Ivan Toney

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Sturny said:

I wonder if it's 8 months paid as well.

I imagine he'll still be training. 

He may train alone but he is not allowed to return to training with his club until 17 September.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65626690

[chinapig]

15 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

I understand there are rightful concerns about sporting integrity. But surely we should be supporting players with gambling addictions rather than throwing the book at them?

 

The guy does not need the money; players who are gambling will be looking for a high, no different from drugs or alcohol.

You can do both. I would hope his club and the PFA will help him if he has an addiction.

[Baba Yaga]

Just now, marcofisher said:

I understand there are rightful concerns about sporting integrity. But surely we should be supporting players with gambling addictions rather than throwing the book at them?

 

The guy does not need the money; players who are gambling will be looking for a high, no different from drugs or alcohol.

Is this confirmed that he is a gambling addict? The info I read was 232 bets over a 4 year period and without knowing the amounts/things he bet on I would say it's hard to judge if the 8 months is a harsh or lenient punishment, or if he really has a addiction (if he does then I guess he would have had help already and will get continuing support through the ban when he can't train).

Shame for Toney because I think a queue of big clubs could have offered him a much bigger contract/chance to play at a higher level this summer. I remember Suarez getting banned for biting and then tearing up the league the following season so if Toney comes back firing then this won't hold him back for too long.

[Red-Robbo]

36 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

Is this confirmed that he is a gambling addict? The info I read was 232 bets over a 4 year period and without knowing the amounts/things he bet on I would say it's hard to judge if the 8 months is a harsh or lenient punishment, or if he really has a addiction (if he does then I guess he would have had help already and will get continuing support through the ban when he can't train).

Shame for Toney because I think a queue of big clubs could have offered him a much bigger contract/chance to play at a higher level this summer. I remember Suarez getting banned for biting and then tearing up the league the following season so if Toney comes back firing then this won't hold him back for too long.

 

I guess every footballer knows the rules; placing just one bet is illegal. Whether he's strictly an addict or not, being unable (or unwilling) to control the need to bet on such matches suggests a lack of impulse-control.  It isn't hard to be found out.

Bet on the nags instead!  People in racing I know bet on anything other than horses. Their bans are even more severe than football's, because of the history of the sport. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Red-Robbo

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, marcofisher said:

I understand there are rightful concerns about sporting integrity. But surely we should be supporting players with gambling addictions rather than throwing the book at them?

 

The guy does not need the money; players who are gambling will be looking for a high, no different from drugs or alcohol.

 

52 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That’s up to Brentford to decide.  He cannot join Brentford’s training until Sept tho’.

 

2 hours ago, Sturny said:

I wonder if it's 8 months paid as well.

I imagine he'll still be training. 

If I were Brentford I'd pay him as long as for 4 months he was in gambling rehabilitation.  He's got talent it would be a shame if he were broke come the end of his playing days.

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I guess every footballer knows the rules; placing just one bet is illegal if it is on a competition in which his club participates.

That's a category 2 offence. It's a Cat 1 offence for any player to place a bet on any football match anywhere in the world. That's the fundamental prohibition.

As I said earlier in the thread, there are six categories and they increase in severity from the two mentioned above to the most serious - a bet placed on a particular occurrence involving the player who placed the bet.

The vast majority of betting cases investigated by the FA involve category 2, 3, and 4 offences. Cat 3 is a bet placed on your own team to win, Cat 4 is betting that your own team will lose.

Cat 4 is subdivided into 4(a) bet to lose and you play (or are an unused sub) in the match, and 4(b) bet to lose but you don't take part. Obviously 4(a) is very serious and tends to attract a ban of over a year, 4(b) is less serious.

Looking at historical sanctions and Toney's 8 month ban, I suspect that his case involved a few Cat 4(b) offences, the average sanction for which is between 20-40 weeks (5-9 months(ish)). The record sanction for a Cat 4(b) offence is 57 weeks and that record is held by the honourable Mr. J. Barton who bet on his own team to lose no less than 15 times.

