Sky news players charged bury game

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by cashman

good Google Page Ranking is no fools errand when yer seeking new sponsers IMHO.

New sponsors know that we have the affiliation to the betting saga and it will continue to follow the club around for quite a while, regardless of what the club do. It won't make a difference if the management publicly show some much deserved support and loyalty towards their true captain.

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by Revived Red

Because it would be a comparatively easy way to conceal his guilt. Guilty people try all kinds of tricks to conceal guilt.

Utter rubbish. You think Cav has thousands of pounds spare to waste on 'tricks'?

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by Jimbo T Hornblower

I agree completely Jeff - the question is what happens until the appeal?
He cant play?

Jimbo T blower

We probaly won't know that for another fortnight even if he is able to play! The ever helpful FA didn't even let Coley know if he could select Cav on Saturday.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

We probaly won't know that for another fortnight even if he is able to play! The ever helpful FA didn't even let Coley know if he could select Cav on Saturday.

Think ya should switch coarses to law shaker, ya sure good at Defending the Indefensible.

[Revived Red]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Utter rubbish. You think Cav has thousands of pounds spare to waste on 'tricks'?

As a matter of fact, I do think exactly that. But I would rather use the word "spend" than "waste".

Weighing up the odds, it's not a bad gamble. £4,500 to try to prove innocence; or risk a much heftier fine and loss of income if/when found guilty.

[shakermaker]

I admire how objective you are able to remain on this issue, Revived Red. However I do think your opinion in the above post is utter nonsense.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

I admire how objective you are able to remain on this issue, Revived Red. However I do think your opinion in the above post is utter nonsense.

you aint objective if ya can't see revived reds point shaker, cos i sure can, i think its not very objective putting whats obviously a much loved player before the good of the club.

[shakermaker]

I didn't say I was being objective cashy. I'm most definitely not.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

I didn't say I was being objective cashy. I'm most definitely not.

and ya call revived reds post nonsense!

[cmonstanley]

maybe its the new investors maybe theyve said anybody connected to this saga will be gone .it maybe that colemans job is in jeopardy and they are fighting for their jobs.after all they brought the players who brought disrepute to the club and no person is bigger than the club..interesting times ahead..investors always want conditions before they invest..

[Stanleymad]

Posted via Mobile Device. Get things into perspective cav knew what he was doing, he is a grown man, he took the risk to his career and now faces the consequences simple as that. The club was put in an awkward situation damned either way, thats where my sympathy goes. As for sponsors/investors im sure they will look past it, anyways bad publicity is good publicity, asfc is at least remembered lol

[Whalley Red]

Paying £4,500 for a voice recognition test could be either the action of an innocent man or a man afraid of the penalty of being found guilty; I don't think it's conclusive. However, this test was taken because the accumulator was placed over the phone ... that's the bit that concerns me about this saga.

To place a bet over the phone, you need to have an account with the bookie in your own name. That can either be:

• a credit account in which there are much tighter checks in place to make sure that it is you that is making the bet (i.e. password, etc.) rather than someone else betting with your money; or

• a debit account in which the details of the debit card (e.g. registered postcode) must correspond with the details on the account, again to make sure that only the account holder is making the bet.

These are much tighter regulations brought in via the 2005 Gambling Act to address the newer modes of gambling and to protect against under-age gambling, in particular.

So that leaves only two real possibilities: either it was Cav making the bet over the phone or someone very close to him who knew all the necessary account/card information. It has been suggested that it was Cav's brother who made the bet over the phone, hence the need for a voice recognition test.

So, Cav's brother can't be arsed to go to a high street bookie or get himself a telephone or internet account with a bookie and instead uses Cav's account (and possibly his debit card), while knowing that it would probably end his brother's football career if the bookie passed on the details of the bet to the Gambling Commission? Is his brother that naive?

Alternatively, Cav did place the bet over the phone, knowing that it was done with an account (and possibly his debit card) in his name, making it extremely difficult to refute. The alternative was to go to any high street bookie and place the bet anonymously via a coupon and it would be virtually impossible to trace the bet back to him. Is Cav that naive?

Is the 'brother' story plausible and Cav completely innocent? Not only would his brother have been unbelievably naive, but his couldn't have hidden it from Cav either. If the bet had won, the winnings would have been in Cav's account and the brother would have needed to tell him at some point that he was owed winnings that were in Cav's name; winnings that could end Cav's playing career. That would be an extremely difficult conservation to start, unless it had happened before (maybe with Cav's agreement, plus there are allegations there had been previous bets placed on League 2 matches) and that makes Cav complicit in this process.

At least one person in the Cav family has been incredulously naive and I'm not surprised that the Gambling Commission found the 'brother' argument difficult to accept.

[AccyMad]

For my two penn'orth I can't believe Cav would go to the extremes of arranging and paying for the voice detector test if he knew he was guilty, he has said from the beginning that he is innocent and that it was his brother who placed the bet on the Bury game and I for one believe him, maybe it's cos I don't want to not believe him - I don't know.
I just think that if he had been guilty he would not have been so adamant about his innocence nor would he have returned to training with the club but would have done as Rocky did and stayed away when pre-season began.
I really hope he goes for his appeal and is vindicated but to be honest I don't think the FA want to be proved wrong on this and this could be the reason they took so long to bring the charges and hold the hearing.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by AccyMad

For my two penn'orth I can't believe Cav would go to the extremes of arranging and paying for the voice detector test if he knew he was guilty, he has said from the beginning that he is innocent and that it was his brother who placed the bet on the Bury game and I for one believe him, maybe it's cos I don't want to not believe him - I don't know.
I just think that if he had been guilty he would not have been so adamant about his innocence nor would he have returned to training with the club but would have done as Rocky did and stayed away when pre-season began.
I really hope he goes for his appeal and is vindicated but to be honest I don't think the FA want to be proved wrong on this and this could be the reason they took so long to bring the charges and hold the hearing.

none of us really know, but come on what else would anyone say? also how many people get done fer out the first time they did it? i would think, not very many.

[JEFF]

Originally Posted by AccyMad

he has said from the beginning that he is innocent and that it was his brother who placed the bet on the Bury game

What about the bet on the Dagenham game?

I just think that if he had been guilty he would not have been so adamant about his innocence nor would he have returned to training with the club but would have done as Rocky did and stayed away when pre-season began.

Cav was invited back to the club for training and Rocky wasn't even contacted. It's not as though Rocky 'stayed away' he just wasn't asked back.

I really hope he goes for his appeal and is vindicated but to be honest I don't think the FA want to be proved wrong on this and this could be the reason they took so long to bring the charges and hold the hearing

The FA probably took so long to bring the charges because they wanted to gather all the evidence to make sure the players were guilty before naming names and risking prosecution for defamation of character.