Match and Spot-Fixing - a Great Cricket Scandal!

How do sussex benefit from reproducing a public ECB report that has been widely covered in the press? Surely not knowing all the evidence or the eventual findings from the charges they would be wise to say nothing at all, other that to reiterate that they are co operating fully with the re opened investigation.?

Something like this perhaps?Club Statement

Sussex County Cricket Club is naturally extremely disappointed with the allegations surrounding the actions of Lou Vincent and Naveed Arif Gondal.
Sussex have worked very closely and co-operated with the ECB Anti-Corruption unit to help establish the facts of what occurred in the two limited overs matches during 2011 and will continue to do so.
We believe that the education available to players and staff and the controls that have been put in place by the ECB and the Professional Cricketers’ Association put our game in a good position as we move forward.
The Club will be making no further comment on this subject at this time.

On Edit: borderman got in while I was typing, but I think this is what TC had in mind. Thank goodness they have said something.

Yep - thank goodness they've said something. As I've said previously I disagree that education is anything other than part of the solution and a firmer basis for enforcing rules on reporting approaches.

In terms of rumour and speculation the main bone of contention around how this came to light is in the public domain and was reported by the press - namely that according to Vincent a player that negotiated upwards his price to 50k, then declined the offer and subsequently reported his colleagues. As I've said failure to report an approach wasn't a code of conduct offense at that point but it still matters in terms of how Sussex dealt with issues that season, the 2012 statement and I'd argue is a fair topic of discussion.

In terms of the 2012 statement I agree on its grudging nature (well done Ed Hawkins) but I'd also suggest it was very unwise especially if one of the players had not only reported he'd been approached but also reported his team mates had accepted money. I also wonder what the answer would have been if a journo had asked Sussex in 2012 if they'd released Arif on purely cricketing grounds.

Other areas of speculation have been linked to separately (e.g. the betfair thread). I have raised a concern here about the Surrey Sussex 2011 game at Whitgift from my own contemporary experience of watching that game but have not repeated the specific allegations made elsewhere against players.

None of that should stop the discussion here about how the club has handled the situation and aftermath - it was precisely that attitude that was taken last time round. We are a club that has been known to have been involved in a minimum of two fixed games in the recent past - I will still enjoy going to the games this season but I expect the club to behave in a proper manor and learn from the Essex debacle.

Is it possible the player said to have negotiated £50,000 to take part in a fix, then backed out, was only doing so to flush Vincent out?

Who knows, Mrs D? I'm getting to the point where I'm getting confused with the sheer volume of information coming out.

We know of 3 matches that are "suspicious": Surrey v Sussex, Sussex v Lancs, Sussex v Kent. Have I missed any?

We have heard 3 scenarios:

1. Sussex player throws a 'party' to celebrate successful fix.
2. Sussex player declares that he backed out of fix.
3. Sussex player complains afterwards that he realised the match was fixed. (is this the same as 2 above?)

Can anyone match the scenarios to the individual matches?

For those that are keeping score Vincent will also face cricket board charges for fixing at the Twenty20 Champions League in 2011 and 2012.