A number of aggravating and mitigating factors will also have been considered in arriving at the 8 month ban. They include the obvious such as size and number of bets (of each category), did Toney win or lose his bets, his previous record in this regard, his personal circumstances, etc. The number and size of the bets tends to be the most influential of these. His admission of guilt will have been considered as a mitigating factor.

It will be interesting to read the regulatory commission's reasoning when published.

Edited May 18, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

That's a category 2 offence. It's a Cat 1 offence for any player to place a bet on any football match anywhere in the world. That's the fundamental prohibition.

As I said earlier in the thread, there are six categories and they increase in severity from the two mentioned above to the most serious - a bet placed on a particular occurrence involving the player who placed the bet.

The vast majority of betting cases investigated by the FA involve category 2, 3, and 4 offences. Cat 3 is a bet placed on your own team to win, Cat 4 is betting that your own team will lose.

Cat 4 is subdivided into 4(a) bet to lose and you play (or are an unused sub) in the match, and 4(b) bet to lose but you don't take part. Obviously 4(a) is very serious and tends to attract a ban of over a year, 4(b) is less serious.

Looking at historical sanctions and Toney's 8 month ban, I suspect that his case involved a few Cat 4(b) offences, the average sanction for which is between 20-40 weeks (5-9 months(ish)). The record sanction for a Cat 4(b) offence is 57 weeks and that record is held by the honourable Mr. J. Barton who bet on his own team to lose no less than 15 times.

A number of aggravating and mitigating factors will also have been considered in arriving at the 8 month ban. They include the obvious such as size and number of bets (of each category), did Toney win or lose his bets, his previous record in this regard, his personal circumstances, etc. The number and size of the bets tends to be the most influential of these. His admission of guilt will have been considered as a mitigating factor.

It will be interesting to read the regulatory commission's reasoning when published.

 

Thanks for the clarifying. 

[marcofisher]

54 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

Is this confirmed that he is a gambling addict? The info I read was 232 bets over a 4 year period and without knowing the amounts/things he bet on I would say it's hard to judge if the 8 months is a harsh or lenient punishment, or if he really has a addiction (if he does then I guess he would have had help already and will get continuing support through the ban when he can't train).

Shame for Toney because I think a queue of big clubs could have offered him a much bigger contract/chance to play at a higher level this summer. I remember Suarez getting banned for biting and then tearing up the league the following season so if Toney comes back firing then this won't hold him back for too long.

There hasn’t been any admission or anything from what I have seen. But he wouldn’t have been naive to the risks, he will now lose his livelihood for 8 months. So much to lose and so little to gain would raise concerns that there is a larger underlying issue.

Knowing the category of the offences as highlighted above would refine the conversation somewhat.

[Ian M]

4 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

There hasn’t been any admission or anything from what I have seen. But he wouldn’t have been naive to the risks, he will now lose his livelihood for 8 months. So much to lose and so little to gain would raise concerns that there is a larger underlying issue.

Knowing the category of the offences as highlighted above would refine the conversation somewhat.

Also, I’ve read above the bets were over a 4 year period, do we know when that 4 year period was? It could well be historical, before he was on the PL wage that has people saying he didn’t need the money.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Also, I’ve read above the bets were over a 4 year period, do we know when that 4 year period was? It could well be historical, before he was on the PL wage that has people saying he didn’t need the money.

February 2017 - January 2021.

Brentford were promoted in May 2021.

So he wasn't on Prem wages, but was still offending whilst on Championship money (admittedly not top end Championship money).

Regardless, even the very wealthiest can become desperate for money if they live beyond their means.

Edited May 18, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[The Humble Realist]

Will be interesting to see the full report once published. 

What did he bet on etc

Did he bet on things he had information on potentially etc

 

[Slippin cider]

Not very bright some people….

