Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,408
Who says he was manipulating games?
Is there any evidence?
What was he betting on?
We don`t know much except he was betting and his job says he should not.
Its a mugs game anyway.
EPL Ivan Toney
- Thread starter oufc1991
- Start date
Who says he was manipulating games?
Is there any evidence?
What was he betting on?
We don`t know much except he was betting and his job says he should not.
Its a mugs game anyway.
OxShireWest
Active member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2020
- Messages
- 186
Well that's the whole point... we have no idea if or how many games were influenced by his bets.
That's why the rule exists in the first place. If it didn't you'd just have every player putting a million on their mate to get a booking every week so they can go halves on the winnings.
We know 29 of his bets involved matches in which his team was playing, so who knows...
That’s why a punishment is relevant and he deserves one. But what’s it done to tackle the underlying issue they preach to be so concerned with? A true addict will not look at Toney’s situation and think twice about their next bet, they’ll do it anyway, only now they’ll look for new ways to be especially discrete to avoid trace - I.e. find a way to be an addict completely under the radar rather than face it and deal with it. How they got around a table and thought this was the best solution, I’ll never understand.
People also so easily and conveniently forget that these lads are in their 20’s sat on fortunes. How much did you, or any of us really know at that age and how much would we have listened if someone told you not to do something ‘or else’ especially when it’s all you could think about doing.
He should be punished, yes, but for me they went with a lazy sanction and should’ve considered the opportunity here to create relatively immediate change. Instead, one of their league bodies has signed up for another multi-million pound package generated by second hand gambling money. Just wow.
Paul Cannell
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 7,500
Betting on games he wasn't involved in. No manipulation.
Betting is a mug's game and a tax on the poor / working man. An expert will pass by and tell you how much he's made from bookies over X years in a minute.
ZeroTheHero
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 9,297
I'm not a betting man. I used to work for a fruit machine company - donkey's years ago (designing the artwork) - at a time when the maximum you could spend per spin was 10p. Even at that small outlay, the profits were considerable - for the operators, for the manufacturing company and for the pubs that installed them. The money did not go back to the punters! That cured me of both playing fruit machines and the desire to bet elsewhere.
I have nothing against recreational betting - my father in law used to have a great time watching the horse racing on a Saturday afternoon on the telly to see if his 50p accumulator would make him a fortune! - and I suppose there may be a few people who make money doing it. I suspect it's a very small percentage of those who tell you they do though!
Small point, he was betting on football matches which is what he isn't allowed to do. He is allowed to bet on other sports and events.
OxShireWest
Active member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2020
- Messages
- 186
I personally think more investigation should've been done to determine what impact or influence his bets had on games, and how much he's made from such bets. Then a slightly shorter ban, but with 'X' percent of his wages and bonuses deducted for a period of time and given to gambling addiction charities.
Gambling in itself is a fools game, but rightly isn't illegal. Ultimately, people should have free will and choice to do whatever they want with their money. I personally have no real issue with the promotion of it - it's no different to promoting alcohol or medication (both addictive).
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,940
The point of the ban is to show everyone that there is no tolerance for footballers betting on football matches, which is how it should be. All players know this. If you start giving short bans and fines, players with way more disposable income than sense just aren't going to see a deterrent.
The difference on alcohol and medication is the awareness of it is that much higher and it's something society generally understands/accepts/tries to change. Gambling has a lot more uncertainty around it and a stigma of shame that we are only now getting to grips with. Much like cigarettes, there's nothing illegal about it but they can take lives and changing the packaging and reducing our daily exposure to them was one way of combatting that issue. Gambling needs to take a similar stance even if it is just in football which attracts a mass vulnerable audience. What they've actually done is stand side by side as partners! Watch any football prog on TV now and every third advert is a betting odd. That's like attaching cigarettes to every self-checkout station in supermarkets and coming back to your car where an advert waits on your windscreen for Marlboro Gold.
