I thought all this was behind us????

[keep the faith]

Originally Posted by NORTHERNSOUL

I really dont understand how players are so thick as to get caught when all you have to do is get your brother to open an account in his name pay him in cash to fund it and only bet using a laptop with nord turned on.

All things a bloody 5 year old could do so if a player is too thick not to leave an evidence trail then for me they deserve all they get.

20 Years ago when the regulations weren't as tight as they are now I regularly placed bets for a club owner [ now deceased so they carnt touch him for it RIP JC ] in return I had information that allowed me to win every weekend it paid for me to attend over 50 games that season.

So, you condone his actions do you?

[NORTHERNSOUL]

Originally Posted by keep the faith

So, you condone his actions do you?

I neither condone or endorse his actions

What i.m saying is whats the point of having regulations that anybody with half a brain can drive a bus thru when all they do is catch a few unfortunate less streetwise players who really should know better.

Be much better if they just said you can bet on what you want except for the competitions that the club that employs you take part in and if you do then its instant dismissal for gross misconduct [as was done at Stanley with the scouse lad a few years back ] and a life ban from the game controlled by that country's association.

Look at the situation in horse racing strictly speaking the likes of stable lads aren't supposed to bet but they all have accounts in other people's names and if it wasn't for the gambling winnings they certainly would struggle to live on what the trainers pay them and don't you think that if anyone were being anywhere near successful the bookies would simply close down their account under a clause which gives them the right to do against anyone they suspect has inside knowledge.

I was investigated after someone [ Pretty sure I know who ? think construction mogul friend of AH ] tipped off the authorities and I had my accounts shut down simply because I had the club chairman's mobile no in my phone which was mad because I had two other numbers for him in it that they didn't even suss out and the stupid thing was I could have easily deleted [ or got a new handset or changed service provider ] in the 3 months between knowing I was being investigated and plod actually seizing my phone.

So yes I do have sympathy for him simply because it seems to me another example of them just picking on the lowest hanging fruit and making an example of them to scare off anyone else thinking of doing the same as they clearly did in the case of Rob Heys. And it will be very interesting to see the outcome of the lad Toney at Brentfords case where i.ll put my money on a massive fine but only a very short ban, unlike Rob who was in effect banned for two years which cost him his career in the game.

I.d love to see how they got on if a player came out and used addiction as his defence I can't really see the FA getting much kudos or sympathy for ending the career of someone with what's now regarded as an illness.

[Twenty Eight]

Originally Posted by NORTHERNSOUL

I neither condone or endorse his actions

What i.m saying is whats the point of having regulations that anybody with half a brain can drive a bus thru when all they do is catch a few unfortunate less streetwise players who really should know better.

Be much better if they just said you can bet on what you want except for the competitions that the club that employs you take part in and if you do then its instant dismissal for gross misconduct [as was done at Stanley with the scouse lad a few years back ] and a life ban from the game controlled by that country's association.

Look at the situation in horse racing strictly speaking the likes of stable lads aren't supposed to bet but they all have accounts in other people's names and if it wasn't for the gambling winnings they certainly would struggle to live on what the trainers pay them and don't you think that if anyone were being anywhere near successful the bookies would simply close down their account under a clause which gives them the right to do against anyone they suspect has inside knowledge.

I was investigated after someone [ Pretty sure I know who ? think construction mogul friend of AH ] tipped off the authorities and I had my accounts shut down simply because I had the club chairman's mobile no in my phone which was mad because I had two other numbers for him in it that they didn't even suss out and the stupid thing was I could have easily deleted [ or got a new handset or changed service provider ] in the 3 months between knowing I was being investigated and plod actually seizing my phone.

So yes I do have sympathy for him simply because it seems to me another example of them just picking on the lowest hanging fruit and making an example of them to scare off anyone else thinking of doing the same as they clearly did in the case of Rob Heys. And it will be very interesting to see the outcome of the lad Toney at Brentfords case where i.ll put my money on a massive fine but only a very short ban, unlike Rob who was in effect banned for two years which cost him his career in the game.

I.d love to see how they got on if a player came out and used addiction as his defence I can't really see the FA getting much kudos or sympathy for ending the career of someone with what's now regarded as an illness.

I don't think Kieran Trippier will agree with your lowest hanging fruit comment - and he did channel his bets through "mates"