, are you Integrity Man?

************************************************************************

Question Eighteen:

On the state

 █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████
 █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████

 █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████

 █████ █████
 █████ █████
 █████ █████ █████ █████

 █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████ █████

 █████ █████
 █████ █████
 █████ █████ █████ █████

Football is Fixed Network - Check Bucuresti Server

"The state, any state, allows corruption to proceed if the internal gross profits related to the corruption exceeds the losses to the Treasury" - that was the holistic advice of my late lawyer David McNeight when we confronted George Osborne (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) over his knowledge of corruption in British football and those weird little payments to Chinese entities. It remains a minor source of joy and comfort that our network helped this unpleasant little man out of politics.

So, take horseracing - when we approached British Horserace Betting Levy Board chief executive Rodney Brack with evidence of corruption in British racing in the mid-nineties, it was made very clear to us that the state profited from gambling and that it would not be in our interests to continue our research.

The same variety of implied threats followed our disclosures about Osborne.

Given Skipwith's close ties with the intelligence community while at the Guardian, we make the assumption that Integrity Man is acceptable to the state.

Integrity Man, on the whole would you agree that mafia state structures are anti-democratic and strip any vestige of essence from any reality? And, Integrity Man, if football is to be slaughtered on the altar of underworld profits can we at least have a government anti-corruption entity that maintains some semblance of sporting competition among the mafia strategies?

************************************************************************

Question Nineteen:

On this particular match structure - where exactly does integrity reside in this EPL match, Mr Integrity Man?

█████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ █████ █████
█████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ █████ █████
█████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████
█████ █████

█████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████

Football is Fixed Network - Check Bucuresti Server

Anyway, further to redacted above, here is the initial article: see - Happy Anniversary To Roy Hodgson
And note that this match occurred a decade ago this month.

Corruption is deep-rooted in the Premier League.
And yet not once in the last ten years has the Guardian gone anywhere near disclosing these massive corruptions of which the paper has ended up being a corrupted part.

Integrity Man must be proud of his work.
David Skipwith Pemsel is exactly what the Premier League doesn't need.

************************************************************************

Question Twenty:

On the robustness of the mafia template

Thanks to the exertions of █████ █████, we now have a firm foundation and baseline for future systemic football corruptions in the Premier League.

Even if the momentum existed in Skipwith's nature, it is very difficult to pull football back from the brink of obsolescence at EPL-level.

There exists a robust mafia infrastructure in place.

At the Guardian, intentionally or by extreme fluke, Mr Integrity skipped with the mafia.

Let us hope that that particular addiction is satiated by the time he shadows the Premier League.

But will it be so, Integrity Man?
We guess not.

************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________

"All you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth" - Greta Thunberg

A poem read by an Icelandic school pupil to the disappeared glacier Okjokull...

"Ok, the burdened glacier/ which at last had had enough/ of acts of terror from men who do not know/ how to have both profits and morals"
_______________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
_______________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.

• To purchase, click on the "DONATE" button to the right of this article
• The cost of the book is £20
• Two sample chapters may be purchased for £2.50
• Seven sample chapters may be purchased for £7.50
• Your support/ donation/ purchase will help the Football is Fixed Network to continue our work
• Your £20 purchase also includes a copy of the book once it is is physically published
• Each chapter will be dispatched directly to your in-box via email
• DONATIONS above and beyond the cost of the book are greatly appreciated & allow us to plan for a future of opening betting markets, whistleblowing, hacking corruption & undertaking fraud forensics

• To purchase, click on the "DONATE" button to the right of this article (for mobiles you will need to click on VIEW WEB VERSION to bring up web browser)
• The cost of the book is £20
• Two sample chapters may be purchased for £2.50
• Seven sample chapters may be purchased for £7.50
• Your support/ donation/ purchase will help the Football is Fixed Network to continue our work
• Your £20 purchase also includes a copy of the book once it is is physically published
• Each chapter will be dispatched directly to your in-box via email
• DONATIONS above and beyond the cost of the book are greatly appreciated & allow us to plan for a future of opening betting markets, whistleblowing, hacking corruption & undertaking fraud forensics

ONE EXTINCTION AT A TIME


"Everything seeks its own death including power" - Jean Baudrillard


Football is fucked but its impending death could be a liberation.

The perfect storm of mafia control of much of the sport, systemic corruption, insider trading & matchfixing, doping, institutional & media capture and rogue club ownership founded upon a neo-proprietarian template is an unstable vessel in calmer times but, with the covid-19 pandemic and climate catastrophe, football sails in wild and choppy waters.

As the football agent and bookmaker-backed Project Restart desperately lobbies the UK government for special status for the Premier League, cartels are fragmenting, institutions are in conflict, monopolies are dividing, partnerships divorcing and loyalties splitting in a disaster capitalism free-for-all scrap for a slice of the future of football.

This temporary and chaotic new normal helps to expose the perfect crime rather than making it pay.

Football's disaster is free market capitalism's too.
British football has disintegrated during the coronavirus pandemic - there are no rules for a voided or cancelled Premier League season, player contracts don't mention pandemics, the calendar is too overloaded to allow completion of the current tournaments, while the broadcasters call the shots as the Premier League's bubble is totally dependent on the product being seen worldwide.
Football is demolished by covid-19.

Additionally, football has a massive carbon footprint - private jets, away fans, excessive global travel as executives, agents and mafia hopscotch around global hotels.

Professional football has existential problems.
Football has to change.

Football is equivalent to neo-proprietarian capitalism in the manner that it has responded to coronavirus.
The elite enacts a class war based on the already existing inequalities.
So, lower and lesser staff are furloughed while club owners grab government handouts; big business is rescued while small and medium enterprises fear drowning in a Darwinian struggle for survival due to lack of funding; top football clubs ride out the storm via their hotlines to power while lower level clubs are Bury-ed beneath the debris.

There is no prompt return to a new normal no matter how resolute the PR outpourings of Project Restart and their "making-it-up-as-you-go-along" excuse for strategy.

Football cannot convince society of any special status in troubled times.
Its only strength is its corruption.
Football is able to make demands of government due to the muscle afforded the sport based on the bizarre mathematics that determines that the losses to the Treasury due to the corruption in football is far exceeded by the array of revenues and incomes brought into UK PLC by those very same corruptions.

Football's revenue streams and networks are currently incapacitated to dangerous levels - coronavirus could mean the absence of fans from matches for up to two years according to the Robert Koch Institute.

Meanwhile, the gap between fan and club expands remorselessly.
Private equity operations are asset stripping your beautiful club, sovereign wealth funds are whitewashing the murder of a journalist via the purchase of your local team, bookmakers are buying your town.

Club versus agents, league versus clubs, cartels of clubs versus the rest of the league, broadcasters versus the Premier League, agents controlling media, all with the menacing market makers and manipulators pulling the strings behind Project Restart.
This is unsustainable just like all Ponzi scheme neo-liberalism.

The Football is Fixed Network surf the zeitgeist of corruption - that ocean between the reality of the corruption and the fans perception thereof. The 'value' of the Premier League as a brand depends upon the vast expanse between these two states of consciousness. As football fragments in mafia turf wars, the robustness of this infrastructure weakens and security is haphazard.

Zeitgeists change.

And who knows when the cash is going to start flowing again?

"UEFA's vision of a wondrous specific day when all Europe's teams walk back out together simultaneously is fanciful, to say the least" - Keir Radnedge

Football is having its soul stolen while the fans face away from the field of play.

The role of the Football is Fixed Network has to be disruptive here.

So, the club formerly known as Rangers liaised with the Scottish Football Association and stole some titles via tax wheezes but Celtic decided that the best manner in which to expose these shenanigans was to secretly fund an NGO to 'independently' prove malfeasance by the Ibrox club.
Poor strategy.
Stalemate was the result rather than anything resembling justice over Resolution 12.
Two wrongs don't make a right but by exposing these hyperrealities, we make enemies at both clubs.
Don't blame the messenger.

We exposed Shinawatra's crystal-burying corruptions in his takeover of Manchester City. We also publicised Joe Hart's issues with gambling debts and the City of London police inquiry into matchfixing. Yet we are also the whistleblowers who revealed the existence of the Liverpool cartel of clubs, the apparent control of Professional Game Match Officials by Liverpool and the systemic corruptions perpetrated against Manchester City in EPL seasons 2018/19 and 2019/20.
The issue is the rancid systemic corruption that rules British football through an absence of any institutional oversight or effective media scrutiny or suitable regulation.
Don't blame the messenger.

The fake deals in fairy tales.
We expose the Leicester City monstrosity of matchfixing and manipulation.
Don't blame the messenger.

And some reasonably intelligent people object to us pointing out the potential conflicts of interest due to Tony Bloom owning Brighton & Hove Albion FC and the Starlizard betting entity (under the stewardship of his cousin).
Don't blame the messenger.

This book is a hybrid of fact and fiction-based-upon-fact and covers the proliferation of systemic corruption in British football from the onset of the Premier League in 1992.

The fiction-based-upon-fact sections sometimes incorporate refraction of a reality making it opaque, on other occasions the actors are revealed, while in other instances they are viewed through a prism to a spectrum of multiversal realities.

This book will examine corruption in football both systemic and particular and will explore the impending death of football in its current form.
Death as liberation.

We explore what shapes the future of football might take.

This book is also about inequality and putting a dollar figure on human life, the failure of free markets, externalities, privatised elites, disaster capitalism and unsustainable neo-proprietarianism and the not wanting to return, post covid-19, to a world where the 1% become exponentially richer while the rest of us exist at various strata of the precariat hoping that the dice being rolled don't wipe us out in the latest round of the game of life.

