Joey Barton banned for 18 months

SlickRic

As context...

Suarez racism - 8 game ban
Thatcher on Pedro Mendes - 9 games
Di Canio ref push - 11 games
Cantona kung fu - 9 months
Barton gambling - 18 months

Is this not a bit mental?

brevity

SlickRic wrote: »

As context...

Suarez racism - 8 game ban
Thatcher on Pedro Mendes - 9 games
Di Canio ref push - 11 games
Cantona kung fu - 9 months
Barton gambling - 18 months

Is this not a bit mental?

Was he gambling on his own games ie games that he played in?

Daledge

As context...

Barton's career and life have been marked by numerous controversial incidents and disciplinary problems and he has been convicted twice on charges of violence. On 20 May 2008, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for common assault and affray during an incident in Liverpool City Centre. Barton served 77 days of this prison term, being released on 28 July 2008. On 1 July 2008, he was also given a four-month suspended sentence after admitting assault occasioning actual bodily harm on former teammate Ousmane Dabo during a training-ground dispute on 1 May 2007. This incident effectively ended his Manchester City career. Barton has been charged with violent conduct three times by The Football Association: for the assault on Dabo, for punching Morten Gamst Pedersen in the stomach and for attacking three players on the final day of the 2011–12 season.

Sooner he's banned for life, the better.

CSF

brevity wrote: »

SlickRic wrote: »

As context...

Suarez racism - 8 game ban
Thatcher on Pedro Mendes - 9 games
Di Canio ref push - 11 games
Cantona kung fu - 9 months
Barton gambling - 18 months

Is this not a bit mental?

Was he gambling on his own games? As games that he could have a direct impact on the outcome?

There were games that his team played in, but none that he played in.

The length of the ban is excessively scandalous.

Cantona's Collars

http://www.joeybarton.com/betting-statement/

gimli2112

On one hand I agree it seems harsh on the other hand it's Joey Barton.

Arghus

SlickRic wrote: »

As context...

Suarez racism - 8 game ban
Thatcher on Pedro Mendes - 9 games
Di Canio ref push - 11 games
Cantona kung fu - 9 months
Barton gambling - 18 months

Is this not a bit mental?

Is it perhaps because betting could be seen as something that brings the integrity of the game into question? Not saying that Barton actually did this, but that the FA might have come down hard on him because of that perception.

Trigger

1260 bets over a ten year period, because it's a misconduct charge does his previous charges get taking into account like the ban he took with him to France.

He was also fined 30k

Daledge

Daledge wrote: »

As context...



Sooner he's banned for life, the better.

He's 35 in September, I reckon he won't play top tier football in any league on note again.

Mitch Connor

Daledge wrote: »

As context...



Sooner he's banned for life, the better.

Provides zero context. None at all.

Or do you mean: "As context for why I don't like him and don't really care what reason is chosen to ban him".

Nerdlingr

Daledge wrote: »

As context...



Sooner he's banned for life, the better.

Dont forget stubbing out a cigar in a team member's eye at at a Man City Christmas party one year.

CSF

I'd be pretty wary about being happy about someone suffering an injustice just because you don't like them. If this sticks and the next player to be caught is from your team, the precedent will apply.

alchemist33

He's probably right that a less controversial player would have got a lighter sentence but it's not as if he was born controversial. That controversy was as a result of his own behavior. You also have to note in his statement that even though he accepts he placed the bets he does his best to shift responsibility to almost everyone else he can think of.

Daledge

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Provides zero context. None at all.

Or do you mean: "As context for why I don't like him and don't really care what reason is chosen to ban him".

As context as to why it's "not a bit mental", obviously, genius. He deserves it.

brevity

We are bombarded with ads for gambling companies when watching soccer. It's on the shirts, the stands. It's on 3 or four times during ad breaks. It's rife in the sport yet a player has been banned for 18 months for gambling.

Corholio

It seems a bit excessive however betting on your own matches, whether you play in them or not is always a big no no. Even when not playing you still would have direct access to players who are playing in these games, and the possibility of influence that way.

I agree with what he said on the betting companies though, there's far too much influence from them directly in the game and at all times around games. The F.A.'s stance on things like this will always be watered down as long as these companies remain having the influence they have advertising and marketing wise.