[RedM]

4 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I guess every footballer knows the rules; placing just one bet is illegal. Whether he's strictly an addict or not, being unable (or unwilling) to control the need to bet on such matches suggests a lack of impulse-control.  It isn't hard to be found out.

Bet on the nags instead!  People in racing I know bet on anything other than horses. Their bans are even more severe than football's, because of the history of the sport. 

Indeed. Actually even most club employees, I'm talking about everyone else other than the playing staff, are not allowed to bet on football.

As for Toney, I guess Brentford will pay him as they will want to keep their prize asset happy?However I think they also will be fully within their rights to withhold wages due to the fact that it isn't their fault he is unavailable to them. they will have to pay out additional money to secure a replacement perhaps.

[marcofisher]

1 hour ago, RedM said:

Indeed. Actually even most club employees, I'm talking about everyone else other than the playing staff, are not allowed to bet on football.

As for Toney, I guess Brentford will pay him as they will want to keep their prize asset happy?However I think they also will be fully within their rights to withhold wages due to the fact that it isn't their fault he is unavailable to them. they will have to pay out additional money to secure a replacement perhaps.

If reports are to be believed, they are leveraging it to get him on a longer contract. 

[Gert Mare]

On 17/03/2023 at 07:56, Robbored said:

Toney is in good form and Southgate selects strikers who are scoring goals the same names, regardless of current form - whatever is going on outside of football in his life should not get in the way.

Fixed that for you  

[Oh Louie louie]

He's got better every year out the last four, the fa as normal cutting off their nose to spite their face, if rashford or kane get injured, this could come back on them, don't know the ins and outs but everytime I've watched him he gives his all

[Red_Alligator]

So, "He's not the messiah..........."

More senior Reds will know. 

[Oh Louie louie]

If I was a Brentford fan, I'd think his twenty goal contribution says hes not betting close to home, hes no Lou macari, 

[1team]

20 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

When I think about this then it makes me think has the integrity of the league been compromised by the FAs handling of this? 

Since pleading guilty he's continued to play and has potentially impacted relegation and European places etc. Spurs now have an easier game against Brentford because Toney is banned.

Man City have won the league but let's imagine it went down to the last game, Tony scored in the game against Arsenal which ended 1-1. City ( how very dare you) have Brentford last game of season and now have an easier game against them without Toney.

Also 2 months of the ban is in the off season when really it should have been from start of the season. So any team he plays against in his 1st 2 months back can feel hard done by.

 

[Midred]

Is the Brentford manager being disingenuous when he says that the club will support Toney in every way they can? He's known about this since February and almost certainly gained a few wins from the goals scored. Or has this scuppered their summer trading plans?

[alexukhc]

7 hours ago, Midred said:

Is the Brentford manager being disingenuous when he says that the club will support Toney in every way they can? He's known about this since February and almost certainly gained a few wins from the goals scored. Or has this scuppered their summer trading plans?

Looking at a new contract and a pay rise

[Super]

He bet on his own team to lose. 

[phantom]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

He bet on his own team to lose. 

This report is very damning

[Super]

Just now, phantom said:

This report is very damning

It's incredible. He's lucky it's only 8 months.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Super said:

He bet on his own team to lose. 

As I predicted given the ban. He bet on his own team to lose, but didn't play in those games. 13 bets across 7 games. That's cat 4(a).

Reading the rap sheet 8 months is pretty par when you consider other cases.

[ExiledAjax]

The BBC summary.

Here is a breakdown:

 

Of the 232 bets, 126 were on matches in a competition the team Toney was playing for at the time were eligible in during that season.

29 of those bets involved a club Toney was representing.

Toney bet on his own team to win 16 times in 15 different matches of which he played 11.

Toney also made 13 bets on his own team to lose seven matches between 22 August 2017 and 3 March 2018. He didn’t play in these matches.

Of the 13 bets, 11 were against Newcastle while he was on loan at another club. The others were on a game between Wigan, who he was playing for at the time, and Aston Villa.