We reveal much in this book but some content is redacted and many individuals are coded. Names, characters, businesses, states, places, events and incidents may be either the product of a diseased imagination or used in a fictitious manner only linked to the truth via multiversal wormholes. Apparently, any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead or anywhere in between, or actual events is purely coincidental, a fluke, a freak entanglement.

We choose constructive engagement but plan for war.
Although win-win is never on the table of psychopathy, zero-sum leads to mutually assured destruction.

We eschew full disclosure of the criminalities at play as the issues are general rather than specific.
Mafia maneuverings are a constant hustle.
It is the bigger picture that needs to change for football to move forward with any semblance of integrity.

Marginal gains psychopathy underpins neo-liberalism in sport and wider society.
The slide towards black market is incremental but unrelenting - doping being an outlier evolving to doping being the norm; a Premier League game that doesn't have matchfixing inputs now being something worthy of comment.

Marginal gains is peak strategy for political behavioural scientists, a nudge here, a nudge there.
Grabbing bits of turf left right and centre, one bit at a time.
But marginal gains is how underhand behaviour reveals itself to forensic analysts and psychologists.

Take herd immunity.
At the time of writing and for over two months now, it has been obvious, despite denials, that the UK government's policy towards coronavirus is herd immunity.
Government strategy sails as close to the shore of herd immunity as the public zeitgeist will allow at any given time without, at any instance, admitting it.

"Nudge theory is a poor substitute for hard science in matters of life-and-death" - Sonia Sodha

Some business sectors look very vulnerable in a pandemic and the football industry existing in a regressive hierarchy primed on fake, fraud and matchfixing is a hyper-inflated bubble waiting to burst.
Crises, on this level, lead to a rewriting of the rule books.

The form in which football will initially return will not be football as we know it.
No player celebrations, quarantine, no excessive away travel distances, neutral grounds, limited integrity in the competition, face masks for the players who aren't refusing to play, extra substitutes, piped crowd chanting and no fans.
Empty stadia echoing to silent crowds.
And football without fans is nothing.
But football as a gambling medium controlled by mafia interests is less than nothing.

The holistic nature of the perfect storm in which we currently reside may only be exited with an equally holistic response.
This book offers you an entirely new blueprint for global football.
Because at the moment we are all watching on as our sport dies and rigor mortis slowly sets in.

Meanwhile, in the wake of Max Planck, science advances one funeral at a time.


JBullivant, Manchester, May 12th 2020


© 2020 Football is Fixed

English Football is currently reeling from the impacts of the Stevens inquiry into the bung culture, the standard and ethics of referees and the revelation that Victor Chandler International allegedly took bets from some Premiership Managers and Players. The words “tip” and “iceberg” spring to mind.
I have traded professionally on global football betting markets for the past 15 years. In my experience, all the brokers, market makers and bookmakers that I have traded with take bets from insiders in the game. It is regarded as buying information. Undoubtedly, some of this exchange of information borders on the corrupt. The recent betting scandal in Germany and the uproar in Italy’s Serie A show that this isn’t merely a British problem.
Asian Market Makers regularly accept bets of greater than £1million without blinking (Gianluigi Buffon – the Juventus goalkeeper – was found with betting slips for several million euros in his possession during the Moggiopoli scandal). Inevitably, the liquidity of the Asian markets persuades some football people to enhance their earning capacities. To my knowledge, such individuals include players, managers, referees, bookmakers, agents and the criminal fringe. It isn’t just the Italian mafia centres of Napoli, Palermo and Reggio di Calabria that are actively involved in football markets!
To date, all attempts to clean up the game have been peripheral. In Germany, some selective sweeping under the carpet and wrist slapping went on in response to the referee Robert Hoyzer admitting that he took money to alter football match outcomes. But, I believe that there are other match officials in the Bundesliga who were merely demoted or, indeed, allowed to continue to officiate. In Italy, in the aftermath of calciocaos, two referees were suspended but the other six that were under investigation are still involved in Serie A.
Although there are many corrupt players, it is the match officials who are the key component of this crisis. Some have links to individual clubs, some to bookmakers and some to the underworld. There are also many honest people in the game who are just trying to do their jobs. However, until football cleans up its act, corruption will persist. Falling attendances in Italy and England are partially related to deficiencies in the sport on offer. Although the prawn sandwich brigade remain oblivious to anything, the true fans know when they are being short changed. The recent assertion by Graeme Souness that British football is “the most honest in Europe” is simply laughable.
Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Culture, is aiming to make Britain a clean and well regulated gambling environment. I fully support her and her Department’s efforts but such efforts must extend beyond the protection of the vulnerable and the targeting of company directors with criminal links.
The football authorities also need to take a lead in this area and not just in the betting arena. In the lead up to the last World Cup, there was a real concern within FIFA that Uzbekistan were going to make it to the finals. This would have been politically unacceptable. In the first leg of the Asian Play Off with Bahrain, the Uzbeks won 1-0 and had a penalty denied them by the Japanese official. FIFA ludicrously ordered the game to be replayed and a 1-1 draw resulted. Bahrain won through in the Second Leg on away goals – the official for that second game (obviously by chance in the light of recent occurrences) was a certain Mr Graham Poll!

© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological

Death Is Liberation

Chapter 1 of our book "Football Is Fixed - Me, A Whistleblower?: Hacking A Spy Through The Maze Of Football Espionage" is now available

A Few Quotes from Chapter 1
"The Premier League did not have to become this gambling medium.
Choices were made by unlawful insiders to make it so."

"On March 9th, Oliver Dowden of the Department of Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) stated: "There is no reason for people not to go to sporting events."
On March 11th, a Champions League took place between Liverpool and Atletico Madrid even though the Madrid region was the second main locus of covid-19 in Europe (after northern Italy).
There are now excess deaths on Merseyside due to the decision to play this match.
Dowden is now the government liaison link over the psychopathic attempts to reboot Premier League football this summer under the bookmaker and agent-backed Project Restart.
Football fans and their family members have died due to Dowden's original miscalculation, why is he still involved in the decision-making process?"

"Football faces an on-off future with windows of games followed by lockdown and/or postponement windows.
Tournaments will back up and remain unfinished, cancelled and, eventually, voided.
The entire infrastructure of global football tournaments will need to change to a sustainable platform."

"The Leicester City Fake Football Triumph is the biggest sports story of recent times. Although portrayed by the media as a fairy tale, it is in fact an affront to the integrity and validity of British soccer."

Please see below for details on how to purchase the book

• To purchase, click on the "DONATE" button to the right of this article (for mobiles you will need to click on VIEW WEB VERSION to bring up web browser)
• The cost of the book is £20
• Two sample chapters may be purchased for £2.50
• Seven sample chapters may be purchased for £7.50
• Your support/ donation/ purchase will help the Football is Fixed Network to continue our work
• Your £20 purchase also includes a copy of the book once it is is physically published
• Each chapter will be dispatched directly to your in-box via email
• DONATIONS above and beyond the cost of the book are greatly appreciated & allow us to plan for a future of opening betting markets, whistleblowing, hacking corruption & undertaking fraud forensics

© 2020 Football is Fixed

• To purchase, click on the "DONATE" button to the right of this article (for mobiles you will need to click on VIEW WEB VERSION to bring up web browser)
• The cost of the book is £20
• Two sample chapters may be purchased for £2.50
• Seven sample chapters may be purchased for £7.50
• Your support/ donation/ purchase will help the Football is Fixed Network to continue our work
• Your £20 purchase also includes a copy of the book once it is is physically published
• Each chapter will be dispatched directly to your in-box via email
• DONATIONS above and beyond the cost of the book are greatly appreciated & allow us to plan for a future of opening betting markets, whistleblowing, hacking corruption & undertaking fraud forensics

We recently did an interview with █████  █████.
This is the only interview we have ever agreed to and here is a transcript of some parts of it.

Q1: Why do you do it?

Boredom. There really is nothing worth working for in neo-proprietarian capitalism unless you are one of the caretakers sweeping up the Ponzi detritus.

The corruption in football is set to a very simplistic template - there are no deep layers of complexity here. Football is neither military nor intelligence. So we mocked it.

And then we realised that neo-liberalism is exactly the same as football - systemic corruption orchestrated by mafia states. So we thought it would be a bigger hoot to go after financial markets and their alleged efficiency and legitimacy too.

But it was boredom mainly.

Personally, I'm also a scrapper not a lover. I enjoy baiting the criminal loci. Rattling their cages. They're a wunch of bankers and they are taking the piss. But their fear, man, their fear...
They have so much to lose whereas we have little - this is a good asymmetry.

So, in the absence of a functioning and critical 4th Estate, we provide glimpses of a reality. To security thresholds, we are entirely open in our disclosures about the various rogue influences destroying football.

We have shown the fan the manners in which their sport is being stolen from them.

If I'm going to be bored senseless by a spectacle then I'll bore others too.

Q2: Is that the best basis for promoting a new book - boredom?

Yes.

What can be more boring than describing an attempt at a perfect crime that failed. There is no great ingenuity, the beauty has been stolen, the markets control the match outcomes - if you know that match is an agreed draw, it is an artless event. Dead. Merely a flow of exchange.

In football, the Invisible Hand washes the Other. There is no trickledown. No creativity other than in marginal gains and tax evasion. That is incredibly dull - a numbskull appropriation of all that is good in football and a conversion into private wealth via asset stripping the integrity of the sport.

That is totally null. A money grab by scoundrels with an inability to self-deprecate.