Benimar

sugarman wrote: »

He bet in games he could directly influence. While he didnt play in the games and theres no speculation of match fixing he'd have known the tactics of the manager, their attitude towards an individual game, team selections before anyone else.. the players themselves and their capabilities.

Knowing that your team has a few injuries/isn't focused on the game is not the same as having a direct influence on the result though, is it?

He didn't ask/pay any player to throw the game, he just had insider knowledge. He wasn't cheating his team, he was cheating the bookies.

He broke the rules, he deserves a punishment, but 18 months does sound a bit mad.

Nerdlingr

He bet on himself as first goalscorer in a game he played in. FFS. What a dope.

Daledge

Nerdlingr wrote: »

He bet on himself as first goalscorer in a game he played in. FFS. What a dope.

And lost lol

CSF

sugarman wrote: »

brevity wrote: »

We are bombarded with ads for gambling companies when watching soccer. It's on the shirts, the stands. It's on 3 or four times during ad breaks. It's rife in the sport yet a player has been banned for 18 months for gambling.

Well yeah, because its a rule of the FA.

He bet in games he could directly influence. While he didnt play in the games and theres no speculation of match fixing he'd have known the tactics of the manager, their attitude towards an individual game, team selections before anyone else.. the players themselves and their capabilities.

Theres a whole host of reasons footballers should not allowed to bet on the game and he broke the rules by doing so.

I don't think anyone is disputing he broke the rules though. You appear to be missing the point.

jacool

"On the few occasions where I placed a bet on my own team to lose, I was not involved in the match day squad for any of those games. I did not play. I was not even on the bench. I had no more ability to influence the outcome than had I been betting on darts, snooker, or a cricket match in the West Indies. "
A man who can attack three players in a match would find it easy to "influence" a few players in his own squad.
I think he has knowingly abused his position, the rules are there.
This could also act as a deterrent to other players, who might feel tempted.

rob316

On the crime the sentence is incredibly harsh I feel but the FA want to make an example of this and warn others tempted to do the same. Taking into account its Barton though he's lucky his career lasted this long.

AdamD

sugarman wrote: »

Well yeah, because its a rule of the FA.

He bet in games he could directly influence. While he didnt play in the games and theres no speculation of match fixing he'd have known the tactics of the manager, their attitude towards an individual game, team selections before anyone else.. the players themselves and their capabilities.

Theres a whole host of reasons footballers should not allowed to bet on the game and he broke the rules by doing so.

I don't think you understand what directly influence means


If the information provided by Barton is correct he won 2 of the 15 bets he placed involving his own team. Wasn't match fixing anyway :pac:

irishman86

I wonder if it was Mark Noble would it have been such a long ban. Either way he shouldnt be gambling on football, stick to the horses

Corholio

Benimar wrote: »

Knowing that your team has a few injuries/isn't focused on the game is not the same as having a direct influence on the result though, is it?

He didn't ask/pay any player to throw the game, he just had insider knowledge. He wasn't cheating his team, he was cheating the bookies.

He broke the rules, he deserves a punishment, but 18 months does sound a bit mad.

That's why the rule is there though because insider knowledge can have undeterminable actions from a player. We only know from Barton that he didn't influence players etc, but he put himself in the position that he was able to.

I think 18 months is a bit aggressive, however he out himself in a awful position when he bet on his teams matches, playing or not. Influence is a huge factor in match fixing across the world, he positioned himself in a place of influence through his stupidity. He may get it shorted a bit but imo it's certainly not a short ban type of thing.

Mr.H

The ban is not harsh enough imo.

Forget who he is. He is a footballer who bet on football games that his team played in. That should never be acceptable and is as close to the line as you can get without actually fixing games.

rob316

He's makes a very strong case about the influence and relationship of betting companies on football though.
Before the match KO off on Sky the very last add is a betting ad, commericals at half time are then Ray Winstone telling you have a bang on the lastest odds for the next goalscorer or something. I'm not a gambling guy bar the odd accumulator but I know many people who are more into the betting aspect of sport than spectacle.

pjohnson

Daledge wrote: »

As context...



