Brentford 'happy' to keep him .. is that on full pay til January ? .. England career done I should think .. foolish young man
Of course they're happy to keep him, he's their star striker.
I believe they are going to keep paying him. Football doesn't work like the real world. In the real world if someone wasn't available to do their job then their employer would probably not pay them. But in football if they don't pay him, then despite it being his own fault, it won't do the relationship much good and he'll probably refuse to sign a new contract and might even put in a transfer request for January when he can play again.
So Brentford will probably work something out. We'll continue to pay you, but in return for our good faith we want you to sign a new contract.
Reported in today's Mirror that Gareth Southgate has 'lashed out' at the punishment given to Ivan Toney - he insists that the banned striker can still make the 2024 European Championships.
Southgate admits that he has given assurances to Toney about his long term future - and challenged the FA to punish him (Southgate) if they don't approve. Southgate is worried for Toney's mental welfare because he has effectively been ostracised from football. Toney is also carrying an injury which Southgate is concerned about and how he can attain the necessary rehab.
Well it seems Southgate is certainly not afraid to rub up his bosses. I hope Toney repays the faith shown in him.
Brentford striker Ivan Toney was given a reduced ban from football because of a diagnosed gambling addiction.
Earlier this month Toney was banned for eight months after he accepted breaking Football Association betting rules.
A psychiatry expert who gave evidence to the FA's regulatory commission diagnosed Toney with a gambling addiction and concluded he needed professional help.
As a result, the commission reduced his 11-month sanction by three months.
There’s a list of FA charges going around online, if true Toney was betting on games he played and and even bet on his own team to lose.
If true the punishment seems very, very light.
Of those 232 breaches:
126 bets were in respect of matches in competitions in which Toney's club at that time participated in.
Of those 126, 29 were in respect of the club Toney was playing for at the time.
Of those 29, 16 were on his own team to win 15 different matches. Toney played in 11 of those matches.
Of those 29, the remaining 13 were on Toney's team to lose. Toney did not play in any of those matches.
Of the 126 bets, 15 were placed on Toney to score. They were initiated at a time when it was not public knowledge that he was starting or playing in the relevant fixtures.
The regulatory commission ruled Toney's case was not one of match-fixing.
After the stuff released today i actually wished the punishment was more severe, sacked from club (unlikely). Even potential liftetime ban, at first i thought there might have been loop holes or nothing serious but betting on your own team and also giving out team information before for me should be a harsher.
Even if he's an absolutely hopeless mug punter irretrievably addicted to gambling - betting on games he's involved in has to be something he's got to expect to get banned for life for. That's always got to be far too close to match fixing for anyone's comfort. Betting against his own team, even when he knows he's not playing has to get him ostracised by his current and future colleagues doesn't it? That's always an absolute no-no.
How did he get caught? Grassed up? Has he pissed away every penny he's ever made and more besides?
Addiction's undoubtedly an illness but a top flight footballer betting on any football is either unforgivably arrogant or an absolute moron, probably both. There's a million and one things he can bet on so punting on football defies any sort of explanation, let alone justification.
Football's dependency on the gambling industry is wrong on every level and why IT has got off so lightly, the whole business is complicit.
After the stuff released today i actually wished the punishment was more severe, sacked from club (unlikely). Even potential liftetime ban, at first i thought there might have been loop holes or nothing serious but betting on your own team and also giving out team information before for me should be a harsher.
Agree with this.
I might have had some sympathy if he was betting on abroad matches like Serie A or something he wasn't involved with.
I know they are saying they cut his ban shorter because he got a diagnosis but 11 months wasn't enough in the first place imo.
After the stuff released today i actually wished the punishment was more severe, sacked from club (unlikely). Even potential liftetime ban, at first i thought there might have been loop holes or nothing serious but betting on your own team and also giving out team information before for me should be a harsher.
Agree with this.
I might have had some sympathy if he was betting on abroad matches like Serie A or something he wasn't involved with.
I know they are saying they cut his ban shorter because he got a diagnosis but 11 months wasn't enough in the first place imo.
In cricket, my nephew is not even allowed to tell us if he is playing in the match the next day or can be banned Can only advise his parents in advance !!
Southgate reportedly stating that Toney has been treated too harshly etc .. Southgate should say nothing, Toney broke the rules and surely understood the consequences for doing so .. it's not for the England manager to be coming down on one side or the other, he should have kept quiet and kept his opinions to himself
Southgate reportedly stating that Toney has been treated too harshly etc .. Southgate should say nothing, Toney broke the rules and surely understood the consequences for doing so .. it's not for the England manager to be coming down on one side or the other, he should have kept quiet and kept his opinions to himself
Spoilt footballers throwing their toys out of the pram in support of other spoilt footballers shock.
