Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if Ivan Toney betted on teams he played for at the time he played for them?

 

I cant lie, I find it moraly wrong if Tonali is guilty of betting on Milan while playing for them, it's basically match fixing.

 

He's admitted to addiction, but, you can be addicted to gambling without betting on your own team, gambling is the addiction, not influencing the outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gbandit said:

As is the case with almost any case that’s played out in the media, we have no way of knowing whether he is genuinely addicted or not. I read that something that said he’d racked up major debts which obviously is addictive behaviour. However, who the fuck can trust anything nowadays in the age of “clicks for cash”.

 

All we can do as a club and fan base is try and support him and he needs to do everything in his power to make good on this. The motivation for him should be that hes still young and sorting this out now before it gets worse is the best thing that could happen to him. He has to see it in a positive way even if it feels overwhelmingly negative 

This

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

Does anyone know if Ivan Toney betted on teams he played for at the time he played for them?

 

I cant lie, I find it moraly wrong if Tonali is guilty of betting on Milan while playing for them, it's basically match fixing.

 

He's admitted to addiction, but, you can be addicted to gambling without betting on your own team, gambling is the addiction, not influencing the outcome?

If he’s betting on them to win it’s not really match-fixing is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that he needs support from the club and counselling for his addiction, the idea that anyone should sympathise with him or treat him like some kind of poor victim is completely wrong for me. 

He needs to be held fully accountable for his wrongdoings, which are going to have a severe impact on the club, and face some kind of consequences accordingly. Not be patted on the back and made to feel like its just mental health struggles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Aye, I mean we signed the captain of Ajax under Mike Ashley, it's not beyond possibility we'd be able to sign the captain of Milan at our peak. :lol:

 

I dont think thats in question, its more why were they prepared to sell him not how come we were able to buy him. Remember Milanista's absolute unquestionable confidence that no way would they want to sell him. There was never a proper explanation for why they did. This is the most plausible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry 209 said:

Whilst I agree that he needs support from the club and counselling for his addiction, the idea that anyone should sympathise with him or treat him like some kind of poor victim is completely wrong for me. 

He needs to be held fully accountable for his wrongdoings, which are going to have a severe impact on the club, and face some kind of consequences accordingly. Not be patted on the back and made to feel like its just mental health struggles. 

Here, here look at poor Harry Palmer slipped on a mince pie and his career was over, didn’t see anything like this level of sympathy for him at the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

You started it ?

 

The only thing any club can do is insert clauses in both the players contract AND the selling club's invoice for recompense of anything comes to light that, subsequently costs. 

The former won't sign and the latter won't agree. 

The only thing left is phone tapping and/or hacking into their wifi

Complete bollocks, unsure as to why you're pretending, don't care any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules about players betting on games is ridiculous, someone playing for Gateshead should be allowed to bet on the Champions League final, but betting on your own team is just brain dead.


Brighton and Brentford being owned by people who make all their money through betting syndicates and Stoke being owned by people who run bet365 shows how much the FA/Premier League really care about gambling in the game though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Adam P said:

 

I dont think thats in question, its more why were they prepared to sell him not how come we were able to buy him. Remember Milanista's absolute unquestionable confidence that no way would they want to sell him. There was never a proper explanation for why they did. This is the most plausible. 

 

How we could sign a player, and why the selling club would sell him, are the same thing though. Every signing could be subject to a doubt over why a player was sold. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Harry 209 said:

Whilst I agree that he needs support from the club and counselling for his addiction, the idea that anyone should sympathise with him or treat him like some kind of poor victim is completely wrong for me. 

He needs to be held fully accountable for his wrongdoings, which are going to have a severe impact on the club, and face some kind of consequences accordingly. Not be patted on the back and made to feel like its just mental health struggles. 

 

Yep. If he has a gambling addiction then he's a bit of a tit but that's his problem and he should get help. Anyone who's that daft clearly needs it. The problem it's not just his personal anguish, he's fucked us over as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he bet on Milan he's lucky it's only a year or less. It's irrelevant whether it was all to win. He's privy to insider information, he could be betting under only certain conditions, and it could lead to other bets to make up for debts. Debts could of course eventually lead to match fixing or even just the appearance of it. It's a slippery slope. Given the history in Italy I'm surprised they don't have harsher penalties to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

How we could sign a player, and why the selling club would sell him, are the same thing though. Every signing could be subject to a doubt over why a player was sold. 

 

With all due respect, i dont think they are the same thing at all. Transfers happen when the venn diagrams overlap. Proposing that Milan's motivations to sell Tonali dont add up, that their awareness of Tonali's involvement in betting through the Fagioli case and the supposition that Milan could therefore have been informally aware of a preliminary investigation before the summer does not in any way overlap with our ability to persuade someone of his stature to come. My point is merely that it is perfectly plausible that Milan did know. I have seen quite a few people dismiss this and it strikes me as utterly baffling that this would be considered implausible. If someone tells me that the FIGC were investigating Fagioli before the summer then i'd put money on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if this debacle prompts betting offense specific penalty/termination clauses in contracts to become basically mandatory, instead of letting it fall under "conduct unbecoming/club disrepute" type clauses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...