Sooner he's banned for life, the better.

And what does that have to do with this incident?

rob316

Mr.H wrote: »

The ban is not harsh enough imo.

Forget who he is. He is a footballer who bet on football games that his team played in. That should never be acceptable and is as close to the line as you can get without actually fixing games.

He had no influence in them though and the money put down was a pittance given his obvious wealth.

Shaungoater

I don't know, in some sports there are no penalties unless you bet on your team to lose while you are playing. I can see the bigger picture but don't give these lads (many uneducated) so much money and time off and plaster advertising with gambling then ban them from betting on a sport they obviously love.

Demichellis got fined/banned for betting on argentinian football IIRC while he was playing for city. Madness

BorneTobyWilde

One thing for sure is he is crap at gambling, even with all the inside info.

Daledge

pjohnson wrote: »

And what does that have to do with this incident?

That's like asking what does a criminal record have to with anything when a previously convicted criminal performs a different crime? So in this case, absolutely everything.

BorneTobyWilde

Shaungoater wrote: »

I don't know, in some sports there are no penalties unless you bet on your team to lose while you are playing. I can see the bigger picture but don't give these lads (many uneducated) so much money and time off and plaster advertising with gambling then ban them from betting on a sport they obviously love.

Demichellis got fined/banned for betting on argentinian football IIRC while he was playing for city. Madness

Look at horse racing '' The sport of Kings'' look at all the obvious throwing of racing by owners, trainers and jockeys. The game is the most corrupt sport on the planet.

wonga77

I never understand these people who bet on sports they are involved in some way with. Fair enough if he wanted to bet on cricket, horse racing or whatever. If he was that desperate to have a punt on games involving his own team, why not do it on a friends account. Im not saying that makes it any better but you would have to wonder about the iQ of some people.

LiamoSail

Barton knew the rules and chose to break them on a weekly basis over a period of a number of years. His disciplinary record is one of, if not the worst in the English game ever. Not sure why he would be banned for anything less than the maximum allowed

LiamoSail

I wonder how many other players in the league have done similar? There must be a few every bit as guilty just waiting on the FA to call

Mr.H

rob316 wrote:

He had no influence in them though and the money put down was a pittance given his obvious wealth.

Money is relative.

Does he have more influence over the team than you or I?

If the answer is yes then he has influence.

You know what I don't even have to justify it. Its not just against the rules but it's illegal also.

Remember when grobbeuler was accused? He was looking at jail time (albeit he was in the actual games and accused of taken cash)

Doing it once or twice fair enough but over a thousand times when you know your bot allowed is just total disregard.

Nothing stopping him from having a word with a player and asking him to just pass instead of shooting or to kick the ball out right away for a throw in in the first minute.

Loads of betting options he could have influenced without the team actually having to throw the game.

I'd be interested to see how much he won?

But I stand by the fact that anyone caught should be banned for life. It's illegal and against the rules and the players know it.

If you work for Paddy Power you can't even bet in Paddy Power and you would have even less influence than joey did.

BorneTobyWilde

I remember Charlie Adams scoring against Liverpool and running to crowd making the ''money money money'' signal with his hands. He obviously had a bet on himself to score.
It was so obvious, I duno why it was never picked up on.

Daledge

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I remember Charlie Adams scoring against Liverpool and running to crowd making the ''money money money'' signal with his hands. He obviously had a bet on himself to score.
It was so obvious, I duno why it was never picked up on.

Maybe he just has a goal bonus written into his contract? Don't recall the occasion though so can't really comment otherwise.

LiamoSail

rob316 wrote: »

He's makes a very strong case about the influence and relationship of betting companies on football though.
Before the match KO off on Sky the very last add is a betting ad, commericals at half time are then Ray Winstone telling you have a bang on the lastest odds for the next goalscorer or something. I'm not a gambling guy bar the odd accumulator but I know many people who are more into the betting aspect of sport than spectacle.

It's unethical, but it's also irrelevant to Barton's circumstances. He knew the rules and broke them anyway. I'm sure he was happy enough prior to this to pick up the wage he was partly funded through the betting companies ploughing money in to the game

siblers

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I remember Charlie Adams scoring against Liverpool and running to crowd making the ''money money money'' signal with his hands. He obviously had a bet on himself to score.
It was so obvious, I duno why it was never picked up on.