There is no sophistication or evolution. It is not like watching a science or an artform advance. Just a conveyor belt of boiler room scams exhibited for our delectation by a media under output capture.

And it's really fuckin' boring. I can't even watch it anymore.
We pay others to be bored on our behalf.

Q3: What do you think of the Premier League's Project Restart?

[laughter] Psychopathic self-harming by the bookies and agents who have been devising the Stalinist secrecy of the project alongside the broadcasters and government.

Fans and race-goers died at the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid game and at the Cheltenham Festival due to government inaction and many more people are going to die this summer as a backdrop to the splendid government-sanctioned EPL Party.

Germany and UK had their first coronavirus deaths on the same date. Germany followed WHO rules, had 5 times as many critical care beds and used cutting edge modelling from the Robert Koch Institute and have quelled the virus and football without fans is already back.

UK chose herd immunity instead.
Herd immunity is a murderous removal of the pensioner future financial burden by a bunch of fascists. The government encouragement to celebrate VE Day with the absolute breakdown of social distancing rules (the conga?) together with the complete breakdown of lockdown following Demonic Comings' childish little pranks in Durham ensures a second wave of covid-19 this summer.

Neither the daily new case numbers nor the daily deaths are tapering as in other equivalent European countries. Herd immunity means continuous death until between 60-90% of people have been infected but at least the economy will be restarted. And even then there is no proof that this strategy will work without the discovery of a vaccine.

Mad fascist nonsense by a eugenicist and his pampered puppet.

Project Restart does not look good against this backdrop. Individuals have been bullied by the money men. Troy Deeney has received threats for his stance on BAME. Project Restart will present extensive matchfixing and no integrity.
The blinkered selfishness is astonishing.

Peak psychopathy and peak value.
We put a sell advice signal against the EPL.

And if there are deaths related to the tyrannies of fun that the EPL is staging...

#BoycottProjectRestart

Q4: How would you go about fixing a football match?

Depends on the strata of the game.

In the UK it costs around £175K to buy a bog standard National League game - for this amount there will be an absolute control of the event so long as you have undertaken your background research on rogue owners, clubs, bookies, referees and players in the league.

The higher up the hierarchy the harder it gets and the more it costs.

Firstly, there are many more corrupting influences on matches - some Premier League matches might have half a dozen operations thinking that they control the outcome. So your background analytics must be much more holistic to avoid being patsy at the dark pool table.
Also it costs considerably more to purchase a Premier League PGMOB Select Group match official than other deans lower down the leagues.

The rewards of controlling an EPL game are far far greater than owning the outcome of Stockport County vs Maidenhead United, for example.
It is possible to place a £5 million bet on a Premier League in the Asian underground on the day of a match and the broker won't even blink. Significant power over a dark pool virtuality allows volume up to 100 times greater.
At lower leagues it is difficult to get volume on particularly if you are trying to disguise your market inputs. And if a lower league fix escapes, the price collapses on the 'winner' as, bizarrely, there can be greater market efficiency in a fixed National League game than in a top EPL one.

The hardest events to fix are those where the kudos of winning, the legacy, is more valuable than anything a bookmaker can offer.
Still.
Two recent Champions League Finals have seen cases of the ultimate corruption - a rogue goalkeeper gifting opponents the trophy and a referee who fancied a side earner in corruption. And Manchester City lost to Wigan Athletic in a FA Cup Final once upon a bet.

But.
Of course.
We would never fix a game.
We just tell you how other people do it.
Football should be too beautiful to fix.

Q5: You show in the book how the corruption in UK has become systemic. How so?

Specific isolated instances of corruption, transfer market abuses and matchfixing were the norm until the cycle started to be able to feed back in on itself.

Players and referees who showed that they were amenable to undertaking criminalities in football between 1992 and 2012 found themselves elevated up the hierarchy in future careers.

Virtually all of the players who we exposed in the early days are now permanent fixtures within the UK game either as managers, coaches, agents or media.
There are no unincorporated nodes anymore at institution or club.

Once this is your reality, the corruption is systemic.
Absolute control of matchfixing.
The markets and football match outcomes are twisted to the portfolios of these inside traders.

And the referees and goalkeepers whose 'errors' help land these corruptions today will be enhancing the performativity of future corruptions tomorrow.

Once this cycle of corruption is complete, a sport is lost.

Q6: Are all top clubs fixing games? Are there any patterns of behaviour? What about in Europe?

As we have said, corruption evolves over time.

12 years ago the corruptions in the Premier League & Championship revolved around particular clubs - so Fulham with Colquhoun & Hodgson, West Brom with Peace & Colquhoun, Manchester United under Ferguson and the anti-Arsenal agenda from the PGMOB.

We could easily get high level consultancies in this window as most clubs were legitimate (in the area of matchfixing).

Now, according to our analytics, 75% +/- of EPL teams are inappropriately linked to betting entities and, lower down the league, the only way for clubs to survive is to sell out to Gibraltar or Malta.

There are also issues of integrity around the cartelised behaviour in support of Liverpool, Leicester City and Manchester United under Solskjaer.
One underground market maker knew all about the Liverpool cartel in this current season and has made billions taking on the planet on the Liverpudlians' matches.

The primary pattern is that corruption becomes all-pervading - every new key appointment has been compromised in UK top tier football for a decade. So, when a Head of VAR was needed, look no further than Neil Swarbrick, a referee so closely linked to Colquhoun that they share genitalia.

Unsurprisingly, VAR has been more disastrously applied in England than anywhere else in the world - just like Johnson/Cummings have created the worst covid-19 reaction on the planet.

Free markets supported by inappropriate appointments results in Masters, Swarbrick & Riley or Cummings, Vallance & Whitty - promotions based on political ideology rather than ability.

In major European leagues, the English Disease is also spreading (particularly in the Bundesliga and with the corruption supportive of Dortmund this season).
But no European league has the degree of systemic corruption witnessed in the EPL.
The matchfixing entities in Europe are still largely particular rather than general e.g. Torino or Granada or Hertha BSC.

There is a clear positive correlation between corruption via matchfixing and the collective turnover of bookmakers linked with the country, whether such territory be England, Finland or Malta.

It is the non-regulated control of football by bookmakers that has destroyed any vestige of integrity.
It's fucked. Totally fucked.

Q7: Are you hackers? Do you work with hackers? Why don't you release all evidences in your possession?

Stuff happens.

Our network possesses an array of skills - market analysts, coders, hackers, lawyers, anti-corruption entities, insiders and messengers from enemy camps.

Not all hacking is illegal. We set internal boundaries in the grey hat arena.
If outsiders choose to provide the Football is Fixed Network with black hat knowledge, information and evidences then we are not responsible for their actions.

It is, however, up to us how we use our info.

For example, we have been given full transcripts of the EPL Project Restart meetings plus some side conversations.
This Stalinist and very secretive attempt by broadcasters, bookies and agents to set up insider trading opportunities during a pandemic needs to be made public (which we do in the book).

To date, we have decided to only release 5% of our evidences (the Iceberg Effect) as it was clearly demonstrated by Wikileaks that it is not good strategy to allow states or enemies to have full knowledge of archive.

We choose to release more than 5% with certain entities e.g. John Colquhoun (a matchfixing mafia man) and Tony Bloom (a matchfixing mafia man).
Throughout the book we use these two reprobates as examples of how not to do integrity.

On June 4th it will be a year since the unsuccessful hit-and-run assassination attempt on one of our network.

Colquhoun thought death would be liberation.
But everything seeks its own death...
... including power.

Q8: Wait, wait, wait, wait... Are you making a direct accusation there?

The time for a fulsome accusation has not yet come.

Colquhoun, a Scot, was matchfixing England games via getting captured manager Steve McClaren to pick all three squad goalkeepers from his Key Sports Management agency - David James, Scott Carson and Chris Kirkland.
We exposed the fixing of a friendly game where Denmark defeated England 4-1 with all goals coming from calamities by James after he came on as a second half substitute.
He claimed that he "forgot" to warm up...
... the betting markets suggest otherwise.

Colquhoun met with me and tried to buy us off.
We refused.

We then revealed a fixed Premier League game overseen by Colquhoun in October 2008 and, five days later, I received threats which, due to the man's stupidity, were traced to his then Soho offices.
We logged evidences with police.

Five days before the hit-and-run assault, our network had outed Colquhoun as a mafia operative on materials received.
This time we were ready though - we monitored messengers and spies in the five day window.
We have most of a jigsaw puzzle completed now - from orchestrator to intermediary to operatives.

We are in a similar boat to the anti-corruption campaigner Daphne Caruana Galizia - assassinated in October 2016 for her disclosures of the mafia behaviours of Joseph Muscat (the Maltese PM) and Keith Schembri (his chief of staff and murderous intermediary).

In effect we are in a mutually assured destruction construct where our opponents have far more to lose than us, both financially and reputationally.

Stalemate.

Q9: Could you explain how Tony Bloom owning both Brighton and Hove Albion FC and the Starlizard betting syndicate creates integrity issues?

█████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████ █████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  █████ █████  ██████████  █████ █████  █████

█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████
█████  █████

█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████ █████  ██████████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  █████ █████  █████ █████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  █████ █████  █████

█████  ██████████  █████ █████  ██████████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████

█████  █████

to be continued.........

© 2020 Football is Fixed

                                              A Random Photograph Of A Scottish Man


A year ago today there was a Hit-And-Run Assassination attempt on a member of our network

He survived

Happy Haraday

We recently did an interview with █████  █████.

This is the only interview we have ever agreed to and here is a transcript of some parts of it.