15 bets were on Toney to score in nine different games in which he played. All were initiated at a time when it would not be public knowledge whether he was playing or not.

Six bets on matches not involving Toney.

[phantom]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

As I predicted given the ban. He bet on his own team to lose, but didn't play in those games. 13 bets across 7 games. That's cat 4(a).

Reading the rap sheet 8 months is pretty par when you consider other cases.

Was originally 15 months but shortened due to his guilty plea 

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2023/the-fa-v-ivan-toney---23-may-2023.ashx

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, phantom said:

Was originally 15 months but shortened due to his guilty plea 

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2023/the-fa-v-ivan-toney---23-may-2023.ashx

 

 

Yep. It's an established mitigating factor and given the charges I imagine his lawyers told him to plead guilty.

The 15 bets on him to score in certain matches are very serious. That is I think a Cat 5 offence of spot betting. It's very rare to see those in cases. 

[GrahamC]

Should have got a life ban from playing.

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Should have got a life ban from playing.

Or maybe from gambling?

[The Journalist]

The gambling addiction element is really interesting and, I strongly suspect, is what informed Gareth Southgate's excellent answer on the case the other day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/65699477

Reading between the lines he certainly wouldn't have agreed with the FA's stance on it, particularly taking into account this element of the report...

The FA submitted that the final sanction in this case should be a minimum of 12 months suspension. That in part was based upon a contended higher starting point because of the alleged concealment by deletion of texts and concealing an additional phone, an allowance of only 20% for the guilty pleas because some were not made at the first opportunity, and the assertion that there was inadequate evidence of gambling addiction to warrant any reduction. Those submissions were not accepted by the Commission for the reasons set out above.

On one hand, this is clearly very serious and a ban was merited. On the other hand, gambling addiction is a serious mental illness and should be treated as such in my opinion.

It seems, to me, that the FA weren't buying that part of it and just wanted to go in as hard as possible.

Edited May 26, 2023 by The Journalist

[phantom]

19 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yep. It's an established mitigating factor and given the charges I imagine his lawyers told him to plead guilty.

The 15 bets on him to score in certain matches are very serious. That is I think a Cat 5 offence of spot betting. It's very rare to see those in cases. 

I'm glad you quoted my reply, I thought I had imagined posting something - no idea where it went lol

[ExiledAjax]

He had literally the best lawyer money can buy as well. Nick de Marco is the number 1 barrister in the country on this stuff. Fletcher Law are also absolutely specialist in this type of case. He got the best he could get.

Will read later in full.

[Silvio Dante]

Yeah, sorry, addiction or otherwise there should have been a bigger sanction here.

I can totally get on board with the aspect that we’re asking footballers to advertise gambling but then sanctioning for gambling is a bit ridiculous. I don’t inherently have a major issue either with (say) a Rovers player betting on a Liverpool game - they’re highly unlikely to have inside information, but I understand you have to blanket it just in case.

What is serious here is betting on your own team, and most seriously the spot betting piece. Now, there is an argument if he’s not playing he hasn’t influenced the game (but may have insider knowledge so it’s an unfair bet), but when you come to the spot betting…

Yes, he’s betting on himself to score so you can argue he’s only influencing in a “positive” way - but say he’s playing for Peterborough. He’s got a chance that needs him to maybe hit a 9/10 shot. His strike partner is square, and has an easy tap in. Toney goes for the shot, because he’s got money on it. Misses, the side lose or draw the game instead of winning.

Is it different from a goal bonus? Yep, because the manager knows that. The fans accept he may have that. But he’s doing something here that influences the game and cheats the fans because of his gambling.

Should be sine die.

[David Brent]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Or maybe from gambling?

He can work on any issues he may have whilst on his ban. 

[Lrrr]

Didn’t realise it was on his own team and to lose, yeah that should be a much bigger ban 

[Sir Geoff]

33 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Yeah, sorry, addiction or otherwise there should have been a bigger sanction here.