I have nothing against the current rules prohibiting the passing on of inside information. All I would say though is that, especially prior to the advent of exchanges, bookmakers had paid moles in all the big stables. Bookmakers were in a position where they had information that allowed them to lay horses that they knew were not likely to win a race at odds bigger than their form might suggest.
Mike Dillon of Ladbrokes was particularly close to many of the Irish jockeys and trainers and in particular the likes of Mick Kinane and Aidan O'Brien. He was also friends with Alex Ferguson. How much info do we think that he gleaned that wasn't in the public domain? Bookmakers are the first to bleat "foul play" but they have had more of an advantage for years. In fact, the old Pricewise column in the Racing Post would habitually tip a horse in races where Ladbrokes were shortest and out of line with the rest such was their influence at the time.
I have nothing against the current rules prohibiting the passing on of inside information. All I would say though is that, especially prior to the advent of exchanges, bookmakers had paid moles in all the big stables. Bookmakers were in a position where they had information that allowed them to lay horses that they knew were not likely to win a race at odds bigger than their form might suggest.
Mike Dillon of Ladbrokes was particularly close to many of the Irish jockeys and trainers and in particular the likes of Mick Kinane and Aidan O'Brien. He was also friends with Alex Ferguson. How much info do we think that he gleaned that wasn't in the public domain? Bookmakers are the first to bleat "foul play" but they have had more of an advantage for years. In fact, the old Pricewise column in the Racing Post would habitually tip a horse in races where Ladbrokes were shortest and out of line with the rest such was their influence at the time.
That has no relevance to Toney, i get the bookmakers do it but that still shouldn't make any difference to him betting on matches his team are involved with or giving inside information when its against the rules of a professional footballer
It helps (him) that these bets were very likely all done online. Imagine if he had popped into his local bookies on a matchday asking for odds on him being the first goalscorer or for Brentford to lose.
I don't disagree with the sentence except he should be allowed to train.
It should have also included a requirement for treatment for gambling addiction, paid by him but supervised by an FA appointee.
The enquiry should also have recommended that football looks at itself and its links to the gambling industry which encourages betting amongst young people such as Toney.
Gambling should be treated like the tobacco industry which I worked in when advertising was banned.
Toney has only himself to blame but he was helped on his way.
I have nothing against the current rules prohibiting the passing on of inside information. All I would say though is that, especially prior to the advent of exchanges, bookmakers had paid moles in all the big stables. Bookmakers were in a position where they had information that allowed them to lay horses that they knew were not likely to win a race at odds bigger than their form might suggest.
Mike Dillon of Ladbrokes was particularly close to many of the Irish jockeys and trainers and in particular the likes of Mick Kinane and Aidan O'Brien. He was also friends with Alex Ferguson. How much info do we think that he gleaned that wasn't in the public domain? Bookmakers are the first to bleat "foul play" but they have had more of an advantage for years. In fact, the old Pricewise column in the Racing Post would habitually tip a horse in races where Ladbrokes were shortest and out of line with the rest such was their influence at the time.
That has no relevance to Toney, i get the bookmakers do it but that still shouldn't make any difference to him betting on matches his team are involved with or giving inside information when its against the rules of a professional footballer
Have you actually read that first sentence? You are preaching to the converted as I did work for Betfair for a decade and was involved in the reporting of market manipulation and also irregular betting patterns. This actually led to the arrest and conviction of several sportsmen who were later found guilty of match fixing and also race fixing. The point I was trying to make is that inside information is inside information wherever it is gleaned from and those that pay stable lads for it or provide hospitality/free bets for information are as guilty as Ivan Toney given that he was not found guilty of match fixing.
I don't disagree with the sentence except he should be allowed to train.
It should have also included a requirement for treatment for gambling addiction, paid by him but supervised by an FA appointee.
The enquiry should also have recommended that football looks at itself and its links to the gambling industry which encourages betting amongst young people such as Toney.
Gambling should be treated like the tobacco industry which I worked in when advertising was banned.
Toney has only himself to blame but he was helped on his way.
Well said. Thomas Frank's comments are very good:
“Yes, Ivan did something wrong but what I don’t get at all is how can you not let him be involved in football at all for the first four months?
“What do you gain from that? If you want to rehabilitate people you give them education, you do something, and now he is left on his own.
“He should be forced to go into a hundred schools to tell them about his football and background, that’s how it should work, but I’m a football coach, what do I know?
