Ivan Toney

[pillred]

1 hour ago, Ronnie Sinclair said:

Been charged with another 30 breaches 
 

 

Joey Barton got a mention, just the 1260 offences, he got initially an 18 month ban reduced to 13 on appeal if Toney's found guilty he could be looking at a long ban as well.

[Bazooka Joe]

20 hours ago, phantom said:

Forgot all about him during the World Cup. 

I do wonder how much of these charges had a bearing on him staying home 

Maybe Southgate secretly added him to the squad, but Toney simply decided to work from home.

What are the odds on that?

[ExiledAjax]

21 hours ago, pillred said:

Joey Barton got a mention, just the 1260 offences, he got initially an 18 month ban reduced to 13 on appeal if Toney's found guilty he could be looking at a long ban as well.

Barton's case (and all other cases) don't create a binding precedent over the FA. I've been privy to a detailed analysis of 101 betting cases which are publicly available on The FA’s website as of 19 March 2021. The severity of TOney's punishment (assuming he's found guilty) will depend on a few things. 

Most iomportant is the type of offence. Broadly there are four relelvant categories:

• Category 1 (betting which does not involve own-team competitions)
• Category 2 (bet placed on Participant’s competition but not involving his or her club),
• Category 3 (bet placed on own team to win) and
• Category 4 (bet placed on own team to lose). 

Of these 4 (there are two others which both involve spot bets and are very very rare) Category 2, 3 and 4 cases form the vast majority of cases that the FA considers - 85%. However it is Category 4 cases that are the most serious but the Guidelines recommend a big range of suspension of six months to life.

So the severity of the sentence will first be based on that scale of severity, the following factors would then be considered when determining appropriate sanctions:

• Overall perception of impact of bet(s) on fixture/game integrity;
• Player played or did not play;
• Number of Bets;
• Size of Bets;
• Fact and circumstances surrounding pattern of betting;
• Actual stake and amount possible to win;
• Personal Circumstances;
• Previous record – (any previous breach of betting Rules will be considered as a highly aggravating factor);
• Experience of the participant; and
• Assistance to the process and acceptance of the charge.

I'll now share the full analysis of BArton's case from the breakdown I have seen.

...in which the Participant was ultimately suspended for a total of 57.2 weeks (just over 13 months) following his appeal.  This is the longest suspension for a Category 4(b) [Barton bet on his own team to lose but did not take part in the fixture in question] offence and is over two standard deviations more than the average.  It therefore warrants closer inspection.

In reaching its decision on sanction, the Commission in Barton placed particular emphasis on the fact that the Participant had bet against his own club not once, but 15 times. It is clear from the Commission’s decision that it considered the number of Category 4(b) bets to be a serious aggravating factor, warranting a significant departure from the lower end of the recommended sanction.  However, the facts of Barton are certainly not unique: there are four other publicly available cases in which a player has bet against their own team between 10 and 15 times but did not play in any of the relevant fixtures.  In those cases, the average sporting sanction was 21.5 weeks.  In the three further cases where the number of “own team to lose” bets was larger than Barton, the average suspension was 33.2 weeks. 

Therefore, if number of bets against a Participant’s own team is to be treated as the most important aggravating factor (as appears to have been the case in Barton), Barton does seem to be out of kilter with similar cases.  It could be argued that there were other aggravating factors such as bets on his own team to win and the overall large number of prohibited bets but, again, Barton is not unique in this regard.

One element of Barton which does appear to be unique is a series of Twitter messages in which the Participant was “publicly dismissive” of the FA and the FA Rules concerning gambling.  This was an aggravating factor, but it is not clear why this factor should lead to such a significant increase in sanction compared to other apparently similar cases.  Previous criticism of the sanction in Barton, even after its reduction on appeal, therefore appears to have some force.

[pillred]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Barton's case (and all other cases) don't create a binding precedent over the FA. I've been privy to a detailed analysis of 101 betting cases which are publicly available on The FA’s website as of 19 March 2021. The severity of TOney's punishment (assuming he's found guilty) will depend on a few things. 

