Ivan Toney (now playing for Brentford)

[LFEE]

1 hour ago, tgarve said:

Trippier didn’t bet on it 

 

he told his friends he was moving to atletico then they did 

 

Completely different incidents 

Also was nothing effecting results in game etc. It was just a heads up to mates on a possible transfer. Not sure if he should’ve got charged for anything TBH. More fool the bookies with that particular betting market.

[jack j]

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

Toney will know the best odds going 

Aye i'll set them up

[Guest]

Ivan Benjamin Elijah Toney

 

 

Lolz 

 

 

 

 

 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, LFEE said:

Also was nothing effecting results in game etc. It was just a heads up to mates on a possible transfer. Not sure if he should’ve got charged for anything TBH. More fool the bookies with that particular betting market.

 

Well he got charged and served a 10 game ban, which is quite a hefty punishment. Didn't he have legal representation to protest that it was never anything serious?

 

 

[Manxst]

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Well he got charged and served a 10 game ban, which is quite a hefty punishment. Didn't he have legal representation to protest that it was never anything serious?

 

 

Also got a £70k fine. He claimed at the time that the messages to his mates were just ‘banter’, but the disciplinary committee found otherwise and him guilty of four breaches of a rule which prevents players from providing information to others on their position which is not available in public at the time. It might’ve just been a ‘heads up’ to mates, but it’s still a transgression of regulations and he was daft for doing it. 

[Wullie]

Daniel Sturridge did the same as Trippier and then ended up not moving, bet his mates were delighted.

[Hovagod]

So because we don’t want grasping parasites to lose a minuscule percentage of their hoardings, people aren’t allowed to tell their mates about a new job?

[Dandy Man]

Trippier had supposedly sent messages telling his mates that he was going to Atletico and they could "lump on". Whether or not he should have faced any sanction is debatable but it is inside information that was clearly provable in via messages so it is probably fair enough. Still think it's only the careless/stupid that get pulled up on these things and any player who even makes half an effort to not get caught won't get caught - unless it is actual fixing and there is a ton of money going down in obscure markets that would obviously raise some red flags (proving any direct connection would be another matter though).

[Manxst]

12 minutes ago, Hovagod said:

So because we don’t want grasping parasites to lose a minuscule percentage of their hoardings, people aren’t allowed to tell their mates about a new job?

Not if it’s against regulations that you’ve signed up to abide by, no. Just keep your mouth shut for a week or two. Surely the £100k a week wage would be a sufficient incentive? 

[Guest]

To be honest I think that sort of thing should be fair game. If bookies are going to give markets for that sort of thing then they should take the hits as well as the billions they make from people.

 

Things like Toney getting himself sent-off though where it's impacting the sport and game is different.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Optimistic Nut

[joeyt]

Football's relationship with gambling surely needs looking at. Nearly every club (including Brentford themselves) are sponsored by a gambling company

[Mazzy]

Looking at what Tripper did and what he got given as punishment then you'd hope Toney gets a longer ban. If anything I'd say, ban him from playing for the rest of the current season,  whack a fine on him and call it done.

[The College Dropout]

Trippier's ban was so short because they wanted him to play in some crucial games for England iirc. It's all FA type bans iirc.

 

Could be totally wrong.

[RodneyCisse]

There’s a few videos popping up now of him doing dodgy stuff prior to him “quitting” betting.

 

One where he handballed off the line to be sent off and also a sending off in the 95th min when Brentford were 1-0 up.

[Ste]

I have a sneaky suspicion it's bookies that have lost money that are the ones who report this stuff to the authorities.

 

Silly boy. Seems that he wasn't betting on games he was involved in, but rules are rules. I think gambling in general is something that needs to be looked at in serious depth.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Football is intimately connected with the gambling industry, sadly. They definitely should ban gambling sponsors for a start. 

[The Bonk]

Looks like they were trying to, @AyeDubbleYoo: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12645911/premier-league-seeks-clubs-backing-for-gambling-sponsor-ban

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

That was only so Government dont legislate for it themselves. Think they tried to get general PL agreement that they would have no more front shirt sponsors for gambling firms and allow existing deals to run to 24/25. But Id imagine there would still be sleeve sponsors allowed, stadium sponsors etc.

 

It should be legislated for imo. Ban it from kits and stadium advertising. 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Super Duper Branko Strupar

[The Bonk]

Surprised it's not treated with the same scrutiny tobacco companies are. 

[Wullie]

3 hours ago, Mazzy said:

Looking at what Tripper did and what he got given as punishment then you'd hope Toney gets a longer ban. If anything I'd say, ban him from playing for the rest of the current season,  whack a fine on him and call it done.

 

Have I missed something? Are there details about what Toney has supposedly been betting on that I'm not aware of that would warrant a season ban? We know that Trippier gave inside information and encouraged his friends to profit from it - I share the view that if the bookies are going to use their own inside information to price bets like transfers, then fuck them if someone takes advantage the other way, but that's not the rules.

 

It's impossible to speculate on Toney without knowing exactly what he's done. The spectrum of wrongdoing for a footballer gambling on football is extremely broad and the number of bets he placed tells you absolutely nothing in isolation.

 

If he's been putting a hundred quid on an 1000/1 acca every weekend or having a punt on Spanish yellow cards, how on Earth would that warrant a longer ban than Trippier? 

[swebat]

Yeah... no... see, that's the only time you can speculate. If you know exactly, then it's just facts... </pedantic>

[joeyt]

 

He's been pictured today in the tabloids partying with Rolando Aarons. Nice to see our former players still being mates

[Manxst]

39 minutes ago, Wullie said:

If he's been putting a hundred quid on an 1000/1 acca every weekend or having a punt on Spanish yellow cards, how on Earth would that warrant a longer ban than Trippier? 

Because at a base level, Trippier breached the regulations 4 times, and Toney has (potentially) breached 232 times? I’d presume that alone would warrant a higher punishment? Maybe? 

[gazza ladra]

7 hours ago, OCOCOL said:

why if I may ask? It’s a legitimate leisure pursuit and as the US have proved in the past prohibiting stuff that has a public demand rarely minimises the societal harm. Far better to regulate imho.

 

fwiw I’ll declare I have skin in the game as I work in the online gambling industry. 

RE: Prohibiting stuff rarely minimizes societal harm. I disagree. We don’t allow usury, Ponzi schemes, or heroin  There’s a lot of practices that we rightly ban. I don’t agree that such laws rarely benefit society. Prohibition is an obvious and egregious counter example. 

 

There is no public demand for online sports betting in California. The ballot initiative went down hard. We do have horse racing, card rooms, state lotteries, and gaming on American Indian casinos. Also we’re close enough to Nevada for Reno or Vegas to be cheap weekend trips.   I have never lived in a culture where online betting is a thing. I don’t see any benefits. 

[Wullie]

1 hour ago, Manxst said:

Because at a base level, Trippier breached the regulations 4 times, and Toney has (potentially) breached 232 times? I’d presume that alone would warrant a higher punishment? Maybe? 

 

Something like this though, punishment should be about how serious an individual breach of the rules is, not how many times a rule is breached. 

 

Does anybody really care if he's, for example, put 232 accumulators on over a number of years? Anything more than a couple of games and a fine would be ludicrously disproportionate in that instance. He could be putting a quid on at a time for all we know.