I can totally get on board with the aspect that we’re asking footballers to advertise gambling but then sanctioning for gambling is a bit ridiculous. I don’t inherently have a major issue either with (say) a Rovers player betting on a Liverpool game - they’re highly unlikely to have inside information, but I understand you have to blanket it just in case.

What is serious here is betting on your own team, and most seriously the spot betting piece. Now, there is an argument if he’s not playing he hasn’t influenced the game (but may have insider knowledge so it’s an unfair bet), but when you come to the spot betting…

Yes, he’s betting on himself to score so you can argue he’s only influencing in a “positive” way - but say he’s playing for Peterborough. He’s got a chance that needs him to maybe hit a 9/10 shot. His strike partner is square, and has an easy tap in. Toney goes for the shot, because he’s got money on it. Misses, the side lose or draw the game instead of winning.

Is it different from a goal bonus? Yep, because the manager knows that. The fans accept he may have that. But he’s doing something here that influences the game and cheats the fans because of his gambling.

Should be sine die.

Re para 4......or dives to win a pen which he would be taking.

[GrahamC]

27 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Re para 4......or dives to win a pen which he would be taking.

Might explain why he’s such a serial diver then.

Does it all the time to win penalties, Brentford have had loads because of this.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, David Brent said:

He can work on any issues he may have whilst on his ban. 

And I hope he does.

It was a bit of a joke. Obviously he is technically already banned from betting on football, and this ban is an enforcement of that one.

Ultimately though the problem here is gambling, not football.

[Northern Red]

 

[grifty]

Does it take into account how much he is betting on?

Like is he betting 10p that Brentford lose? Or £10k?

[David Brent]

17 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

And I hope he does.

It was a bit of a joke. Obviously he is technically already banned from betting on football, and this ban is an enforcement of that one.

Ultimately though the problem here is gambling, not football.

But it’s still a problem for football and that needs to be addressed too. I don’t think the ban given is severe enough. The outcome of these games can have huge repercussions.

[Leveller]

45 minutes ago, David Brent said:

But it’s still a problem for football and that needs to be addressed too. I don’t think the ban given is severe enough. The outcome of these games can have huge repercussions.

But you could argue that he’s never set out to cheat or throw games. He’s basically bet on himself and his team to do well when he’s playing and to do badly when he’s not playing. It’s arrogant and foolish but only devious in the way that he avoided being caught.
The worst thing about players betting is the suspicion of match fixing, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, David Brent said:

But it’s still a problem for football and that needs to be addressed too. I don’t think the ban given is severe enough. The outcome of these games can have huge repercussions.

There's a lot to say here. 

Firstly you seem to be suggesting (and sorry if this isn't your intention) that Toney's bets could be considered to be match-fixing. That's unlikely to be the case.

We need to understand that there is a distinction between match-fixing and breaches of the Betting Rules. The FA Sanction Guidelines make that very clear and they are governed under separate FA Rules. Toney was not charged in any way with match-fixing, which tells us that the FA did not consider them to be of a nature that would cause "the reasonable person, with knowledge of the bets and circumstances of the bets, to conclude that the integrity of football has been compromised". Note that the "reasonable person" is not you and I writing on a forum or reading the BBC report in the pub. That "reasonable person" is presumed to have full knowledge of all the facts and relevant laws that the Regulatory Commission would have. Would that person be suspicious that the bets were something more.

Toney was charged only under Rule E8 (betting) rather than under Rule E5 (match-fixing). We can therefore assume that no one at the FA felt that any of his bets would pass the above test. Toney placed bets to score, something he did not (however good he might be at football) have direct and complete control over. A player has much more control over whether or not they are booked. In the Djassi Sambu case in 2021 there was a case of a player betting on himself to score (a Category 6 bet of which Toney made 15). In that case the Regulatory Commission accepted that the player was "only betting on that which any footballer personally strives to do", and the Category 6 bet was downgraded to a Category 3 bet. Essentially, as a striker Toney would always be trying to score, whether he had placed a bet on himself to do it or not.  I suspect that this case was one of the "Many previous cases..." referred to in paragraph 47 of the Toney reasons.