Most iomportant is the type of offence. Broadly there are four relelvant categories:

• Category 1 (betting which does not involve own-team competitions)
• Category 2 (bet placed on Participant’s competition but not involving his or her club),
• Category 3 (bet placed on own team to win) and
• Category 4 (bet placed on own team to lose). 

Of these 4 (there are two others which both involve spot bets and are very very rare) Category 2, 3 and 4 cases form the vast majority of cases that the FA considers - 85%. However it is Category 4 cases that are the most serious but the Guidelines recommend a big range of suspension of six months to life.

So the severity of the sentence will first be based on that scale of severity, the following factors would then be considered when determining appropriate sanctions:

• Overall perception of impact of bet(s) on fixture/game integrity;
• Player played or did not play;
• Number of Bets;
• Size of Bets;
• Fact and circumstances surrounding pattern of betting;
• Actual stake and amount possible to win;
• Personal Circumstances;
• Previous record – (any previous breach of betting Rules will be considered as a highly aggravating factor);
• Experience of the participant; and
• Assistance to the process and acceptance of the charge.

I'll now share the full analysis of BArton's case from the breakdown I have seen.

...in which the Participant was ultimately suspended for a total of 57.2 weeks (just over 13 months) following his appeal.  This is the longest suspension for a Category 4(b) [Barton bet on his own team to lose but did not take part in the fixture in question] offence and is over two standard deviations more than the average.  It therefore warrants closer inspection.

In reaching its decision on sanction, the Commission in Barton placed particular emphasis on the fact that the Participant had bet against his own club not once, but 15 times. It is clear from the Commission’s decision that it considered the number of Category 4(b) bets to be a serious aggravating factor, warranting a significant departure from the lower end of the recommended sanction.  However, the facts of Barton are certainly not unique: there are four other publicly available cases in which a player has bet against their own team between 10 and 15 times but did not play in any of the relevant fixtures.  In those cases, the average sporting sanction was 21.5 weeks.  In the three further cases where the number of “own team to lose” bets was larger than Barton, the average suspension was 33.2 weeks. 

Therefore, if number of bets against a Participant’s own team is to be treated as the most important aggravating factor (as appears to have been the case in Barton), Barton does seem to be out of kilter with similar cases.  It could be argued that there were other aggravating factors such as bets on his own team to win and the overall large number of prohibited bets but, again, Barton is not unique in this regard.

One element of Barton which does appear to be unique is a series of Twitter messages in which the Participant was “publicly dismissive” of the FA and the FA Rules concerning gambling.  This was an aggravating factor, but it is not clear why this factor should lead to such a significant increase in sanction compared to other apparently similar cases.  Previous criticism of the sanction in Barton, even after its reduction on appeal, therefore appears to have some force.

Christ! that's quite a damning report surprised the ban wasn't for longer really, it's amazing well to me anyway he is still in a job in football let alone actually managing a club and yes I see there are a lot of things to consider in Toney's case we shall have to wait and see though I can't see past a ban of some sort given the  number of offences.

[dragonreds]

On 16/11/2022 at 19:14, spudski said:

I bet it goes on all the time.

For example, how many players know they are being sold/ transferred and it's agreed before it's made public knowledge.

Tell their mates or whoever...they put on money for you and them before bookies are made aware.

Imagine how easy that is. Not just player, but Agent etc all knowing.

 

trippier got done for that when he was going to madrid

[ExiledAjax]

Wout Faes the next to go under the microscope?

[spudski]

Regardless of his 'fixing'...he's a blooming great striker. At 26 he'll be wasted if he gets a long ban. Shame, as I would have loved to see him play for England.

[Talk Of The Town]

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

Regardless of his 'fixing'...he's a blooming great striker. At 26 he'll be wasted if he gets a long ban. Shame, as I would have loved to see him play for England.

I agree. 
I think he’s the only one who can genuinely deputise and replace Kane.