The title is a mockery of a historical post where we showed why David Skipwith Pemsel should not be chief executive of the Premier League.
We laughed at his lack of integrity which was the eventual reason he was forced to step down.

Q1: Why do you do it?

Boredom. There really is nothing worth working for in neo-proprietarian capitalism unless you are one of the caretakers sweeping up the Ponzi detritus.

The corruption in football is set to a very simplistic template - there are no deep layers of complexity here. Football is neither military nor intelligence. So we mocked it.

And then we realised that neo-liberalism is exactly the same as football - systemic corruption orchestrated by mafia states. So we thought it would be a bigger hoot to go after financial markets and their alleged efficiency and legitimacy too.

But it was boredom mainly.

Personally, I'm also a scrapper not a lover. I enjoy baiting the criminal loci. Rattling their cages. They're a wunch of bankers and they are taking the piss. But their fear, man, their fear...
They have so much to lose whereas we have little - this is a good asymmetry.

So, in the absence of a functioning and critical 4th Estate, we provide glimpses of a reality. To security thresholds, we are entirely open in our disclosures about the various rogue influences destroying football.

We have shown the fan the manners in which their sport is being stolen from them.

If I'm going to be bored senseless by a spectacle then I'll bore others too.

Q2: Is that the best basis for promoting a new book - boredom?

Yes.

What can be more boring than describing an attempt at a perfect crime that failed. There is no great ingenuity, the beauty has been stolen, the markets control the match outcomes - if you know that match is an agreed draw, it is an artless event. Dead. Merely a flow of exchange.

In football, the Invisible Hand washes the Other. There is no trickledown. No creativity other than in marginal gains and tax evasion. That is incredibly dull - a numbskull appropriation of all that is good in football and a conversion into private wealth via asset stripping the integrity of the sport.

That is totally null. A money grab by scoundrels with an inability to self-deprecate.

There is no sophistication or evolution. It is not like watching a science or an artform advance. Just a conveyor belt of boiler room scams exhibited for our delectation by a media under output capture.

And it's really fuckin' boring. I can't even watch it anymore.
We pay others to be bored on our behalf.

Q3: What do you think of the Premier League's Project Restart?

[laughter] Psychopathic self-harming by the bookies and agents who have been devising the Stalinist secrecy of the project alongside the broadcasters and government.

Fans and race-goers died at the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid game and at the Cheltenham Festival due to government inaction and many more people are going to die this summer as a backdrop to the splendid government-sanctioned EPL Party.

Germany and UK had their first coronavirus deaths on the same date. Germany followed WHO rules, had 5 times as many critical care beds and used cutting edge modelling from the Robert Koch Institute and have quelled the virus and football without fans is already back.

UK chose herd immunity instead.
Herd immunity is a murderous removal of the pensioner future financial burden by a bunch of fascists. The government encouragement to celebrate VE Day with the absolute breakdown of social distancing rules (the conga?) together with the complete breakdown of lockdown following Demonic Comings' childish little pranks in Durham ensures a second wave of covid-19 this summer.

Neither the daily new case numbers nor the daily deaths are tapering as in other equivalent European countries. Herd immunity means continuous death until between 60-90% of people have been infected but at least the economy will be restarted. And even then there is no proof that this strategy will work without the discovery of a vaccine.

Mad fascist nonsense by a eugenicist and his pampered puppet.

Project Restart does not look good against this backdrop. Individuals have been bullied by the money men. Troy Deeney has received threats for his stance on BAME. Project Restart will present extensive matchfixing and no integrity.
The blinkered selfishness is astonishing.

Peak psychopathy and peak value.
We put a sell advice signal against the EPL.

And if there are deaths related to the tyrannies of fun that the EPL is staging...

#BoycottProjectRestart

Q4: How would you go about fixing a football match?

Depends on the strata of the game.

In the UK it costs around £175K to buy a bog standard National League game - for this amount there will be an absolute control of the event so long as you have undertaken your background research on rogue owners, clubs, bookies, referees and players in the league.

The higher up the hierarchy the harder it gets and the more it costs.

Firstly, there are many more corrupting influences on matches - some Premier League matches might have half a dozen operations thinking that they control the outcome. So your background analytics must be much more holistic to avoid being patsy at the dark pool table.
Also it costs considerably more to purchase a Premier League PGMOB Select Group match official than other deans lower down the leagues.

The rewards of controlling an EPL game are far far greater than owning the outcome of Stockport County vs Maidenhead United, for example.
It is possible to place a £5 million bet on a Premier League in the Asian underground on the day of a match and the broker won't even blink. Significant power over a dark pool virtuality allows volume up to 100 times greater.
At lower leagues it is difficult to get volume on particularly if you are trying to disguise your market inputs. And if a lower league fix escapes, the price collapses on the 'winner' as, bizarrely, there can be greater market efficiency in a fixed National League game than in a top EPL one.

The hardest events to fix are those where the kudos of winning, the legacy, is more valuable than anything a bookmaker can offer.
Still.
Two recent Champions League Finals have seen cases of the ultimate corruption - a rogue goalkeeper gifting opponents the trophy and a referee who fancied a side earner in corruption. And Manchester City lost to Wigan Athletic in a FA Cup Final once upon a bet.

But.
Of course.
We would never fix a game.
We just tell you how other people do it.
Football should be too beautiful to fix.

Q5: You show in the book how the corruption in UK has become systemic. How so?

Specific isolated instances of corruption, transfer market abuses and matchfixing were the norm until the cycle started to be able to feed back in on itself.

Players and referees who showed that they were amenable to undertaking criminalities in football between 1992 and 2012 found themselves elevated up the hierarchy in future careers.

Virtually all of the players who we exposed in the early days are now permanent fixtures within the UK game either as managers, coaches, agents or media.
There are no unincorporated nodes anymore at institution or club.

Once this is your reality, the corruption is systemic.
Absolute control of matchfixing.
The markets and football match outcomes are twisted to the portfolios of these inside traders.

And the referees and goalkeepers whose 'errors' help land these corruptions today will be enhancing the performativity of future corruptions tomorrow.

Once this cycle of corruption is complete, a sport is lost.

Q6: Are all top clubs fixing games? Are there any patterns of behaviour? What about in Europe?

As we have said, corruption evolves over time.

12 years ago the corruptions in the Premier League & Championship revolved around particular clubs - so Fulham with Colquhoun & Hodgson, West Brom with Peace & Colquhoun, Manchester United under Ferguson and the anti-Arsenal agenda from the PGMOB.

We could easily get high level consultancies in this window as most clubs were legitimate (in the area of matchfixing).

Now, according to our analytics, 75% +/- of EPL teams are inappropriately linked to betting entities and, lower down the league, the only way for clubs to survive is to sell out to Gibraltar or Malta.

There are also issues of integrity around the cartelised behaviour in support of Liverpool, Leicester City and Manchester United under Solskjaer.
One underground market maker knew all about the Liverpool cartel in this current season and has made billions taking on the planet on the Liverpudlians' matches.

The primary pattern is that corruption becomes all-pervading - every new key appointment has been compromised in UK top tier football for a decade. So, when a Head of VAR was needed, look no further than Neil Swarbrick, a referee so closely linked to Colquhoun that they share genitalia.

Unsurprisingly, VAR has been more disastrously applied in England than anywhere else in the world - just like Johnson/Cummings have created the worst covid-19 reaction on the planet.

Free markets supported by inappropriate appointments results in Masters, Swarbrick & Riley or Cummings, Vallance & Whitty - promotions based on political ideology rather than ability.

In major European leagues, the English Disease is also spreading (particularly in the Bundesliga and with the corruption supportive of Dortmund this season).
But no European league has the degree of systemic corruption witnessed in the EPL.
The matchfixing entities in Europe are still largely particular rather than general e.g. Torino or Granada or Hertha BSC.

There is a clear positive correlation between corruption via matchfixing and the collective turnover of bookmakers linked with the country, whether such territory be England, Finland or Malta.

It is the non-regulated control of football by bookmakers that has destroyed any vestige of integrity.
It's fucked. Totally fucked.

Q7: Are you hackers? Do you work with hackers? Why don't you release all evidences in your possession?

Stuff happens.

Our network possesses an array of skills - market analysts, coders, hackers, lawyers, anti-corruption entities, insiders and messengers from enemy camps.

Not all hacking is illegal. We set internal boundaries in the grey hat arena.
If outsiders choose to provide the Football is Fixed Network with black hat knowledge, information and evidences then we are not responsible for their actions.

It is, however, up to us how we use our info.

For example, we have been given full transcripts of the EPL Project Restart meetings plus some side conversations.
This Stalinist and very secretive attempt by broadcasters, bookies and agents to set up insider trading opportunities during a pandemic needs to be made public (which we do in the book).

To date, we have decided to only release 5% of our evidences (the Iceberg Effect) as it was clearly demonstrated by Wikileaks that it is not good strategy to allow states or enemies to have full knowledge of archive.

We choose to release more than 5% with certain entities e.g. John Colquhoun (a matchfixing mafia man) and Tony Bloom (a matchfixing mafia man).
Throughout the book we use these two reprobates as examples of how not to do integrity.

On June 4th it will be a year since the unsuccessful hit-and-run assassination attempt on one of our network.

Colquhoun thought death would be liberation.
But everything seeks its own death...
... including power.

And the harder they come, the harder they fall.

Q8: Wait, wait, wait, wait... Are you making a direct accusation there?

The time for a fulsome accusation has not yet come.