Contrast that with Kynan Isaac, also from 2021. Isaac also placed category 6 bets - but on himself getting booked rather than scoring. Getting booked is not "that which any footballer personally strives to do", and a player has more control over getting booked than he does over scoring. Isaac (due to other aggravating factors) got a ten year ban (after the FA appealed the initial 5 year ban).  There the starting point was a lifetime ban, but Isaac was not co-operative, showed no admission of guilt or remorse, and didn't attend his hearing, those were set against the facts that he bet small  amounts, and did not profit, the FA thought ten years was long enough to end his playing career, but permit him to use his skills to earn a living in later life..

The Toney reasons set out clearly why the Regulatory Commission went for a 15 month ban on face value, and then reduced that to 11 months due to Toney's guilty plea, but also recognising his contesting of certain other matters (a standard 25% reduction rounded down). The further 3 month reduction is very clearly described as being made due to "... his [Toney's] relative youth at the time when the breaches began, his previous good record in respect of anything other than on-field breaches, and his genuine remorse which he expressed in fulsome terms before the Commission. In addition, and of particular importance, the Commission finds that a significant reduction should be made to reflect the diagnosed gambling addiction identified by Dr Hopley. The lack of control the player has in respect of gambling is clearly a reflection of his diagnosed gambling addiction."

I agree with you that it is odd that there is no discussion as to why the maximum lifetime ban was not even considered as the starting point given the high number of category 6 bets placed. I can only assume that Djassi Sambu was considered "offline" and the reasoning there was applied here (indeed I am sure of it as the quote above comes from a book written by Nick de Marco KC - Ivan Toney's lawyer). However it would have been nice to have that set out explicitly if that is the case.

Edited May 26, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[And Its Smith]

8 month ban is fine and hope he gets the help he needs.  No results need to called into question.  Lots of people will read the headlines and judge which is a shame

[jj77]

How do you think this got out in the first place? Do you think he had someone place the bets for him, won big and didn't give them a big enough share?

[David Brent]

39 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There's a lot to say here. 

Firstly you seem to be suggesting (and sorry if this isn't your intention) that Toney's bets could be considered to be match-fixing. That's unlikely to be the case.

We need to understand that there is a distinction between match-fixing and breaches of the Betting Rules. The FA Sanction Guidelines make that very clear and they are governed under separate FA Rules. Toney was not charged in any way with match-fixing, which tells us that the FA did not consider them to be of a nature that would cause "the reasonable person, with knowledge of the bets and circumstances of the bets, to conclude that the integrity of football has been compromised". Note that the "reasonable person" is not you and I writing on a forum or reading the BBC report in the pub. That "reasonable person" is presumed to have full knowledge of all the facts and relevant laws that the Regulatory Commission would have. Would that person be suspicious that the bets were something more.

Toney was charged only under Rule E8 (betting) rather than under Rule E5 (match-fixing). We can therefore assume that no one at the FA felt that any of his bets would pass the above test. Toney placed bets to score, something he did not (however good he might be at football) have direct and complete control over. A player has much more control over whether or not they are booked. In the Djassi Sambu case in 2021 there was a case of a player betting on himself to score (a Category 6 bet of which Toney made 15). In that case the Regulatory Commission accepted that the player was "only betting on that which any footballer personally strives to do", and the Category 6 bet was downgraded to a Category 3 bet. Essentially, as a striker Toney would always be trying to score, whether he had placed a bet on himself to do it or not.  I suspect that this case was one of the "Many previous cases..." referred to in paragraph 47 of the Toney reasons.

