Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
No more football betting allowed if you work for a football club
shirty5
Posts: 19,410
As of August 1 2014, it is an offence for any employee of a football club (including directors and some subcontractors) to place a bet on a football match anyone in the world.
This is a new ruling to come in from The FA and includes every employee of every club from the Premier League to Step 4 level .
The FA say they are monitoring global betting markets on a daily basis while English law demands that bookmakers inform the authorities of any suspicious betting patterns. Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies. In theory this should make the markets easier to monitor.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2014/may/ban-on-betting-passed-by-fa-shareholders
This is a new ruling to come in from The FA and includes every employee of every club from the Premier League to Step 4 level .
The FA say they are monitoring global betting markets on a daily basis while English law demands that bookmakers inform the authorities of any suspicious betting patterns. Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies. In theory this should make the markets easier to monitor.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2014/may/ban-on-betting-passed-by-fa-shareholders
0
Comments
-
For example, the person who works the turnstiles down the Valley and puts a fiver on Barcelona to win that night is technically in breach of the rules.0
-
Drastic but maybe it is needed to stop match fixing taking hold.
0 -
But how would they know?0
-
Lets face it, if the guy on the turnstiles bets a fiver on Barca, they ain't gonna know and they ain't gonna care. It's not designed to stop all football employees from betting - it's designed so that there are no loopholes when they suspect something dodgy going on; the authorities won't need to waste massive amounts of resources on huge investigations/trials (though they may chose to do so, if they think that will uncover a wider crime syndicate) they'll only need to prove that a bet was made by an inappropriate person. It's a good thing.8
-
Agree with Stig0
-
That's me fecked then - or maybe a blessing in disguise as I'm useless at backing winners!!0
-
Ha, that will mess up the goings on at a certain stripey club up the road. One of their workforce always has fistfuls of £50 notes for bets on a Saturday!0
-
How did they know about the Ronnie Moore bet ?Stig said:Lets face it, if the guy on the turnstiles bets a fiver on Barca, they ain't gonna know.
0 -
I would expect that most Tranmere fans, and many fans of other teams, would have a pretty good idea of what Ronnie looks like and would care that a manager had bet against his own team winning. It's more that just a little bit different to a junior employee betting on a match in another country.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
I think it is quite draconian and unreasonable for staff and contractors who have zero influence or involvement with the footballing side of a club. I understand why they are doing It but I have never agreed with taking a shot gun approach to solving a problem.0
-
I think Stig is pretty accurate in that if a steward or a catering staffer sticks a bet on during the week then no-one will bat an eye. It's just a way to simplify things so that if a player is found to have bet on their own game in any way, they can be done for it without needing to mess around proving they did or did not deliberately act in any way to alter the resultKap10 said:I think it is quite draconian and unreasonable for staff and contractors who have zero influence or involvement with the footballing side of a club. I understand why they are doing It but I have never agreed with taking a shot gun approach to solving a problem.
0 -
hahaha. Just watch the eu courts tear that apart.0
-
When do the tickets for Barcelona go on sale?0
-
Seems a bit extreme0
-
I kind of agree, but football clubs and football authorities have proved to be such twats in the past that you can see that said steward being sacked because the club fears sanctions from yhe governing body.thenewbie said:
I think Stig is pretty accurate in that if a steward or a catering staffer sticks a bet on during the week then no-one will bat an eye. It's just a way to simplify things so that if a player is found to have bet on their own game in any way, they can be done for it without needing to mess around proving they did or did not deliberately act in any way to alter the resultKap10 said:I think it is quite draconian and unreasonable for staff and contractors who have zero influence or involvement with the footballing side of a club. I understand why they are doing It but I have never agreed with taking a shot gun approach to solving a problem.
0 -
Can't be policed it's another crazy rule
0 -
Covered End said:
How did they know about the Ronnie Moore bet ?Stig said:Lets face it, if the guy on the turnstiles bets a fiver on Barca, they ain't gonna know.
Ronnie was part of a family syndicate , we discussed it on this thread . I would have taken a different view if his fiver had been placed on Tranmere losing . I felt it was harsh.
http://www.charltonlife.com/discussion/62113/ronnie-moore
0 -
@shirty5
But it's not "an offence" is it.
It's merely a rule of a "members club" which people and businesses choose to belong to.
You aren't going to get prosecuted as an individual.
In addition it's difficult to know what the FA's sanction could be against, say, a turnstile operator other than some pointless ban from working for an FA affiliated club and how would even that be monitored?
In addition there is, for example, currently a defence to any charges brought against "a participant" by the FA:
"It shall be a defence to a charge brought pursuant to sub-paragraph (e) if a
Participant can establish, on the balance of probability, that the Participant
provided any such information in circumstances where he did not know, and could
not reasonably have known, that the information provided would be used by the
other person for or in relation to betting".
So, in my view, it seems safe to assume that the aforementioned turnstile operator could have as their defence the fact that they were entirely ignorant of any inside info about their bet, and that any FA imposed ban on working in football would be very rapidly overturned by an employment tribunal or human rights court.
This is just silly FA bluster and it's really aimed, surely, at the higher echelons within clubs. If so, they really ought to say so. I think, too, that the FA probably need to employ better lawyers. (I guess The Football League's abject failure in the Leeds Utd takeover case hasn't managed to filter through to the FA's brain cell yet to serve as a lesson as to what is likely to happen when you make up rules on the hoof.)0 -
They can always get their mates to do it for them. #Loophole0
-
Sponsored links:
-
But it's not "an offence" is it.cafcfan said:
It's merely a rule of a "members club" which people and businesses choose to belong to.
