Conceding a throw-in in the first minute vs losing a match. It's quite different isn't it? The former shouldn't affect anything apart from whether you win the bet (assuming they don't score from the throw-in). The latter has all sorts of knock-on potential. Is it illegal? I'm not sure, its a bit like insider trading and I'm sure that never happens.
It was 14 years ago and he failed to even win the bet so either way I think its a pointless investigation if there is one ongoing.
No he bet that something which may or may not happen, would happen, then tried to make it happen. As it turned out he failed. The Spreadbetting firm could have and very nearly did make £s from it. If they had have made £s I dont think Le Tissier could have asked for his money back by saying the game was "rigged" so the bet shouldnt stand, it works both ways. A bet is a bet. It may or may not happen. And one of you obviously thinks you know more about it than the other one or you wouldnt place the bet. That bet could have won, it could have lost, thats gambling for you.
If every player in the pitch all knew about it and delibrately made it win, then that is different. An effort to do something on your own im not so sure about.
Regardless there is much more important things for the police to be doing. Any time/effort put into this I resent as it is all for no actual good to anyone. Investigate Harry Redknap for his "Next Managers Job" swindles and who knows what else if you are going down that road, but even that is still a waste of my taxes.
Well you could argue a cricketer who deliberately got out was just betting on something that would happen. Or a goalkeeper let a load of goals in because he bet losing the match was just something that would happen.
If it was legal every match where you could bet on it would start with a massive pitched battle with players who bet on keeping the ball in versus whoever bet on the ball going out.
You want to know that outcomes that you bet on are not being influenced unfairly.