Closer to 0 than it is to 1,000It was just 232 times tbh
Closer to 0 than it is to 1,000It was just 232 times tbh
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If he’s going to be trouble for you then the best thing would be to get him off the books. We’ll take him off your hands in January, at a discounted price of course seeing as we’re taking on the baggage ourselves.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.
Sure you can have him for £69,999,999 instead of £70mIf he’s going to be trouble for you then the best thing would be to get him off the books. We’ll take him off your hands in January, at a discounted price of course seeing as we’re taking on the baggage ourselves.
I was thinking more £10m and Phil Jones? Can’t say fairer than that.Sure you can have him for £69,999,999 instead of £70m
It does. I was wrong on this one as I thought it was a storm in a teacup but I was completely of the mark.Explains his England omission.
If he has a massive problem then is banning him and potentially ruining his career really a positive solution?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.
It’s over a four year period. It’s not far off one bet a week. That’s nowhere near a major gambling problem unless the sums are eye watering.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.
How long a ban will that be?
Tbf number of bets doesn't really say much. Joey Barton had similiar where he had bet on or against his team a load of times, but it was usually for a couple quid, or like a 50p 10 fold, which is harmless. Comparatively, one huge bet against his team winning, or a bet against his team scoring, and it's a massive red flag suggesting some kind of match fixing. 232 breaches get the headlines but the severity of those breaches will be based on what the bets were for rather than the number.232... i mean why stop at one or two
Yh i disagree with people saying he has a problem, I know loads of people who do a weekly acca. Issue is non on them are playing for the team they’re betting on!I've made 232 bets in 4 years (am up overall, don't worry) that's like a bet a week. So unless any of them involved teams he played for this might even be a smaller issue than Trippier's insider trading. Or it might be much, much, much worse.
Nothing in that statement says that he has either, to be fairYh i disagree with people saying he has a problem, I know loads of people who do a weekly acca. Issue is non on them are playing for the team they’re betting on!
It’s not just the team you’re playing for. Players know other players. They know agents and owners. You can get a whiff of games being fixed from ex-teammates who are mates etc.Yh i disagree with people saying he has a problem, I know loads of people who do a weekly acca. Issue is non on them are playing for the team they’re betting on!
Yeah true. I wonder if it’s illegal to bet on himself scoring - he’s trying to do that anyway and it won’t change anything but I assume it’s not allowed.Nothing in that statement says that he has either, to be fair
I would assume it is banned, it should be anyway. I certainly see the logic in a blanket ban on betting on your club.Yeah true. I wonder if it’s illegal to bet on himself scoring - he’s trying to do that anyway and it won’t change anything but I assume it’s not allowed.
Or that Wilson is still a marginally better striker and there's no need or space to bring any more.Explains his England omission.
If that were the case then having a goal bonus in your contract wouldn't be okay either since a striker could split it with a goalkeeper.The problem with betting on yourself is that it encourages collusion. If it was ok for a striker to bet on themselves to score it incentivises them to collude with goalkeepers and then share the profits
I think the difference is that the value of a goal bonus is relatively small compared to the overall pay packet and there is a natural limit to how much you could profit from it without raising suspicion (no one is going to believe Ivan Toney scored 12 goals in a game without help and it’s unlikely he cpulc convince 19 goalkeepers to help him cheat).If that were the case then having a goal bonus in your contract wouldn't be okay either since a striker could split it with a goalkeeper.
Betting is rarely about what you win, it's the thrill of winning.Why would you bet when your on so much money? Takes the fun out of it when you don’t need the money.
If you like.I really don't think so ... There doesn't appear to be very much to that.
Southgate doesn't seem to like change very much & tends to stick with his boys.
That’s not why most people get addicted. It’s the release of endorphins putting the bet on and the thrill of it winning.Why would you bet when your on so much money? Takes the fun out of it when you don’t need the money.
That’s £10m extra to take Phil Jones right?I was thinking more £10m and Phil Jones? Can’t say fairer than that.