You aren't going to get prosecuted as an individual.
In addition it's difficult to know what the FA's sanction could be against, say, a turnstile operator other than some pointless ban from working for an FA affiliated club and how would even that be monitored?
In addition there is, for example, currently a defence to any charges brought against "a participant" by the FA:
"It shall be a defence to a charge brought pursuant to sub-paragraph (e) if a
Participant can establish, on the balance of probability, that the Participant
provided any such information in circumstances where he did not know, and could
not reasonably have known, that the information provided would be used by the
other person for or in relation to betting".
So, in my view, it seems safe to assume that the aforementioned turnstile operator could have as their defence the fact that they were entirely ignorant of any inside info about their bet, and that any FA imposed ban on working in football would be very rapidly overturned by an employment tribunal or human rights court.
This is just silly FA bluster and it's really aimed, surely, at the higher echelons within clubs. If so, they really ought to say so. I think, too, that the FA probably need to employ better lawyers. (I guess The Football League's abject failure in the Leeds Utd takeover case hasn't managed to filter through to the FA's brain cell yet to serve as a lesson as to what is likely to happen when you make up rules on the hoof.)
I agree. In betting shops, for example, most betting is anonymous. You could argue that the media are in a much better position to receive and make use of inside information, but the FA can't control what reporters do. Extending their rules to include, for example, catering staff betting on other matches in different jurisdictions means absolutely nothing and unless incorporated into each club's staff policies I don't see how a club could even act on it, still less the FA.0 -
It looks like there are two major changes to the rules.
1. In the past a club's employee could bet on matches that did not involve his club; or the competitions his club plays in that season; or the competitions involving any club he has played for that season. So, for example, a Charlton player, signing from Aston Villa, this season would not be allowed to bet on the outcome of (or outcome of any game involving teams in) the Premier League, the FA Cup, the League Cup or the Championship. Other matches (eg League One or European matches) would be ok.
The new rule extends it to all matches.
2. Players used to be prohibited from match result betting; spot betting (ie number of goals, corners, yellow cards, etc); or competition betting (eg who is going to win the FA Cup). But other bets surrounding football (eg player transfers, hiring of managers, etc) are now included.
The bit I don't get is this: "Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies". How does a new rule, that imposes an obligation on betting shops in the UK "put an end to unregulated offshore bookies"? That's a leap that I can't decipher.0 -
It is just muddying the waters and is an entirely separate matter.Chizz said:
The bit I don't get is this: "Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies". How does a new rule, that imposes an obligation on betting shops in the UK "put an end to unregulated offshore bookies"? That's a leap that I can't decipher.
When the new Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill finishes wending its way through Parliament all bookmakers, not just UK ones, will be required to get a license from The Gambling Commission if they wish to provide betting services to UK-based punters.
That puts them under the auspices of The Gambling Commission's enforcement regime and - if they wish to keep their license - means they will need to comply with the Commisssion's edicts. That will include the provision of data on betting if they are needed to demonstrate that there had been "unusual betting patterns".
Now, whether the proverbial turnstile operator putting a £5 bet on a match with a Gibraltar-based bookmaker is going to trigger any enforcement action..... well, I leave you to decide!
The other pertinent question, of course, is whether The Gambling Commission would be inclined to use its enforcement powers to work out whether a member of a private body had breached that body's membership rules. I think they may be more inclined to not waste their resources on such an enquiry unless there was the scope to demonstrate that there had been either widespread or high worth fraudulent activity.
In fact, the Commission's own policy statement, using phrases such as "risk assessment", "proportionality" and "offences under the Act" together with a clear focus on "the prevention on illegal gambling" rather indicates that the body with the enforcement powers is quite likely to tell the FA to FO.
0 -
So a company wishing to offer a market in Premier League fixtures in, say, Venezuela, to punters in, say, South America, north America and Continental Europe, has to get a "licence" to allow them to do so?cafcfan said:
When the new Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill finishes wending its way through Parliament all bookmakers, not just UK ones, will be required to get a license from The Gambling Commission if they wish to provide betting services to UK-based punters.Chizz said:
The bit I don't get is this: "Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies". How does a new rule, that imposes an obligation on betting shops in the UK "put an end to unregulated offshore bookies"? That's a leap that I can't decipher.0 -
No. That's why I explained "if they wish to provide betting services to UK-based punters."0
-
Well, for on-line betting you need an account right? For the bookie's money laundering regime, I assume (I don't know I've never done it) you'd need to provide an address, a bank account where your winnings can be paid into plus other stuff like confirming your age to prevent under-age betting? They could also tell which country you computer was in. So unless you went to extraordinary lengths to use a VPN and set up fake details they'd still know where you were from wouldn't they?Kap10 said:
What happens if a uk punter goes on line, finds them and places a bet?cafcfan said:No. That's why I explained "if they wish to provide betting services to UK-based punters."
0 -
You are right about bank account or card and computer location, although you don't need to proved an address. However my point was more related to a punter placing an unsolicited bet, would they have to block it or could they accept it.cafcfan said:
Well, for on-line betting you need an account right? For the bookie's money laundering regime, I assume (I don't know I've never done it) you'd need to provide an address, a bank account where your winnings can be paid into plus other stuff like confirming your age to prevent under-age betting? They could also tell which country you computer was in. So unless you went to extraordinary lengths to use a VPN and set up fake details they'd still know where you were from wouldn't they?Kap10 said:
What happens if a uk punter goes on line, finds them and places a bet?cafcfan said:No. That's why I explained "if they wish to provide betting services to UK-based punters."
0 -
