9 Stone Elvis
Full Member
This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
Bet on his own team to win though.
This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
Don't know about that. But ten months seems ridiculous. Especially when we consider that he apparently actively tried to get others involved in gambling.Should have been banned for life.
Don't know about that. But ten months seems ridiculous. Especially when we consider that he apparently actively tried to get others involved in gambling.
This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
Should have been banned for life.
You can get banned and get help. Both are fair cases. Priority should be getting help and recovering. A ban and a substantial one should have gone a long with it.For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.
Does he keep getting paid by Newcastle during his ban?
For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.
Because he knew the rules and he broke the rules, that should have proper consequences. Addiction or not, he should get a fairly lengthy ban. If he wants or needs help, then he should go and address that as part of his ban and it could be shortened if he sorted himself out to allow his reintegration back into the game.
What if a player had a drug addiction to PEDs? Should they not get a proper ban because it's an addiction and they need to be helped and shown respect?
PEDs are used to gain an unfair advantage so it's difficult to compare it gambling. A player struggling with alcohol wouldn't be banned for example, they would be offered help.
I think when football fans hear of a player betting on matches their minds immediately go to some Jamie Parker at Harchester Utd type scenario where he's chucking the ball in his own net to pay off some gangsters, when in reality it's just a bored footballer sticking on a few bets that have no bearing on anything. I get why the rule is in place, because it's easier to just blanket ban all football betting rather than having to deal with picking apart which of those are of the innocent variety and those that aren't but calling for a lifetime ban on something so innocuous just seems mad to me.
For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.
Howe saying Tonali should be available this weekend?
Newcastle expecting to pay their way out of this ban or something?
Are there any ethical issue if he just keeps betting on his own team to win? What if he uses the money he won for charity purpose?Bet on his own team to win though.
Howe saying Tonali should be available this weekend?
Newcastle expecting to pay their way out of this ban or something?
I think it's incredibly unfair for football to be so hard on players gambling, considering how football has embraced and embedded gambling advertising.
There's just a moral inconsistency there.
And I'd be all for legalized gambling being banned from sports.
I think it's incredibly unfair for football to be so hard on players gambling, considering how football has embraced and embedded gambling advertising.
There's just a moral inconsistency there.
And I'd be all for legalized gambling being banned from sports.
Done it again! Milan have done very well to get rid of him.
Were those a carry over from when he played in Italy?Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?
This charge related to bets placed on 12 August when he moved to Newcastle. The ban he's currently serving is from when he was in Italy.Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?
Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?
Yeah what probably happened was that he continued doing what he did in Italy after joining Newcastle and before the initial charges surfaced.It's not really 'again', it's just 'more'.
Lad has a bit of a problem. The whole games is surrounded by betting companies. You only have to listen to Talksport and it is constant going over to someone from one betting firm or another.The ban was for betting offences while he was still playing in Italy, and those dates are after he'd left and joined Newcastle.
Were those a carry over from when he played in Italy?
This charge related to bets placed on 12 August when he moved to Newcastle. The ban he's currently serving is from when he was in Italy.
The ban was for betting offences while he was still playing in Italy, and those dates are after he'd left and joined Newcastle.
Its refreshing to see another club getting screwed over by their big money signing for a change.
Honestly I'm amazed he's not at United with the luck we have.