“If I can’t speak to him, then they will have to ban me. If I am not allowed to speak to him on a support level there must be something wrong. I think you’re allowed to contact people even when they’re in prison aren’t you? So I think I’m allowed.”
My question with things like this is always: "What is the goal here?" Is it to help Toney, someone who clearly has an addiction? Because if so, leaving him to his own devices for eight months probably isn't going to make him better. Is it to send a message? Because if so, 1) The ban probably isn't long enough, and 2) If we start looking at footballers and betting, we might find that a lot of them are involved in betting in one way or another.
Well he couldn’t have won because the minge of an industry would have restricted him to pennies before long , unless it was betfair , and I’m guessing he wouldn’t have wanted a fiver on him being first Goalscorer or maybe whatever bookies he had the bet with realised he was a mug punter because he was taking 3 to 1 with them when it was 4 to 1 elsewhere . thats how they operate if you’re a dope welcome and if you’re shrewd on your way sir , a license to print and tax the stupid
Well he couldn’t have won because the minge of an industry would have restricted him to pennies before long , unless it was betfair , and I’m guessing he wouldn’t have wanted a fiver on him being first Goalscorer or maybe whatever bookies he had the bet with realised he was a mug punter because he was taking 3 to 1 with them when it was 4 to 1 elsewhere . thats how they operate if you’re a dope welcome and if you’re shrewd on your way sir , a license to print and tax the stupid
And judging by the number of bets the bookmaker was either incompetent or happy to take the bets until such time as he started to win. When I was at Betfair we closed the account of a high profile footballer with serious addictions (who wasn't betting on the outcome of games he was involved in) within 24 hours of him opening an account for his own good. The KYC process should have alerted the bookmaker immediately for any irregularities.
Nottingham Forest defender Harry Toffolo has been charged by the Football Association for breaching its betting rules.
It is alleged he breached FA rules, which ban players from placing bets or passing on information that could be used for betting, 375 times between 22 January 2014 and 18 March 2017.
He was signed to Norwich City at the time, and played on loan for Swindon, Rotherham, Peterborough and Scunthorpe.
Nottingham Forest defender Harry Toffolo has been charged by the Football Association for breaching its betting rules.
It is alleged he breached FA rules, which ban players from placing bets or passing on information that could be used for betting, 375 times between 22 January 2014 and 18 March 2017.
He was signed to Norwich City at the time, and played on loan for Swindon, Rotherham, Peterborough and Scunthorpe.
What must be really frustrating for the clubs, and indeed the player, is how long it takes for players to be charged. The last bet here was 6 years ago, the player is probably a completely different person now, and it's the current club who will suffer if he can't be played or sold.
Nottingham Forest defender Harry Toffolo has been charged by the Football Association for breaching its betting rules.
It is alleged he breached FA rules, which ban players from placing bets or passing on information that could be used for betting, 375 times between 22 January 2014 and 18 March 2017.
He was signed to Norwich City at the time, and played on loan for Swindon, Rotherham, Peterborough and Scunthorpe.
What must be really frustrating for the clubs, and indeed the player, is how long it takes for players to be charged. The last bet here was 6 years ago, the player is probably a completely different person now, and it's the current club who will suffer if he can't be played or sold.
I don’t know obviously but I suspect this charge has been brought as a consequence of a much broader enquiry in a gambling ring. If as is usual it involves an overseas gang it might have taken a long time for evidence to come out. The only way out is to make the sentences for footballers found guilty very harsh. I mean doing some serious bird. Might make those already well paid little darlings think twice. Footballing punishments are laughable.
It was right they threw the book at Toney. The integrity of the game has to be protected at all costs. If we, football supporters, all suspected games were thrown we would lose interest. I think his ban should have been longer.
I wonder if this is all coming out because of one particular bookmaker and it's that bookies' clientele that are now being investigated. All bookmakers will have account managers that cater for the customers that have "money to burn" but there is one in particular has its own "private club" of very high net worth customers (and a lot of footballers too). They used to have a vetting process for the ones prepared to bet in thousands prior to allowing them to become a member that involved a lunch with one of their directors.
I wonder if the investigation of historical bets is as a result of Ivan Toney utilising their services in which case we can expect others to follow. Coincidentally or not, Toney played with Toffolo at Scunthorpe in 2017 and as with most things in life, recommendations do count for a lot. Neither footballer would have been on millions at that time but certainly would have had enough disposable income to warrant interest from a bookmaker even if it wasn't the one that I have in mind.
Comments
I believe they are going to keep paying him. Football doesn't work like the real world. In the real world if someone wasn't available to do their job then their employer would probably not pay them. But in football if they don't pay him, then despite it being his own fault, it won't do the relationship much good and he'll probably refuse to sign a new contract and might even put in a transfer request for January when he can play again.