Again, I reaffirm that I have no idea what Toney's punishment achieves to stop him doing it again (he's an addict, he will just get smarter) but also tackle the gambling problem in the sport among players (and probably managers/staff) and more importantly impressionable fans who don't have £100k a week to burn through. It will send addicts to ground - they will now hide it better and not talk. They've shamed Toney which was a huge mistake because others like him will feel it's an attack on all people with a similar problem. They was a way to punish him sensitively and show themselves as forward-thinking governing body that knows about this subject.
Unless you have an interest in football or sport generally, you might not even know gambling was this bigger issue. Society doesn't really know. Football could lead the way but as per usual, money talks. Do as we say, not as we do.
OxShireWest
Active member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2020
- Messages
- 186
By shorter ban, I mean a couple of months shorter. And by a % of their wages and bonuses, I mean about half for a year - all to be donated to addiction charities.
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,940
I think that would fall foul of FA rules regarding fines, and would more than likely be overturned in the courts.
bazzer9461
God like member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 40,755
He knew the rules he broke the rules and the punishment has to for the crime. He only has himself to blame
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,352
And frankly betting on Newcastle and Wigan to lose (at that time) wouldn't have been an unusual bet in the wider world.
there are some that do well, and most that do not. And there are some that do so badly they end up stealing money to fund their habit (there was someone local got done a few years back for stealing tens of thousands from their employer).
Osei Yaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,371
The 'mugs game' line is a bit too catch all for me, as there are numerous ways to gamble and not all of them are for mugs.
If you're gambling on casino tables and slots over a long period of time, then you're only ever likely to come out as a loser. Casino games and slots have a return to player (RTP) percentage attributed to them, which will never be as high as 100%. A RTP that is less than 100% means the house always win in the long term.
In a game of European roulette, the numbers are 1 - 36, so if you put £1 on number 1 and it lands, you'll be paid back £36, which makes the odds of that bet 35/1. That would be fair if there were only 36 slots on the roulette wheel, however there are 37 slots as there is always a green 0 there too, so that's what makes your £1 bet on number 1 a poor value bet (even if it subsequently comes in) because you're taking odds of 35/1 on something that is actually 36/1. The same 'house edge' applies to all casino table games as well as slots, and means most people end up as losers, and the longer you play the more likely you are to be a loser.
The difference with sport betting is that you, as a punter, can have an edge. You may know a lot about horses and have contacts across a lot of stables that give you privileged insights into how likely horses are to perform against the odds the bookmaker is offering. Much closer to home, there were quite a few on here who, around January time, started backing us to get relegated at odds of 80/1, as they had a more knowledgeable position on how bad we were performing and how bad the trajectory was. Those 80/1 bets ultimately lost, but a few weeks before the season ended the same relegation bet was being offered at 11/4, so those that had got on at 80/1 had a profitable cash out exit point but more importantly had been shown to identify value, which is basically what it's all about. Essentially if you have a way of constantly identifying value (where the bookmakers odds are more generous than the actual probability of the event happening) then you are no mug and you can turn a good profit.
In the case of Toney, if he was making considered 'value' bets and using insider knowledge to gain that edge then that is one type of problem that warrants a certain level of punishment. If he was just throwing money on willy nilly to feed an addiction and get a fix then the punishment needs to be very different and what he really needs is help. Even if he was banned from betting for life then there's still a chance he and others in his situation could just wander into a casino and start throwing money onto roulette with the same damaging consequences.
If you're gambling on casino tables and slots over a long period of time, then you're only ever likely to come out as a loser. Casino games and slots have a return to player (RTP) percentage attributed to them, which will never be as high as 100%. A RTP that is less than 100% means the house always win in the long term.
In a game of European roulette, the numbers are 1 - 36, so if you put £1 on number 1 and it lands, you'll be paid back £36, which makes the odds of that bet 35/1. That would be fair if there were only 36 slots on the roulette wheel, however there are 37 slots as there is always a green 0 there too, so that's what makes your £1 bet on number 1 a poor value bet (even if it subsequently comes in) because you're taking odds of 35/1 on something that is actually 36/1. The same 'house edge' applies to all casino table games as well as slots, and means most people end up as losers, and the longer you play the more likely you are to be a loser.