Not relly, he could easily have been getting abuse off Liverpool fans the whole game and felt it was a good way to shut them up.

rob316

Mr.H wrote: »

Money is relative.

Does he have more influence over the team than you or I?

If the answer is yes then he has influence.

You know what I don't even have to justify it. Its not just against the rules but it's illegal also.

Remember when grobbeuler was accused? He was looking at jail time (albeit he was in the actual games and accused of taken cash)

Doing it once or twice fair enough but over a thousand times when you know your bot allowed is just total disregard.

Nothing stopping him from having a word with a player and asking him to just pass instead of shooting or to kick the ball out right away for a throw in in the first minute.

Loads of betting options he could have influenced without the team actually having to throw the game.

I'd be interested to see how much he won?

But I stand by the fact that anyone caught should be banned for life. It's illegal and against the rules and the players know it.

If you work for Paddy Power you can't even bet in Paddy Power and you would have even less influence than joey did.

Nothing he lost money actually, he posted a list of the bets he made against his own team.

dundalkfc10

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I remember Charlie Adams scoring against Liverpool and running to crowd making the ''money money money'' signal with his hands. He obviously had a bet on himself to score.
It was so obvious, I duno why it was never picked up on.

Might have been a goal bonus, squad bonus for beating big teams etc.... Nonsense to say he def had a bet on

Uncle Mclovin

Off topic a bit but did the FA ban big Sam for any length?

There method of handing out sentences is a bit similar to the Irish judicial system. Farcical at best.

rob316

LiamoSail wrote: »

It's unethical, but it's also irrelevant to Barton's circumstances. He knew the rules and broke them anyway. I'm sure he was happy enough prior to this to pick up the wage he was partly funded through the betting companies ploughing money in to the game

Absolutely he's hypocritical I know and only trying to save face but it doesn't make the point irrelevant. He's done and I've already stated he can thankful his career lasted this long.

Mr.H

rob316 wrote:

Nothing he lost money actually, he posted a list of the bets he made against his own team.

He posted a few select bets that show he made a loss. I'd be interested in the other 1000 bets.

He also claimed to have no involvement in any if the games yet was in the starting xi for a few of the ones he showed........

He is a liar mate and he broke the rules.

Nerdlingr

rob316 wrote: »

He had no influence in them though and the money put down was a pittance given his obvious wealth.

He bet on first goalscorers and his team winning in games he played in.

gucci

rob316 wrote: »

He's makes a very strong case about the influence and relationship of betting companies on football though.
Before the match KO off on Sky the very last add is a betting ad, commericals at half time are then Ray Winstone telling you have a bang on the lastest odds for the next goalscorer or something. I'm not a gambling guy bar the odd accumulator but I know many people who are more into the betting aspect of sport than spectacle.

Dont forget this type of ban has placed the media in a tricky situation.

Everyone loves to stick the boot into a character like Barton (much of the criticism of him is well earned too) but the media will be dammed if they shine too much light on the practices and advertising policies of the betting companies. So they wont be getting too high and mighty, thats many many $$$$s of advertising revenue that they are risking to keep their businesses going and their shareholders satisfied.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Look at horse racing '' The sport of Kings'' look at all the obvious throwing of racing by owners, trainers and jockeys. The game is the most corrupt sport on the planet.

Any sport where money is bet on is likely to be fiddled in some capacity.....whether its by the people on the pitch or by the folks taking the bets!

SlickRic

Spot on tweet from Gary Lineker.

"I'm now looking forward to @FA clamping down on betting company adverts or sponsorship in football."

DJIMI TRARORE

What I'd like to know is if someone like Kane/Rashford/Clyne did something similar,how long would they get. Certainly not 18maths I'm. At the same time it's only Barton

Daledge

DJIMI TRARORE wrote: »

What I'd like to know is if someone like Kane/Rashford/Clyne did something similar,how long would they get. Certainly not 18maths I'm. At the same time it's only Barton

Of course not, but why should they? They haven't got any previous offences for breaching FA regulations?