Contrast that with Kynan Isaac, also from 2021. Isaac also placed category 6 bets - but on himself getting booked rather than scoring. Getting booked is not "that which any footballer personally strives to do", and a player has more control over getting booked than he does over scoring. Isaac (due to other aggravating factors) got a ten year ban (after the FA appealed the initial 5 year ban).  There the starting point was a lifetime ban, but Isaac was not co-operative, showed no admission of guilt or remorse, and didn't attend his hearing, those were set against the facts that he bet small  amounts, and did not profit, the FA thought ten years was long enough to end his playing career, but permit him to use his skills to earn a living in later life..

The Toney reasons set out clearly why the Regulatory Commission went for a 15 month ban on face value, and then reduced that to 11 months due to Toney's guilty plea, but also recognising his contesting of certain other matters (a standard 25% reduction rounded down). The further 3 month reduction is very clearly described as being made due to "... his [Toney's] relative youth at the time when the breaches began, his previous good record in respect of anything other than on-field breaches, and his genuine remorse which he expressed in fulsome terms before the Commission. In addition, and of particular importance, the Commission finds that a significant reduction should be made to reflect the diagnosed gambling addiction identified by Dr Hopley. The lack of control the player has in respect of gambling is clearly a reflection of his diagnosed gambling addiction."

I agree with you that it is odd that there is no discussion as to why the maximum lifetime ban was not even considered as the starting point given the high number of category 6 bets placed. I can only assume that Djassi Sambu was considered "offline" and the reasoning there was applied here (indeed I am sure of it as the quote above comes from a book written by Nick de Marco KC - Ivan Toney's lawyer). However it would have been nice to have that set out explicitly if that is the case.

My, possibly ignorant, opinion was gained from reading this thread. It had been suggested that he was betting against his own team. Apologies if that’s wrong.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, David Brent said:

My, possibly ignorant, opinion was gained from reading this thread. It had been suggested that he was betting against his own team. Apologies if that’s wrong.

He did. 13 times.

But on games where he didn't play. So that's considered less serious.

[marcofisher]

5 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Didn’t realise it was on his own team and to lose, yeah that should be a much bigger ban 

In all cases it was in matches he was not involved in, which the headlines are not showing.

[joe jordans teeth]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

He did. 13 times.

But on games where he didn't play. So that's considered less serious.

Quite how I don’t know,he would of known of any injuries and who would be playing a long time before the odds were given 

[joe jordans teeth]

3 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

8 month ban is fine and hope he gets the help he needs.  No results need to called into question.  Lots of people will read the headlines and judge which is a shame

Think he’s got off lightly bearing in mind 2 of those are mid season 

[Lrrr]

23 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

In all cases it was in matches he was not involved in, which the headlines are not showing.

Even if you're out on loan you still have access to information at the club, essentially the gambling version of insider trading 

[joe jordans teeth]

57 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Even if you're out on loan you still have access to information at the club, essentially the gambling version of insider trading 

It’s all very well them telling us what he bet on but I can’t see anywhere if he won money with this insider knowledge or not,i have mates who are in “the inner circle “of racing,couldn’t pick their nose with a fork 

[downendcity]

7 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

Re para 4......or dives to win a pen which he would be taking.

He'd win b*****r all on those bets if he played for us then!

[BarnzFM]

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

Even if you're out on loan you still have access to information at the club, essentially the gambling version of insider trading 

I’m less bothered by insider trading, the way these betting firms operate I hope people take them for every penny, it’s the potential influence that Toney could have with those involved in matches to get the outcome he wants, directly or indirectly and like someone suggested betting on himself scoring could have an impact on the way Toney plays himself 

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Quite how I don’t know,he would of known of any injuries and who would be playing a long time before the odds were given 

Sure, but the FA commission isn't concerned with the potential effect on the gambling market or companies. They're concerned with a potential effect on football games. 

In that regard betting on your own team to lose but not actually playing in that game is less serious than a game where you do the same and do play. 

[joe jordans teeth]

34 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Sure, but the FA commission isn't concerned with the potential effect on the gambling market or companies. They're concerned with a potential effect on football games. 

