Ivan Toney | Banned until 16th January 2024 Stay on Topic!

The rule on betting is quite broad but 232 charges sound bloody serious, him getting a ban is very bad news for us so hoping for small misdemeanours. Also hope this is not a result of larger gambling problem for the lad as it would be a great shame for a talented young man who is on a very upward trajectory.

Assuming he's not bet on games involving himself, which would take it into new areas of severity, and it's not huge sums on big games, then it's probably going to be along the lines of what one of my Wycombe boys had the other season.

2months ban, 4months suspended, for 180odd bets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51239326
 
If it’s a gambling addiction (it may not be) he should be receiving rehabilitative support and CBT rather than a draconian punishment.
But that’s not the world we live in.

What does CBT stand for, cause I Googled it and got some really, really weird shit.
 
If 232 betting charges doesnt get him a massive ban they would be as well just letting them all do it.
He clearly has a massive problem or could not give a shit.
In US sports that would get you a lifetime ban.

Are you making an assumption that he's bet on games involving himself or players he knows?

Him placing say bets on a conference south game every week wouldn't be "that" serious. It's just that the rule is you can't bet on pro football at all.
 
I used to love having a bet when I first started work but I just got sick of having hardly any money two days after payday.
Luckily I got it out of my system at a young age.

I think I was about 10 and at the seaside.

Got a buzz from a stack of either 2 or 10ps coming out of a slot machine.
Then wazzed them all away and lost the lot.

Learnt my lesson that day :wenger: :drool:
 
I think I was about 10 and at the seaside.

Got a buzz from a stack of either 2 or 10ps coming out of a slot machine.
Then wazzed them all away and lost the lot.

Learnt my lesson that day :wenger: :drool:
I can remember that machine when all the coins sat on those sliding floors but never seemed to drop off in the winning tray.
Geez..that was frustrating!
 
I can remember that machine when all the coins sat on those sliding floors but never seemed to drop off in the winning tray.
Geez..that was frustrating!

I can't have been the only one imagining some kind of remote controlled coin that swept the whole slab dry :drool:
 
May have been addressed in thread somewhere already, but what does it matter if Toney makes a bet on non-PL games or non-footballing sporting events? Not as if he can influence them. I may be being naive here.
 
This is all going to depend on what he has bet on. If he is picking a acca for conference football, for relatively small amounts I don't think it'll be too bad. If he has bet on stuff in the PL like manager changes, Brentford or some sort of things that PL/Champo players would only be privy to, then he'll be in a lot of trouble. The latter would get him the Trippier treatment which was something like 10 weeks for 7 bets. If it is the latter, I could see a near year ban. Especially as betting is already a hot potato with football atm.
 
May have been addressed in thread somewhere already, but what does it matter if Toney makes a bet on non-PL games or non-footballing sporting events? Not as if he can influence them. I may be being naive here.

Because it's a rule. Pro footballers cannot bet on football.

Football is a small industry, people talk. It's inevitable for a guy like Toney, who has played in lower leagues for different teams, that he'll have mates and contacts at other games.
Even a hint of knowing players in those leagues could easily blow up into a match fixing situation.
 
Because it's a rule. Pro footballers cannot bet on football.

Football is a small industry, people talk. It's inevitable for a guy like Toney, who has played in lower leagues for different teams, that he'll have mates and contacts at other games.
Even a hint of knowing players in those leagues could easily blow up into a match fixing situation.
To be fair you can be completely outside football and still know some footballers. It doesn’t really make it any different, he is very unlikely to actually influence outcome of games he does not participate in and not really much more likely to be able to do that than an average person.
 
To be fair you can be completely outside football and still know some footballers. It doesn’t really make it any different, he is very unlikely to actually influence outcome of games he does not participate in and not really much more likely to be able to do that than an average person.

It does make a huge difference, as the rule is there - you can't place bets on football games when you're a pro footballer.
There's no such rule on "knowing" a player as such. But obviously insider knowledge is a grey area.
 
To be fair you can be completely outside football and still know some footballers. It doesn’t really make it any different, he is very unlikely to actually influence outcome of games he does not participate in and not really much more likely to be able to do that than an average person.
Some footballers yes but every footballer will know many other footballers. You have to set the line somewhere, arguing grey areas alone would be a disaster.
 
Wow, 232 breaches over a 4 year period. I wonder why it took time so long to discover this, and how he was eventually found out.

I also wonder if there is an underlying condition.
 
I wonder if someone had a little word in Southgate's ear last week? 232 charges is a serious wtaf moment. That's not a dabble, it's full immersion and I can imagine him being off the scene for quite a while.
 
If it’s a gambling addiction (it may not be) he should be receiving rehabilitative support and CBT rather than a draconian punishment.
But that’s not the world we live in.
But they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Actions have consequences. He knew the rules and decided to break them. He should not be treated any differently to you are me. He can still receive help if he needs it, along with serving whatever punishment he receives.
 
If he's done a 6 team accumulator wonder would that count as 6 charges or 1. I'd say 6 no? Wouldn't be long piling up the charges if so

He could have done a 232 game acca and only bet once his life
 
Because it's a rule. Pro footballers cannot bet on football.

Football is a small industry, people talk. It's inevitable for a guy like Toney, who has played in lower leagues for different teams, that he'll have mates and contacts at other games.
Even a hint of knowing players in those leagues could easily blow up into a match fixing situation.
To be fair you can be completely outside football and still know some footballers. It doesn’t really make it any different, he is very unlikely to actually influence outcome of games he does not participate in and not really much more likely to be able to do that than an average person.

Basically what Sarni is saying.
I understand it’s the rule, and I’m not disputing he shouldn’t be punished - because it’s a rule. But I’m talking generally as to why the rule is there. I have a friend who plays league 1 football - what stops him telling me something and I put a bet on it?

I’m guessing sportsmen can bet on sports that isn’t their own right?
 


Don't really agree with the above as it's a question of maintaining sporting integrity rather than them having a problem with betting itself, but the degree to which football ties itself to gambling is far less than ideal.
 
Last edited:
Are you making an assumption that he's bet on games involving himself or players he knows?

Him placing say bets on a conference south game every week wouldn't be "that" serious. It's just that the rule is you can't bet on pro football at all.

It wouldn't be a breach of rules if he doesn't breach any rule, would it?
 


Don't really agree with the above as it's a question of maintaining sporting integrity rather than them having a problem with betting per se, but the degree to which football ties itself to gambling is far less than ideal.


That's a bit weird logic. The government can received tax money from oil company, but it doesn't mean they'll allow government employee to work on oil company at the same time.
 


Don't really agree with the above as it's a question of maintaining sporting integrity rather than them having a problem with betting itself, but the degree to which football ties itself to gambling is far less than ideal.


I fully support the idea of gambling companies being booted out of the game and not allowed to sponsor teams/leagues etc. but this logic is dumb.
 
That's a bit weird logic. The government can received tax money from oil company, but it doesn't mean they'll allow government employee to work on oil company at the same time.

Yeah, it's a nonsensical argument really. I just quoted it for the numbers in terms of how many teams are sponsored by bookies.
 
Yeah, it's a nonsensical argument really. I just quoted it for the numbers in terms of how many teams are sponsored by bookies.

I know. I was just being argumentative and showing how smart I was.

I also against those betting companies sponsoring this family type of sport.
 
The rules are the rules so he's a silly boy.

But I don't think betting on other teams is very problematic. People say he knows people, football is a closed circle..so what. That's how betting has always worked. Inside information exists and it is profitable. No different to all the people that get information one way or the other. Plus they're probably all at it, using friends and family to place bets.