Colquhoun, a Scot, was matchfixing England games via getting captured manager Steve McClaren to pick all three squad goalkeepers from his Key Sports Management agency - David James, Scott Carson and Chris Kirkland.
We exposed the fixing of a friendly game where Denmark defeated England 4-1 with all goals coming from calamities by James after he came on as a second half substitute.
He claimed that he "forgot" to warm up...
... the betting markets suggest otherwise.

Colquhoun met with me and tried to buy us off.
We refused.

We then revealed a fixed Premier League game overseen by Colquhoun in October 2008 and, five days later, I received threats which, due to the man's stupidity, were traced to his then Soho offices.
We logged evidences with police.

Five days before the hit-and-run assault, our network had outed Colquhoun as a mafia operative on materials received.
This time we were ready though - we monitored messengers and spies in the five day window.
We have most of a jigsaw puzzle completed now - from orchestrator to intermediary to operatives.

We are in a similar boat to the anti-corruption campaigner Daphne Caruana Galizia - assassinated in October 2016 for her disclosures of the mafia behaviours of Joseph Muscat (the Maltese PM) and Keith Schembri (his chief of staff and murderous intermediary).

In effect we are in a mutually assured destruction construct where our opponents have far more to lose than us, both financially and reputationally.

Stalemate.

Q9: Could you explain how Tony Bloom owning both Brighton and Hove Albion FC and the Starlizard betting syndicate creates integrity issues?

█████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████ █████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  █████ █████  ██████████  █████ █████  █████

█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████
█████  █████

█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████ █████  ██████████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  █████ █████  █████ █████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████
█████  ██████████  ██████████  ██████████  █████

█████  █████ █████  █████

█████  ██████████  █████ █████  ██████████  █████ █████  █████ █████  █████

█████  █████

Q10: VAR has been disastrous in the Premier League in England. Why?

The problem started when the pgMOB was taken over by highly inappropriate influencers.
Immediately, two structures were put in place. Firstly, the 4th Official became the dominant referee when more experienced than the man in the middle. And, secondly, some match decisions were made to the referee's earpiece from a Premier League Match Centre away from the ground - we picked up several illicit communications using bullet microphones at grounds at this time.

The EPL never wanted VAR. The control by insider traders was solid and, as with all mafia groupings, the less people involved in the crime, the better for secrecy and longevity of performance.

Even when video technology was being incorporated into the other major leagues, the Premier League resisted. When the fan view of rogue refereeing reached a certain threshold, the EPL had to yield. But they still belittled the technology with pseudo-graphics to undermine fan confidence and an initial refusal to have pitchside monitors and an eventual refusal to utilise them.

There are also massive issues of integrity over the Head of VAR being controlled by a matchfixing operative.

No other league has destroyed the image of football like the Premier League.

The standard of refereeing in the Select Groups and the officials rapidly promoted up the leagues induce a template of systemic corruption that is ruining any semblance of validity.

Only football fails in its duty to integrity in this way (oh and Indian cricket) and only the Premier League mocks to this extent in its rancid mafia criminality.

to be continued.........

© 2020 Football is Fixed

• To purchase, click on the "DONATE" button to the right of this article (for mobiles you will need to click on VIEW WEB VERSION to bring up web browser)
• The cost of the book is £20
• Two sample chapters may be purchased for £2.50
• Seven sample chapters may be purchased for £7.50
• Your support/ donation/ purchase will help the Football is Fixed Network to continue our work
• Your £20 purchase also includes a copy of the book once it is is physically published
• Each chapter will be dispatched directly to your in-box via email
• DONATIONS above and beyond the cost of the book are greatly appreciated & allow us to plan for a future of opening betting markets, whistleblowing, hacking corruption & undertaking fraud forensics

© 2020 Football is Fixed

Happy to improve my VAR overruled goals record today again 💯 damn this thing gonna kill me bro 😂😂😂 #cursedpic.twitter.com/pLSjYkLp5Z

— Raheem Sterling (@sterling7) November 23, 2019

This was the weekend when VAR was supposed to be used professionally and with integrity by the pgMOBsters who officiate our Premier League games.

Mike "Kipper" Riley, the CEO of the pgMOB, told us improvements were about to happen.
Neil "Kickback" Swarbrick, the Head of VAR, praised himself and predicted a 9/10 just around the corner.

And instead we got...
Fake VAR in favour of Liverpool, denying Palace a point.
Fake VAR removing Raheem Sterling's goal for Manchester City.
A whole collection of fake nonsense against Arsenal by Attwell of the pgMOB.
Mike Dean with his own take on reality in Brighton vs Leicester.
Bizarre interpretations of the rules by Hooper & Mason at Bournemouth vs Wolves.

In Italy's Serie A after the introduction of VAR, just one in every 20 matches had the result altered due to refereeing errors.

In the Premier League this season, nearly 30% of games have had referee/VAR-error induced fake outcomes.

When any of our network undertake consultancy work at clubs we always introduce the concept of the Real League Table - adjusted for the inputs of fake officials.

It used to offer competitive advantage but most clubs do it now - Bournemouth, for example, use it to determine the 'real' quality of the opposition as opposed to the version offered by the 'actual' league table.
It helps with tactics and strategy.

Let's see the Real League Table after 128 games (a third of the season):

1. Manchester City 13-31
2. Liverpool 13-31
3. Chelsea 13-26
4. Arsenal 13-26
5. Leicester 13-24
6. Burnley 13-21
7. Wolverhampton 13-21
8. Sheffield United 12-18
9. West Ham United 13-18
10. Tottenham 13-17
11. Bournemouth 13-17
12. Brighton 13-15
13. Everton 13-15
14. Newcastle 12-15
15. Aston Villa 12-11
16. Norwich 13-11
17. Manchester United 12-10
18. Southampton 13-10
19. Watford 13-9
20. Crystal Palace 13-7

In the top four European leagues, no leading team had been targeted as heavily as Manchester City...
... and none has been so favoured as Crystal Palace.

The League Table Always Lies.

There should be serious questions in the media about Solskjaer and Hodgson rather than the focus on pseudo-journalism elsewhere.

Riley & Swarbrick should be sacked and the police called in.

But the Premier League systemic corruption template is on borrowed time now that Arsene Wenger's new role at FIFA gives him oversight of IFAB and the rules of the game.

Kipper Riley is to meet Wenger soon and schadenfreude will be on the menu both for the stolen EPL title in 2015/16 and for all of the matchfixing against Arsenal while Wenger lit up the English game.
________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.

Strewth! - A Fixed BT Sport Televised Premier League Match Not Under BT Sport Control!

When Mourinho took Spurs to that weird grassed area where West Ham United play their home matches, there was considerable early market insider trading against the man in his first game back in the Premier League.

Patsy fools internal to BT laundered previous illicit profits onto the Hammers only to discover that Jose was entirely in control of the event.

Roberto, the West Ham United goalkeeper, is represented by Mariano Aguilar owner of the eponymous M.AG. Mr Aguilar is closely associated with Doyen Sports. Doyen Sports are very closely associated with Gestifute. And Gestifute are Mourinho's pimps - if you wish to trace this chain yourself, this article is a good place to begin  Mariano Aguilar & Doyen Sports

Roberto was poorness personified in the match letting in the three goals that killed off the game with his superficial performance deciding the outcome.

After the West Ham v Spurs game, interactions took place to discuss manners in which the systemic matchfixing template that currently underpins the Premier League might be corrupted more extensively and internally for proprietary profits in the period ahead using similar templates.

There's no loyalty between mafia thieves as they function as a fragmented cartel sharing strategies when it suits the systemic corruption overall but fighting over turf the rest of the time.

Anyway.

The discussions were between 'associates' from three gambling agents (two of whom are linked) and we understand that decisions were taken to influence the outcomes of EPL games and Championship games.

But who could those agents be?

Recipe For Corruption

Use players to corrupt events.
Influence these match outcomes to private agendas.
Generally these agendas are related to insider trading on the betting markets as, in the holistic, the amount earned from the corruption must more than offset the deterioration in market value of the player making the 'mistake', but player underperformance is used for managerial regime change too (see below).
The insider trading is carefully placed to avoid alerting the markets.
We had to work hard to detect it.

Data

To assess whether these corruptions came to pass, we need an external neutral source for the data.

So we used the data available at 'Who Scored?' to list the 'Errors leading to Goals' in the Premier League in the last four rounds of matches.

There have been 16 such errors.

Here they are with a brief description and the agent name in brackets (if we think it might be of relevance).

1. Everton v Norwich - Gylfi Sigurdsson (Stellar) mistake leading to second Norwich goal in 2-0 defeat. Who Scored? rated him the worst player on the pitch.

2. Sheffield United v Manchester United - Phil Jones (Key Sports) presents the first goal to the home team before being substituted at half time while Simon Moore (Key Sports) gifts Man Utd their third goal in a heavily matchfixed 3-3 draw. By far the two poorest players on the pitch according to Who Scored?

3. Burnley v Crystal Palace - Nick Pope (Stellar) makes error leading to opening goal with first shot on target on the stroke of half time. Lets both on-target shots in during 0-2 defeat and was the poorest player according to Who Scored?. Ben Mee was also at fault for the second goal.

4. Liverpool v Brighton - A fixed match saw red card for Alisson and an error from his replacement Adrian in a market-orientated Tony Bloom event.

5. Southampton v Watford - Jack Stephens (Stellar) is the culprit for the opening goal of the game although Southampton rebound to win anyway. Stephens was the joint lowest rated Who Scored? player.