In that regard betting on your own team to lose but not actually playing in that game is less serious than a game where you do the same and do play. 

Without doubt but if we want footballers to understand that it’s a no no then there shouldn’t be a staggered punishment,you want to bet then 2 year ban whoever you bet on,could be your own team or some Mexican 2nd division game

[marcofisher]

5 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Even if you're out on loan you still have access to information at the club, essentially the gambling version of insider trading 

I don’t disagree, just seen a lot of very basic inflammatory headlines. And so do 100s of others inside and outside every club who are not so high profile but would still be party to the same information, such as Trippier’s mates who were told to lump on when he signed for Atletico Madrid. If any consolation for Toney, he made his way back to the England fold.

 

It’s clear that the lad has quite a problem, and I hope he gets some help. 

 

[joe jordans teeth]

10 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

I don’t disagree, just seen a lot of very basic inflammatory headlines. And so do 100s of others inside and outside every club who are not so high profile but would still be party to the same information, such as Trippier’s mates who were told to lump on when he signed for Atletico Madrid. If any consolation for Toney, he made his way back to the England fold.

 

It’s clear that the lad has quite a problem, and I hope he gets some help. 

 

What do you class as inflammatory headlines 

[marcofisher]

3 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

What do you class as inflammatory headlines 

e.g “13 bets against own team” when he wasn’t even playing for them or involved in them, he was on loan. Could easily say betting against parent club etc which paints the full picture, but doesn’t get the same clicks.

Hence a lot of the reactions I saw online upon announcement seem to think he bet on his current playing club to lose.

Edited May 26, 2023 by marcofisher

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

e.g “13 bets against own team” when he wasn’t even playing for them or involved in them, he was on loan. Could easily say betting against parent club etc which paints the full picture, but doesn’t get the same clicks.

Hence a lot of the reactions I saw online upon announcement seem to think he bet on his current playing club to lose.

So he didn’t have inside knowledge,he could of easily bet on City letting in a late goal back in 20/21 and that would still be wrong,what is it with society today that we make excuses for everyone 

[kiwicolin]

How can his team mates trust him, after betting 7 times against the team, to lose  

OK.  He wasn't playing in those games but that is bang out of order. 

[The Coach]

16 minutes ago, kiwicolin said:

How can his team mates trust him, after betting 7 times against the team, to lose  

OK.  He wasn't playing in those games but that is bang out of order. 

Was at Newcastle unless mistaken 

[kiwicolin]

8 minutes ago, The Coach said:

Was at Newcastle unless mistaken 

But still would you trust him  

[italian dave]

9 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

So he didn’t have inside knowledge,he could of easily bet on City letting in a late goal back in 20/21 and that would still be wrong,what is it with society today that we make excuses for everyone 

I don’t see anyone “making excuses”. What he did was wrong and he’s been punished as a result. It’s simply about looking at the circumstances, understanding what happened and why, and also recognising that he might need help to deal with an illness.

A century ago soldiers who couldn’t cope with what they experienced on the battlefield were shot for desertion. Nowadays we recognise PTSD and treat them accordingly. Is that “society today…..making excuses”? 

Edited May 27, 2023 by italian dave

[RedM]

To bet on his team losing when he wasn't involved, isn't that like him saying without me you are nothing?

[Super]

If he wasn't their best player and most valuable asset you can bet Brentford would boot him out.

[And Its Smith]

2 hours ago, Super said:

If he wasn't their best player and most valuable asset you can bet Brentford would boot him out.

Absolutely. Same as any industry. If the incompetent guy who reports to me messed up I’d use it to get rid. If my best employee did the same I’d issue a warning and move on. 

[1960maaan]

I think when the rules are changed and all Betting Company sponsorship banned, it will be an easier and clearer message to get over.
As it is, team that has it's main striker banned for betting , enjoys ££ millions from betting Company sponsorship.