So Brentford will probably work something out. We'll continue to pay you, but in return for our good faith we want you to sign a new contract.
Southgate admits that he has given assurances to Toney about his long term future - and challenged the FA to punish him (Southgate) if they don't approve. Southgate is worried for Toney's mental welfare because he has effectively been ostracised from football. Toney is also carrying an injury which Southgate is concerned about and how he can attain the necessary rehab.
Well it seems Southgate is certainly not afraid to rub up his bosses. I hope Toney repays the faith shown in him.
If true the punishment seems very, very light.
Brentford striker Ivan Toney was given a reduced ban from football because of a diagnosed gambling addiction.
Earlier this month Toney was banned for eight months after he accepted breaking Football Association betting rules.
A psychiatry expert who gave evidence to the FA's regulatory commission diagnosed Toney with a gambling addiction and concluded he needed professional help.
As a result, the commission reduced his 11-month sanction by three months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65721139
Of those 232 breaches:
The regulatory commission ruled Toney's case was not one of match-fixing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65721139
Betting against his own team, even when he knows he's not playing has to get him ostracised by his current and future colleagues doesn't it? That's always an absolute no-no.
How did he get caught? Grassed up? Has he pissed away every penny he's ever made and more besides?
Addiction's undoubtedly an illness but a top flight footballer betting on any football is either unforgivably arrogant or an absolute moron, probably both. There's a million and one things he can bet on so punting on football defies any sort of explanation, let alone justification.
Football's dependency on the gambling industry is wrong on every level and why IT has got off so lightly, the whole business is complicit.
I might have had some sympathy if he was betting on abroad matches like Serie A or something he wasn't involved with.
I know they are saying they cut his ban shorter because he got a diagnosis but 11 months wasn't enough in the first place imo.
Can only advise his parents in advance !!
The Peter Swan stuff?
Mike Dillon of Ladbrokes was particularly close to many of the Irish jockeys and trainers and in particular the likes of Mick Kinane and Aidan O'Brien. He was also friends with Alex Ferguson. How much info do we think that he gleaned that wasn't in the public domain? Bookmakers are the first to bleat "foul play" but they have had more of an advantage for years. In fact, the old Pricewise column in the Racing Post would habitually tip a horse in races where Ladbrokes were shortest and out of line with the rest such was their influence at the time.
Mad.
It should have also included a requirement for treatment for gambling addiction, paid by him but supervised by an FA appointee.
The enquiry should also have recommended that football looks at itself and its links to the gambling industry which encourages betting amongst young people such as Toney.
Gambling should be treated like the tobacco industry which I worked in when advertising was banned.
Toney has only himself to blame but he was helped on his way.
“Yes, Ivan did something wrong but what I don’t get at all is how can you not let him be involved in football at all for the first four months?
“What do you gain from that? If you want to rehabilitate people you give them education, you do something, and now he is left on his own.
“He should be forced to go into a hundred schools to tell them about his football and background, that’s how it should work, but I’m a football coach, what do I know?
“If I can’t speak to him, then they will have to ban me. If I am not allowed to speak to him on a support level there must be something wrong. I think you’re allowed to contact people even when they’re in prison aren’t you? So I think I’m allowed.”
My question with things like this is always: "What is the goal here?" Is it to help Toney, someone who clearly has an addiction? Because if so, leaving him to his own devices for eight months probably isn't going to make him better. Is it to send a message? Because if so, 1) The ban probably isn't long enough, and 2) If we start looking at footballers and betting, we might find that a lot of them are involved in betting in one way or another.
thats how they operate if you’re a dope welcome and if you’re shrewd on your way sir , a license to print and tax the stupid
Nottingham Forest defender Harry Toffolo has been charged by the Football Association for breaching its betting rules.
It is alleged he breached FA rules, which ban players from placing bets or passing on information that could be used for betting, 375 times between 22 January 2014 and 18 March 2017.
He was signed to Norwich City at the time, and played on loan for Swindon, Rotherham, Peterborough and Scunthorpe.
Toffolo has until 19 July to respond.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66180483
I doubt the FA were investigating for between 5-8 years before charging him.
I wonder if the investigation of historical bets is as a result of Ivan Toney utilising their services in which case we can expect others to follow. Coincidentally or not, Toney played with Toffolo at Scunthorpe in 2017 and as with most things in life, recommendations do count for a lot. Neither footballer would have been on millions at that time but certainly would have had enough disposable income to warrant interest from a bookmaker even if it wasn't the one that I have in mind.