Rob heys

[DAV007]

Originally Posted by johnc

I do remember him being interviewed on some local TV channel, I think it was Channel M, and on there he stated he had remortgaged his house in order to pay some debts during the bucket shaking days, everybody makes mistakes and he will rightly pay the price.

A £2000 loss over 10 years is hardly somebody with a gambling addiction, more like somebody who likes a flutter and can take a £200 a year hit

Agree.
Like all punters, the bookie always wins

[Mainstand]

Originally Posted by DAV007

Whatever the final outcome, nobody wins out of this.

Its essential the club use the incident as an opportunity for a change in direction off the pitch.
They either keep Rob and provide him some clear targets/goals and rules including some training OR they get rid quickly and advertise for an external candidate.

A lot of the off field failures may not be entirely Robs fault, if he doesn't know any better maybe people (including me) should be more balanced in analysing the missed opportunities and failures.

Mr Heys can not be involved in football or football activities for 21 months a new candidate is the only way forward by law!

[Redraine]

Originally Posted by johnc

I do remember him being interviewed on some local TV channel, I think it was Channel M, and on there he stated he had remortgaged his house in order to pay some debts during the bucket shaking days, everybody makes mistakes and he will rightly pay the price.

A £2000 loss over 10 years is hardly somebody with a gambling addiction, more like somebody who likes a flutter and can take a £200 a year hit

I'm sorry, but unless I am reading Robs statement incorrectly, the 2 grand loss was related only to the 735 bets. If this was only a small percentage of his bets on other events, what on earth are his total losses if, as everyone knows, only the bookies win.

[Pendle Red]

ASFC News Story > 5571

Totally agree with Peter focus must be on the Team

A massive week next week for the Club

[DAV007]

Was he backing or laying?

If he was acting as a bookie and laying then he may have made a few quid at times.

[jaysay]

I have just taken the trouble to read this thread as I haven't really been following it, but after the story broke about Mr. Heys, I find it hard to believe that a person of his position and standing could bet on his own club losing 1 game never mind 37, having read most comments I honestly can't understand how Mr. Heys can hold any position of responcibility within the club ever again, never mind after a 21 month ban, he has broken league rules and the more important rule, don't drop your own club in the crap, a sin unforgiveable in my book

[Redash]

This whole thing needs to be put into context. In my opinion there are two types of gambling that relate to football, Corruption gambling and Fun gambling, it looks like Rob has been caught having fun.
I realise that Rob’s bets were on accumulators (same as Cav) and he probably thought were dead certs, at the time. Parallels are being drawn with the other betting scandal from 4 years ago, but in this case, players who could have had a say in the outcome of a result, bet huge amounts on a Stanley defeat whilst playing for Stanley. This is in no way comparable to Rob’s crime, but the players in question had much lighter punishments for a much more serious crime.

The issue I have with this whole matter is the harshness of the punishment, and the stupid FA rules regarding gambling. I’m referring to this quote from Rob’s website

Originally Posted by Robheys website;

There is a very relevant point to be made here to all who are involved in sport and do bet from time to time. If your club has been involved at any stage of a competition you cannot place a bet on any match at any stage of the competition. For example, players, officials and employees of clubs that have already been knocked out of the 2013/14 FA Cup in the Extra Preliminary Round this weekend are in breach of the betting regulations if they place a bet on the FA Cup Final in May next year. Many of the charges that made up the case against me were bets involving this type of rule breach.

I think the punishment Rob has received is unduly harsh considering the precedent shown to players who actually have a direct outcome on the result of the game. The betting rules need to be overhauled and should be rigorously enforced when gambling leads to corruption and the predetermined outcome of a result. Players betting for their team to lose should serve lifetime bans, players betting on their own team to win should go unpunished. Accumulators for typically a fiver or a tenner whether it includes your own team or not, should not matter as the outcome of the bet is still dependent on 9 other results in which your team is not involved, and these charges are unjustified and petty.

Let’s not forget the Football League has just taken an internet gambling company as a major sponsor, how will this and future gambling cases sit with the morals of the whole shoddy business.