6. Norwich City v Arsenal - Christoph Zimmermann (Unique Sports) inexplicably basketballs the ball away in Freddie Ljungberg's opening game as Arsenal manager to provide a penalty equaliser when the Gunners confidence was low. Arsenal grab a 2-2 draw.

7. Manchester United v Tottenham - Paolo Gazzaniga dived all around Marcus Rashford's 6th minute strike in 2-1 defeat.

8. Liverpool v Everton - Jordan Pickford (Stellar) took to the media ahead of this game to tell us how he was fighting for Marco Silva to keep his job as Everton manager but, according to our source, he actually was not so focused on this outcome. So when Pickford made errors and let in all 5 shots on target achieving the lowest Who Scored? EPL player rating of the season, it wasn't a surprise. Neither was the sacking of Silva the following day. Job done.

9. Sheffield United v Newcastle - In a tight game Dean Henderson (Stellar) let in the first two shots on target in 2-0 home defeat - he was the Who Scored? lowest rated player in the match.

10. Tottenham v Burnley - Nick Pope (Stellar) pontificated letting in 5 of the first six shots on target in a 0-5 defeat where he was the lowest rated Who Scored? player.

11. Norwich v Sheffield United - A mistake by Mario Vrancic led to a 2-1 defeat for the Canaries.

12. Brighton v Wolves - Another internal Bloom matchfixing event with crazy errors from Davy Propper and Rui Patricio along the way. Rumoured to be a two-for-two event but now we've announced it publicly, the return match could be anything. The job's a good 'un though.

And when you trace further back into the season, the percentage of match-changing errors made by the likes of Tyrone Mings (Key Sports), Pickford, Henderson and the like is far higher percentage-wise than should be the case - it is statistically significant.

And the template extends to the Championship.

If one takes another metric of goalkeeper performance and apply it to the Championship, the same agents stand out.

If one records the number of occasions this season that keepers concede over 60% of the shots on target in Championship games, only 7 players have achieved this feat on four or more occasions:

Randolph of Unique Sports and Middlesborough, Rudd of Stellar and Preston and Long of Key Sports and Hull City are three of them. Two others are █████ █████ █████  and another was previously represented by one of our trio.

So what?

It isn't just that over 50% of the errors have been made from players represented by the triumvirate of Stellar, Key Sports and Unique.
It isn't just that these errors were result-changing or insider trader-influenced or both.
It doesn't matter that Marco Silva lost his job due to corruptions perpetrated against his interests.
It doesn't even matter that Stellar represent all three current England goalkeepers (Pope, Pickford and Henderson).
Or that they also represent the 1st choice Scotland goalkeeper David Marshall.
Or that Stellar have signed up the 1st and 2nd choice Wales keepers while the two Irish national keepers are represented by Unique Sports and Key Sports.
It doesn't matter that this is producing proprietary matchfixing layered on top of the systemic in the Premier League and control of the outcomes of international matches.
Nor does it matter that these mistake-prone players are non-meritocratically elevated onto the international stage.
It doesn't even matter that BT Sport were patsies on their own event nor that they have lost their EPL CEO placeperson David Skipwith Pemsel for integrity violations on the fake character they created for the man.
No.
None of this fuckin' matters.

What matters is that this is the end of your sport.

Agents are matchfixing games to money launder previous winnings in order to reinvest such insider traded booty in both legal and illicit player representation (third party ownership) which produces profits that need to be laundered via future matchfixing, which is engendered by coerced players making 'mistakes' in insider traded events etc etc ad finitum - the Death Spiral of Marginally Gained Corruptions!

Unless a Labour government is elected tomorrow, football in this country is dead.

The sport will however remain a spectacle and Gary Lineker will still don underwear on Match of the Day to celebrate the landing of another systemic corruption involving Leicester City and every passing game will spiral up the histrionic scale of 'best ever', 'greatest ever', 'unbelievable' as fortunes are made out of your sport being turned into a casino.

But the match outcome will always be in certain dark pool betting markets pre-match...
... and that is the very definition of matchfixing.

That's the choice when it comes to footie.

Mafia, matchfixing, corrupt media, money laundering and misery...
... or proper regulation of agents and betting markets, the outright banning of insider trading, fan representation on club boards, a regulatory body to undermine corruption in UK football, a functioning anti-doping agency, a fruitful fit-and-proper-person test that filters out psychopathy rather than inviting it in and, most importantly, the chance for the most beautiful sport to rediscover its beauty.

FOR THE SAVING OF FOOTBALL VOTE LABOUR TOMORROW

GET JOHNSON DONE

________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.

The Name Is Dick, Dick Masters

On the day when swathes of the country congregated around a coalition of the selfish and the stupid, the Premier League chose to hide away very very bad news - the appointment of Richard Masters as the latest attempt at a chief executive.

Burying this disastrous selection process on the biggest election day in modern history was a two-fold strategy - to avoid any public attention on the actual appointment (and the farcical processes that had preceded it) and to make it an impossibility for any media to raise a shout about whether Masters is what the corrupt EPL really needs.

The systemic corruption in the Premier League became robust as soon as Masters became interim CEO.
What a weird fluke!

Mister Masters, who took over when Scudamore skedaddled away satchel secure in his grasp, has overseen the onset and implementation of the most systemically corrupt window in Premier League history (Leicester City's 2015/16 Fairy Tale aside) - underground markets know match outcomes prior to kick off and insiders are amassing vast fortunes matchfixing the events via accommodating match officials, agents and bookmakers.

Now either Masters is a) incredibly inept and blinkered to the corruptions perpetrated lower in the pyramid or b) he is a criminalised enabler of systemic matchfixing and corruption in the EPL.
If it is the former, he shouldn't be in the job...
... if it is the latter, he should be arrested.
There are no other options.

As the corruption is so glaringly systemic and the Premier League don't want anybody to notice the announcement, we assume that Master's mind, if not the mastermind, is, at the very least, aware that things are not as they should be in the integrity department.

There will be much more Dick Masters-baiting in the period ahead...

(to be continued)
__________________________________________________________________

INTERNAL DOCUMENT

Full files on Masters now on new Kerkyra server
Check it
________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.

Introduction

Our Christmas posts for 2019 focus on Manchester City, marginal gains, matchfixing, mafia and meritocracy.

We provide three disparate yet linked tales of how marginal gains undermine robust holistic advancement ensuring that a criminalised psychopathy triumphs over the public good.

The lack of meritocracy engendered by these mafia infrastructures causes a systemic long-term harm to football.

To celebrate living in the end times, we're publishing a trilogy of Christmas Carols

1) What's Going So Wrong with Manchester City and What's Going So Right for Liverpool

2) What's Going So Wrong with VAR and What's Going So Right for Insider Traders

3) What's Going So Wrong with Mafia and What's Going So Right for 5th Estate Anti-Corruption Journalists 
___________________________________________________

Marginal Gains

But first we need to address marginal gains.

Marginal gains first reached the attention of the sporting public when Team Sky cycling team pushed every input to the threshold of illegality and then beyond in order to lever a donkey and other dopers onto victory podia across France and other accommodating countries.

This systemic corruption destroyed the legacy of Team Skydespite the victories.
No matter how much controlled media told us wonderful fairy tales about Wiggins and Froome, nobody actually believed them - it was a fake reality ensconced in history and is now accepted as such.

No glory there.

The change of name to Team INEOS doesn't work either - the perception remains that INEOS continue to be doped up athletes with secreted motors utilising illegal marginal gains.

So the deal is that you trade wealth for credibility.
You sell out.

In late capitalism, every market sector evolves to maturity usually in the form of a cartel, a monopoly or duopoly or another mafia template of some sort.
Although these sectoral structures come together to work towards mutually beneficial defence e.g. against onerous regulation, these edifices fragment and fight over turf for the remainder of the time.

In mature market sectors there is little likelihood of game-changing inputs - there is a low probability that one of the Big Four accounting firms is going to develop an entirely new business model, for example.
So, there's a whole bunch of people out there who perceive that marginal gains are the only way to gain edge in mature markets.

(Of course, creative thinking would be a better provider of unique competitive edge but there is minimal creativity in psychopathic structures and individuals.)

So, in football, there is a battle going on between the Gestifute grouping of agents and the Stellar/ Key Sports/ Unique/ Base family of operators.
Although agents of the world unite when intermediaries are threatened with some limitation on their leeching from the sport, the world for agents is in a state of permanent war.

To gain edge, excessive marginal gains are enacted - matchfixing games, third party ownership of players, takeover of media, insider trading, money laundering & tax evasion, coercion of match officials and players, control of institutions, systemic doping and mafia violence.

But marginal gains only work up to the threshold of a sweet spot thereafter being psychopathic, revealing and self-harming.

Each successful implementation of a marginal gain by one agent grouping against another exposes information on the crimes at play.