The difference with sport betting is that you, as a punter, can have an edge. You may know a lot about horses and have contacts across a lot of stables that give you privileged insights into how likely horses are to perform against the odds the bookmaker is offering. Much closer to home, there were quite a few on here who, around January time, started backing us to get relegated at odds of 80/1, as they had a more knowledgeable position on how bad we were performing and how bad the trajectory was. Those 80/1 bets ultimately lost, but a few weeks before the season ended the same relegation bet was being offered at 11/4, so those that had got on at 80/1 had a profitable cash out exit point but more importantly had been shown to identify value, which is basically what it's all about. Essentially if you have a way of constantly identifying value (where the bookmakers odds are more generous than the actual probability of the event happening) then you are no mug and you can turn a good profit.
In the case of Toney, if he was making considered 'value' bets and using insider knowledge to gain that edge then that is one type of problem that warrants a certain level of punishment. If he was just throwing money on willy nilly to feed an addiction and get a fix then the punishment needs to be very different and what he really needs is help. Even if he was banned from betting for life then there's still a chance he and others in his situation could just wander into a casino and start throwing money onto roulette with the same damaging consequences.
Paul Cannell
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 7,500
He was identified as an addict by 'an expert'. He is being supported by Brentford, the FA and so on. This information is hardly recondite.
Very few addict gamblers are banned; the majority don't restart by walking into casinos, they respond to free bets and other offers from the bookies as well as TV ads.
A few might get lucky in discovering that their football club is managed by a respected idiot but, expert, a very small percentage fail to lose money betting, however clever they are: inside info and fixing is the way.
Osei Yaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,371
I know, they're the ones the bookies want to keep coming back. My point (which I'm sure got lost in the rest of my waffle) was along the lines of 'even (in the unlikely event) he was banned from betting, then it doesn't exclude him from all forms of gambling, and the key thing is understanding the addiction and addressing that, rather than telling/shaming him for gambling (which is the same for any footballer caught betting on football, so long as they're doing it because they're addicted and not because they're fixing)'.
Part of that last point is also why saying 'all gamblers are mugs' is potentially harmful. If you are a gambling addict I'd say you are less likely to get help if you keep getting labelled as a mug. You don't see the same level of disdain for those that drink alcohol even though some that drink alcohol will be alcoholics, in the same way that some that gamble will be gambling addicts.
Steve Gilbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 3,926
Betting on football is banned at every professional club, this includes staff and even interns at clubs.
You also have to sign a form stating that you understand you are not allowed to bet on any football games in the world.
I know this as I had to sign it when I did some intern work for Stoke Academy. All I was doing was filming and coding their u16 matches on a Sunday but I was still not allowed to bet on any football matches.
You also have to sign a form stating that you understand you are not allowed to bet on any football games in the world.
I know this as I had to sign it when I did some intern work for Stoke Academy. All I was doing was filming and coding their u16 matches on a Sunday but I was still not allowed to bet on any football matches.
andystroud
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,670
Listening to the latest episode of No Such Thing as a Fish, and they pointed out that Toney’s full name is Ivan Benjamin Elijah Toney, so initials IBET 
Alternative source:
www.transfermarkt.co.uk
Alternative source:
Ivan Toney - Player profile 23/24
Ivan Toney, 28, from England ➤ Brentford FC, since 2020 ➤ Centre-Forward ➤ Market value: €50.00m ➤ * Mar 16, 1996 in Northampton, England
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,940
...as you would have already know if you were paying attention to this thread earlier in the yearListening to the latest episode of No Such Thing as a Fish, and they pointed out that Toney’s full name is Ivan Benjamin Elijah Toney, so initials IBET
Alternative source:
Ivan Toney - Player profile 23/24
Ivan Toney, 28, from England ➤ Brentford FC, since 2020 ➤ Centre-Forward ➤ Market value: €50.00m ➤ * Mar 16, 1996 in Northampton, England
andystroud
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,670
I haven’t got time to read what other people write...as you would have already know if you were paying attention to this thread earlier in the year