The FA and the Football League, along with many clubs through shirt sponsorship, are happy to take money from gambling companies, yet tell all people who are working for these clubs, presumably this includes people who help out at the club (fans who do a bit of cleaning up, snowshifting, printing posters/t-shirts/flyers, or removing ground covers, etc) not to gamble on any competition which the club may or may not be involved in. yet encourage the fans who don’t do anything at the club to empty all their wages and anything else they might have into the coffers of the bookies, internet or shop.

Where does this end? Imagine having a bet on Stanley to win a game in August, then turning up in January to help out removing the frost covers, would you now be banned from removing frost protection from the pitch for the rest of the season?

If Rob had a few grand on the next Stanley manager, 3 months ago, then I would understand and be justified at the severity of the punishment.

[shadsworthcloud]

Redash,
That is the best summary of this situation I have read.
+1

[Exile on Spencer St]

It may be one opinion and view of things but this website isn't going to change the FA rules, however stupid some people regard them. The point is Stanley's Managing Director/Chief Executive either knew the rules and ignored and then publicised it, or wasn't aware of them. Either case makes his position untenable, however petty you may regard the rule.
I also find the implied argument made in Mr.Heys' web site that, because he lost money on his betting that somehow makes it less serious, incredible.
The Board need to act now and I sincerely hope they are currently working on their options for life without Mr. Heys.

[fc:stanley]

One question, who are the people who are now running the club?! Hopefull not the 2 bob workers who are making this club as tinpot as the cowshed roof!

[Revived Red]

Sorry, Redash, but I have to disagree. The nature of the rules and severity of the punishment are irrelevant. As I have said elsewhere, it doesn't matter if the suspension is 21 months or 21 days. There are many things that I find astonishing about the whole sorry business. Here's just 3.

Firstly, it is beyond belief that he was betting at the very time that 4 players were being charged and punished for contravening betting rules.

Secondly, he says in his statement that he would rather lose his stake than see a Stanley defeat. At best that is disingenuous. If that really is the case, then why bet on Stanley? But never mind the stake, what if a few hundred pounds rested on the Stanley result - and he had bet on a defeat. There he is at the game, supposedly supporting his team, while secretly hoping that he will get that few hundred pounds thanks to a defeat.

Thirdly, he says his position bore no relation to his betting. How can that be true? He would know if Stanley had injury worries before going into a game. Surely that would make him more likely to predict a defeat.

And my final general point. He has simply confirmed to the outside world that ASFC is not merely tinpot but managed in a way that at best is couldn't-care-less and at worst is .... well, I'll let others put in a suitable word.

[shadsworthcloud]

There are 2 issues. RH has broken the rules and should be punished, I think everybody accepts that.
But the punishment is very harsh, especially compared to the punishment given to the 2 premier league players. For Rob to be banned from working in football for 21 months is not comparable. That is what I can't understand.

As for where this leaves ASFC, we need a replacement. The club now needs leadership more than ever, on this point never mind the myriad of other issues round the club. Full respect to "the interim team" but the club needs some one to give a lead.

[Ghostbuster]

I think people are missing the point. The damage this is doing to our club is massive.
Do you think the likes of Clever Boxes or other companies want to put their name in the same bracket as this shambles of a club?
People who come on here and blindly put their friendship with Rob before the good of our club are deluded.
I do not wish Rob any harm as he is a decent guy but he has brought another heap of shame on us.
Think of the damage this doing to the club-I would urge Rob to do the decent thing accept you were in the wrong, take it and let the club you claim to love move on and try and rebuild and survive!!

[smudgie]

Well said Revived and Ghostbuster

[Wynonie Harris]

What I can't understand is why Rob is suspended "pending the outcome of his appeal with the FA". His guilt's not in question - even Rob himself has admitted it. He's simply appealing against the severity of his punishment. So if his appeal's successful and he has his suspension reduced to, say, 12 months, does this mean that Stanley are going to limp along with no proper MD for the next year and then Rob's going to come back as if nothing has happened?