An agent could be legitimate and earn his 15%.
An agent might realise that if one of his clients kicked the ball straight out of play from the kick off, he could sell 'Time of 1st Throw-In' on the spread markets and be quids in.
An agent might reckon that if he started representing more goalkeepers, he could 'persuade' them to let in goals, particularly if such goals are scored by other clients in the stable.
An agent might start betting on knowledge of this insider corruption.
An agent might recognise that you need more match control to take more betting market control and reach agreements with several PGMOB match officials.
An agent might come across other entities trying to achieve the same corruptions and seek to develop networks to offset enemies - here a number of agents would work together to fix games.
An agent might understand that 5th Estate anti-corruption investigative journalists are on his case and start seeking to disguise his corruption matrices. So, third party ownership of players and setting up satellite agencies allows greater but more opaque control of the field of play.
An agent might seek to cement betting market control by linking with numerous doping entities in the underworld.
An agent might want to take control of international teams by levering in managers and using kickbacks as a lubrication to get his often underperforming clients selected to play for their country.
An agent needs to start paying under-the-table brown envelopes to mafia entities to launder their processes in the black market. Meanwhile, the UK state and its offshore dominions offer crime secretion and tax evasion for monies from the grey and white markets.
An agent might feel limited by the volume that he can safely trade on the events that he is matchfixing and so become a part of a larger betting entity, established solely for the purpose of matchfixing and cornering global markets against peripheral patsies.
An agent might comprehend that the illicit wealth being created in a not-very-subtle-stylish-nor-discreet manner is becoming public knowledge via leaks, hacks and 5th Estate journalism and sign deals to transform mainstream media output into a suppression of corruption realities and an advertorial for those very entities that are orchestrating this corruption.
An agent might develop a cartel of clubs in the upper leagues for enhanced matchfixing, the control of league promotion and relegation and the promotion of clients.
An agent will quickly come to find that managerial change at clubs outside the cartel strengthens his power base and provides matchfixing opportunities as well.
An agent might seek to make his criminalised template systemic by taking over the institutions of power - starting small with taking over referee selection, then moving larger and seeking to take over the entire Premier League.
An agent might create spectacles to demonstrate his mafia control of the corruptions in British football - perhaps a 9-0 away win live on the telly where one of his clients scores a hat-trick.
An agent might start seeking enhanced reputation management and a legacy and a burying of the murky past.
An agent, as part of burying that past, might seek to 'remove' those who know-too-much.
An agent might develop a God Complex.

Once this agent started on his path, this conclusion was an inevitability.
If he hadn't perpetrated the corruptions, someone else would and power would have shifted in the game.
That's the issue here - absolute power requires absolute psychopathy.
But marginal gains is a self-harming psychopathy that reveals corruptions to observers.

And this is where marginal gains falls down.

An agent is featured in all 3 of the Christmas tales below...
________________________________________________________________________

What's Going So Wrong with Manchester City and What's Going So Right for Liverpool

An agent could become involved in creating cartels of teams for result manipulation, insider trading, client promotion and systemic corruption, so he could...

We have exclusively detailed the systemic corruption underpinning the improvement in the fortunes of Liverpool FC in other places - see  Lizards, Lacertae & Liverpool  - this template features the cartelised treatment of other clubs, the control of some PGMOB officials, insider trading and matchfixing...

In season 2019/20, these corruptions have inflated with four more teams liaising directly over match outcomes and several more match officials added to the corruption roster.

The biases against Manchester City and in favour of Liverpool via the mis-application of VAR represents a systemic crime.

We saw in the World Club Cup Final how a legitimate non-fraudulent referee deals with VAR - Abdulrahman Al Jassim is in a different class to the mafia-linked operatives presented to us by the PGMOB.

But the response to corruption in a competitive marketplace has to be holistic, robust and analytically astute and Manchester City have not stepped up to the mark.

The initial business model at Manchester City was simple but enlightening - sovereign wealth + meritocracy = growth + expansion.
And for a number of years this worked. Wonderfully.

But the weakness was in the structure.
Private fiefdoms became established in the club (particularly within the self-harming entity that is Manchester City Analytics) and bottlenecks of inefficiency developed at key communication points while numerous individuals surfed their performance protecting their mortgages and private school financing while adding little to the overall project.

The evolution of these fiefdoms has entirely undermined the club.
Meritocracy has been trumped by mediocrity.
Good people are leaving and others (like the Football is Fixed Network) are not willing to get involved - we refuse to work with any entity that leaks and withdraw immediately in such instance (as we did with City).

Leading people in Manchester City Analytics have been sacked recently following our disclosures of deliberate leakage of proprietary analytics to Liverpool (via a mafia-influenced route) and absolute poverty of performance in assessing corruptions being perpetrated against Manchester City's interests. City have lost Sancho and the 2019/20 Premier League title because of Manchester City Analytics - the entire entity needs disbanding and rebuilding more professionally.

And when Manchester City do raise a point with the EPL, it is peripheral to a strong argument.
So Guardiola correctly complained about the fixture scheduling over the xmas window but the entire fixture list is game theorised to the benefit of the Liverpool cartel of teams - last Saturday saw four EPL games entirely controlled results-wise and in the global betting markets by the participating teams - that isn't sport, that is a gambling scam.

Manchester City also leaks like a sieve. We know of 8 individuals (including three players) who do not have Manchester City's best interests at heart either deliberately by batting for the other side or via inefficiencies and stupidities undermining the operation.
And this has impact.

With one player who repeatedly underplays his professional hand, the knowledge is in South East Asian betting markets pre-match - and, before kick off, we all know if he is going to have a Timeform squiggle next to his name.

Another example - Oxbridge educated Vicky Kloss is Chief Communications Officer at the club.
Yet on foreign trips she is the biggest source of cybersecurity weakness in the entire enterprise as she repeatedly flouts internal security rules and standards.
A rogue operator could hack into City via targeting Ms Kloss.
And she used to work for the police!!!
Cybersecure she is not.

But the real issues lie not with shoddy professionalism or poor infrastructure but with the gambling mafia who are destroying football for betting market and other financial gains.

These systemic corruptions have impacts beyond league titles.
Player careers are destroyed or enhanced by mafia.
Matchfixing is routine.
Managers like Guardiola, Wenger, Mourinho, Silva, Emery and any others associated in any way with Gestifute are targeted by pgMOBsters to change our realities.

Guardiola will eventually give up on accepting the corruption in the Premier League.
Arteta has gone and Pep's wife and family are spending more time in Catalonia.
And there is little point continuing in an obviously corrupted league.

City could have protected themselves against the LiverpoolCorruption Juggernaut...
... but the club's infrastructure and rogue individuals within it prevented any defence.

Blue Moon setting...?
__________________________________________________

What's Going So Wrong with VAR and What's Going So Right for Insider Traders

An agent might secure psychopathic control over in-play refereeing decisions by owning the Head of VAR, so he might...

It isn't just that the introduction of VAR into the Premier League has been flawed in the extreme, it is that the modes in which the technology is failing suggest deliberate chaos to the benefit of insider traders on the global betting markets.

We have stated elsewhere about the deficiencies in the PGMOB's version of VAR - see  VARcical  - and the fact that when VAR was introduced in Italy's Serie A match outcomes altered by referee error fell to 5% of games whereas in the Premier League the figure hovers around 25%.

One in 4 games...

But the systemic nature of the decision-making is the fraudulent issue - with certain match officials (either as referee or in the Stockley Park VAR centre), the decisions are positively correlated with insider trading patterns in the markets. This occurs at statistically significant levels.

This corruption utilises marginal gains which is what reveals their criminalised processes - greed = discovery.
Stockley Park is also not cybersecure. This is a disaster waiting to happen and stuff has already been posted on the dark web via leakage.

When control of the VAR decision-making processes are in-house then exerting further match control via coercion or persuasion of clients to perform appropriately on the field of play presents a very strong hand to an agent.

The final corrupt nail in this coffin is the control of the referee selection process, both on a game-by-game basis and also in which officials get promoted to the Select Group on the PGMOB.

As one individual agent exerts psychopathic control over all three of these arenas, we have systemic corruption.

All of this indicates matchfixing.

And yet VAR could be near to 100% perfect.

There are several technologies out there to make it so, the most interesting of which is Sportable.

If players and the ball have proprietary sensors then it is possible at any time to determine the sequences of ball and player contact, absolutely confirming whether a foul has been committed or not.
A smart ball will be able to monitor other rules too.
Furthermore, the technology is markedly more accurate than the GPS systems currently in use allowing more accurate player analytics.

You could remove the human from the process which, with the PGMOB monstrosity as the other option, is definitely preferable.

Sportable is available now.
Why would an agent choose to maintain the current corrupted template when a near-perfect alternative exists?

We're hoping that Arsene Wenger pushes for this new technology in his new rule as global head of football integrity.
Pressure Riley and pressure Swarbrick.
Make the mafia squeak.__________________________________________________

What's Going So Wrong with Mafia and What's Going So Right for 5th Estate Anti-Corruption Journalists

An agent might elect to evolve into a mafia man, if he so wishes...

The Economist: "In 1944 Raymond Chandler described the ideal character of a fictional private eye as a man comfortable on mean streets, but "who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid." He is:
"... a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character, or he would not know his job. He will take no man's money dishonestly and no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man."

In recent times, there have been an array of crimes both particular and systemic worldwide targeting anti-corruption journalists and organisations.
There is a battle for truth.
Power doesn't deal too well with truth.

Nino di Matteo (anti-mafia Sicilian magistrate): "We live in a mafia state - a state that, in order to preserve the status quo, has to remove whistleblowers who want justice. We want to know the reason for the silence of the mainstream media - why are they frightened to the degree they become accomplices in (and beneficiaries of) the corruption. We must rebel against this system and this mafia method."

When the government of Joseph Muscat, the prime minister of Malta (for now), orchestrated the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia for her anti-corruption disclosures of all facets of corruption on the crime island particularly the money laundering schemes involving Muscat, his chief of mafia staff Keith Schembri and the high-flying psychopath Yorgen Fenech.

The mafia state of Malta was so confident in its psychopathic veil that Neville Gafa (from the PM's office) followed Daphne around the day prior to her murder photographing her and all protests for a real inquiry into the death fell on stony mafia ground.

But just over two years on and the castle has crumbled.
Some of the orchestrators of this horrific murder of a brave anti-corruption activist will soon rot in a Maltese prison.

The campaign for justice is won.

Daphne Caruana Galizia's last quote before the car bombing: "There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate."

Four months after Caruana Galizia was killed, Jan Kuciak and his partner Martina Kusnirova were murdered by mafia in Slovakia for Jan's anti-corruption investigations and journalism. We outed Marian Kocner as the prime suspect immediately and, following the resignation of the prime minister, a team of 82 police officers eventually gathered enough evidence to arrest Kocner.
When Jamal Khashoggi was brutally tortured and murdered by Saudi representatives in Turkey, the route back from perpetrators-to-intermediaries-to-orchestrator led right to the palace of Prince Salman. Even at this elevated level of global elite, there have been impacts. Salman has been ostracised by numerous global entities and the western investment banking community pulled any interest in the IPO of Saudi Aramco which had to be force fed to dutiful Saudi citizenry to be made worthwhile.

There are numerous other examples, the most obvious of which is the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange by the UK and British rogue states for the crime of exposing the historical war crimes of those very states.

The Wikileaks Theory of Change (2006): “Where details are known as to the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, we see conspiratorial interactions among the political elite, not merely for preferment or favour within the regime, but as the primary planning methodology behind maintaining or strengthening authoritarian power. Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realisation. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behaviour as conspiratorial.”

But.
And it is a very big but...

The public weight is very firmly on the side of justice.
State Mafia and/or Mafia, whether emanating from Saudi Arabia, Malta, Slovakia, Brighton or Stirling are all in the same boat.
Their crimes are visible and the stories are already written.
Justice will be served.

And.

By confronting the haak ging, we renovate.
We are leaderless, anonymous and comfortable with violence.

"And the ball has never been more in our court.

And, talking of court...
... if we burn, you burn with us."



                                             Fifty Shades of Snuff - Ceramic Hobs

                                                            RIP Simon Morris
________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.


© Football is Fixed 2006-2019

                               A DOZEN CRACKERS FOR CHRISTMAS                                           

Livarpool Livarpool Livarpool, Livarpool Livarpool Livarpooool, Livarpool Livarpool Livarpool, Livarpoooool Livarpool

As VAR lands another fake win for Livarpool v Wolves, one has to wonder why we bother.
Why any of us bother.

They had a golden goose and then Scudamore sold it to the mafia.

It's like greyhound racing...
... it's gone to the dogs.

AuldFirm Corruption

Q: Why is a football agent very closely linked to Celtic aiding Rangers in the SPFL title race?

A: We're assuming Peter Lawwell is aware of this. If so, why allow it?

How does this improve the share price?

How does this show respect to the fan base?

This internalised nonsense will cost the club a whole lot more than a few fucking Green Brigade flares...

Meanwhile Celtic penalty misser Ryan Christie and the Rangers keeper who saved it Allan McGregor are both represented by the same agent - Pro Legal...
... which, considering the visuals of this soft penalty has to be of note.

Fortunately, Charlie Christie (the player's father) has announced that his son will "bounce back" from handing Rangers the title.

Sportable

Replace Stockley Park staff and technology with Sportable Technologies  SPORTABLE TECH.
It's quick and 100% accurate and cannot be controlled by mafia (without a mafia takeover of the Sportable company - currently being explored by BT Sport).

VAR, on the other hand, is manipulated by mafia entities to suit the trading of those very same entities.

We guess in the end that the likes of BT Sport will buy Sportable and we'll simply be left with a higher grade of corruption.

But, for the moment, Sportable has the potential of being a major improvement in integrity.

However.

Never forget.

VAR works.

PGMOBsters don't.

The League Table Always Lies - Real EPL Table at the Halfway Stage (Prior to Dec 28th)

Manchester United sit 5th...
... they should be 14th and Solskjaer sacked.

Man City should be within 5 points of Liverpool and a title race on...
... but the pgMOBsters have signed for the Scousers.

Leicester are nowhere near as good as their doping makes them look...
... interestingly all but one of the 7 players who had been sporting illegal arm coverings during the doping window were absent or on the substitute bench at West Ham yesterday - Vardy and Barnes (Key Sports), Maddison (Base), Chilwell (Stellar), Pereira (Gestifute) and Ndidi.

Hodgson should have been sacked long ago at Palace...
... his incompetence is taking a lot of corruption to hide.

And the sackings of Pellegrino, Emery and Silva were beyond harsh - Everton would have been better sacking Jordan Pickford the Stellar non-trier.

The Real non-corrupted EPL table is below with the numbers in parentheses representing the points differential with the corrupted version.

1. Liverpool 46 (-6)
2. Man City 41 (+3)
3. Leicester 32 (-7)
4. Wolves 31 (+1)
5. Arsenal 30 (+6)
6. Spurs 30 (+1)
7. Chelsea 29 (-3)
8. Sheff Utd 26 (-3)
9. West Ham 25 (+6)
10. Burnley 24 (0)
11. Everton 22 (0)
12. Newcastle 22 (-3)
13. Bournemouth 21 (+1)
14. Man Utd 19 (-9)
15. Brighton 19 (-1)
16. Southampton 19 (0)
17. Aston Villa 18 (0)
18. Crystal Palace 15 (-11)
19. Norwich 15 (+3)
20. Watford 15 (+2)

15:00 EPL Games on Saturday December 28th

Yesterday there were three 15:00 kick off matches in the Premier League...
... they were all matchfixing events controlled by █████ agents.
'Mistakes' by Grealish, Konsa, Carroll and Kelly decided the 3 games - the first three are Stellar clients while the latter has recently moved from Stellar to associated agents Wasserman.

Meanwhile Unique Sports and offshoots controlled the outcome of Norwich vs Spurs.

Corrupted Management

Only in a league as corrupted as the EPL would the likes of  Javier Gracia and Sanchez Flores be succeeded by a Nigel Pearson, or Manuel Pellegrini be replaced by either of the clueless corrupted buffoons Tony "unexplained wealth" Pulis or David "private jet" Moyes.

As Moyes has been appointed, the club owners should secrete any key documents to avoid leakages.

The systemic corruption template requires acquiescent individuals at managerial level - the lack of quality in managerial appointments can be offset by the future criminalised input from dodgy referees and coerced players.
Poor quality inflated by corruption, the English way.

Marriner & Manchester City

The heavily abused Manchester City are experiencing a run of 12 games where Andre Marriner has been referee, 4th official or VAR official at 8 of them.
8 out of 12 games?!?
This is not normal...
... but, then again, most leagues don't select referees to mafia templates which produces bizarre stats.

INTERNAL DOCUMENT - Third Party Ownership

Who owns all these TPO players coming out of Ireland?

See Kerkyra Server 2.0 for database

Fake Guardian - Fake 'Journalism'

It isn't just the links between Guardian journalists and mafia entities...
It isn't the fake news on football and VAR corruption...
Or the desperate attempt to get the Guardian newspaper's compromised CEO implanted as equivalent at the EPL (where he would have been well suited as he has the integrity and morals of a nazi)...
It isn't just the abuse of any and all 5th Estate investigative journalists by this pseudo newspaper...

It is the little things...
... like when the Guardian's Will Unwin is doing a minute-by-minute (MBM) football match report for the paper based on Sky TV studio output whilst he is getting sloshed at his friend's house.

So all these bourgeoisie Guardianista Marina Hyde heroine-worshippers are getting off on and responding by email to a Guardian journalist who is reporting on the game but can't see it!
He is simply reporting what other people are seeing...
... and getting paid for it whilst getting pissed!?

No visuals, no unique input, just fake output to earn a wage.

The new Guardian media model...
... no news, but superb corruption facilitation and wall-to-wall fake news.

And somebody should check upon whether the Guardian's Louise Taylor really exists or whether she is just the figment of the imagination of the mafia man football agent who oversees the Guardian football.

And Marina Hyde used to shag Piers Morgan.
Ewwwwwww!!

Ho Ho Ho!

9 shots on target and 9 goals in the incredibly legitimate Championship game between Birmingham and Leeds - what is it with goalkeepers in this league?
They have the most dubious shot on target:goal ratio of any league, have known criminalised agents or are third party owned and the darnedest correlation between betting markets and performance exists in game after game in the Sky Bet Championship....??

Moneyball

The implementation of a Moneyball strategy at a club requires lateral thinking and flare.

A corrupt individual introduced Moneyball to Barnsley...
... Barnsley are second bottom in the Championship.

MOTD

The doubled up input of Lineker and Murphy squashes any unfortunate visuals associated with refereeing decisions or player 'errors' creating secreted insider trading on the games.

A pair of black market characters at the BBC.
Who'd have thought it?

________________________________________________________________________

The Football is Fixed Network is unique.
We are in a niche of one.
We have no competitors.
________________________________________________________________________

If you have any information to contribute to Football is Fixed, please contact Ojo del Toro in complete confidence via Direct Message @footballisfixed. You can do so anonymously, but if you use your real name you can rest assured that this website operates a blanket policy of non-disclosure and does not cooperate with requests for details from the authorities or individuals.


© Football is Fixed 2006-2019

Bon any nou

An Nou Fericit

Athbhliain faoi mhaise

Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku

Ευτυχισμένο το νέο έτος

Feliz año nuevo

Gëzuar Vitin e Ri

Bonne année

שנה טובה

Is-Sena t-Tajba

С новым годом

Felice anno nuovo

Urte berri on

Hyvää uutta vuotta

Feliz Ano Novo

... a Happy New Year to the Football is Fixed Network and All Who Sail In Her

© Football is Fixed 2006-2020