Ivan Toney

[alexukhc]

7 hours ago, Midred said:

Is the Brentford manager being disingenuous when he says that the club will support Toney in every way they can? He's known about this since February and almost certainly gained a few wins from the goals scored. Or has this scuppered their summer trading plans?

Looking at a new contract and a pay rise

[Super]

He bet on his own team to lose. 

[phantom]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

He bet on his own team to lose. 

This report is very damning

[Super]

Just now, phantom said:

This report is very damning

It's incredible. He's lucky it's only 8 months.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Super said:

He bet on his own team to lose. 

As I predicted given the ban. He bet on his own team to lose, but didn't play in those games. 13 bets across 7 games. That's cat 4(a).

Reading the rap sheet 8 months is pretty par when you consider other cases.

[ExiledAjax]

The BBC summary.

Here is a breakdown:

 

Of the 232 bets, 126 were on matches in a competition the team Toney was playing for at the time were eligible in during that season.

29 of those bets involved a club Toney was representing.

Toney bet on his own team to win 16 times in 15 different matches of which he played 11.

Toney also made 13 bets on his own team to lose seven matches between 22 August 2017 and 3 March 2018. He didn’t play in these matches.

Of the 13 bets, 11 were against Newcastle while he was on loan at another club. The others were on a game between Wigan, who he was playing for at the time, and Aston Villa.

15 bets were on Toney to score in nine different games in which he played. All were initiated at a time when it would not be public knowledge whether he was playing or not.

Six bets on matches not involving Toney.

[phantom]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

As I predicted given the ban. He bet on his own team to lose, but didn't play in those games. 13 bets across 7 games. That's cat 4(a).

Reading the rap sheet 8 months is pretty par when you consider other cases.

Was originally 15 months but shortened due to his guilty plea 

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2023/the-fa-v-ivan-toney---23-may-2023.ashx

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, phantom said:

Was originally 15 months but shortened due to his guilty plea 

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2023/the-fa-v-ivan-toney---23-may-2023.ashx

 

 

Yep. It's an established mitigating factor and given the charges I imagine his lawyers told him to plead guilty.

The 15 bets on him to score in certain matches are very serious. That is I think a Cat 5 offence of spot betting. It's very rare to see those in cases. 

[GrahamC]

Should have got a life ban from playing.

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Should have got a life ban from playing.

Or maybe from gambling?

[The Journalist]

The gambling addiction element is really interesting and, I strongly suspect, is what informed Gareth Southgate's excellent answer on the case the other day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/65699477

Reading between the lines he certainly wouldn't have agreed with the FA's stance on it, particularly taking into account this element of the report...

The FA submitted that the final sanction in this case should be a minimum of 12 months suspension. That in part was based upon a contended higher starting point because of the alleged concealment by deletion of texts and concealing an additional phone, an allowance of only 20% for the guilty pleas because some were not made at the first opportunity, and the assertion that there was inadequate evidence of gambling addiction to warrant any reduction. Those submissions were not accepted by the Commission for the reasons set out above.

On one hand, this is clearly very serious and a ban was merited. On the other hand, gambling addiction is a serious mental illness and should be treated as such in my opinion.

It seems, to me, that the FA weren't buying that part of it and just wanted to go in as hard as possible.

Edited May 26, 2023 by The Journalist

[phantom]

19 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yep. It's an established mitigating factor and given the charges I imagine his lawyers told him to plead guilty.

The 15 bets on him to score in certain matches are very serious. That is I think a Cat 5 offence of spot betting. It's very rare to see those in cases. 

I'm glad you quoted my reply, I thought I had imagined posting something - no idea where it went lol

[ExiledAjax]

He had literally the best lawyer money can buy as well. Nick de Marco is the number 1 barrister in the country on this stuff. Fletcher Law are also absolutely specialist in this type of case. He got the best he could get.

Will read later in full.

[Silvio Dante]

Yeah, sorry, addiction or otherwise there should have been a bigger sanction here.

I can totally get on board with the aspect that we’re asking footballers to advertise gambling but then sanctioning for gambling is a bit ridiculous. I don’t inherently have a major issue either with (say) a Rovers player betting on a Liverpool game - they’re highly unlikely to have inside information, but I understand you have to blanket it just in case.

What is serious here is betting on your own team, and most seriously the spot betting piece. Now, there is an argument if he’s not playing he hasn’t influenced the game (but may have insider knowledge so it’s an unfair bet), but when you come to the spot betting…

Yes, he’s betting on himself to score so you can argue he’s only influencing in a “positive” way - but say he’s playing for Peterborough. He’s got a chance that needs him to maybe hit a 9/10 shot. His strike partner is square, and has an easy tap in. Toney goes for the shot, because he’s got money on it. Misses, the side lose or draw the game instead of winning.

Is it different from a goal bonus? Yep, because the manager knows that. The fans accept he may have that. But he’s doing something here that influences the game and cheats the fans because of his gambling.

Should be sine die.

[David Brent]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Or maybe from gambling?

He can work on any issues he may have whilst on his ban. 

[Lrrr]

Didn’t realise it was on his own team and to lose, yeah that should be a much bigger ban 

[Sir Geoff]

33 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Yeah, sorry, addiction or otherwise there should have been a bigger sanction here.

I can totally get on board with the aspect that we’re asking footballers to advertise gambling but then sanctioning for gambling is a bit ridiculous. I don’t inherently have a major issue either with (say) a Rovers player betting on a Liverpool game - they’re highly unlikely to have inside information, but I understand you have to blanket it just in case.

What is serious here is betting on your own team, and most seriously the spot betting piece. Now, there is an argument if he’s not playing he hasn’t influenced the game (but may have insider knowledge so it’s an unfair bet), but when you come to the spot betting…

Yes, he’s betting on himself to score so you can argue he’s only influencing in a “positive” way - but say he’s playing for Peterborough. He’s got a chance that needs him to maybe hit a 9/10 shot. His strike partner is square, and has an easy tap in. Toney goes for the shot, because he’s got money on it. Misses, the side lose or draw the game instead of winning.

Is it different from a goal bonus? Yep, because the manager knows that. The fans accept he may have that. But he’s doing something here that influences the game and cheats the fans because of his gambling.

Should be sine die.

Re para 4......or dives to win a pen which he would be taking.

[GrahamC]

27 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Re para 4......or dives to win a pen which he would be taking.

Might explain why he’s such a serial diver then.

Does it all the time to win penalties, Brentford have had loads because of this.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, David Brent said:

He can work on any issues he may have whilst on his ban. 

And I hope he does.

It was a bit of a joke. Obviously he is technically already banned from betting on football, and this ban is an enforcement of that one.

Ultimately though the problem here is gambling, not football.

[Northern Red]

 

[grifty]

Does it take into account how much he is betting on?

Like is he betting 10p that Brentford lose? Or £10k?

[David Brent]

17 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

And I hope he does.

It was a bit of a joke. Obviously he is technically already banned from betting on football, and this ban is an enforcement of that one.

Ultimately though the problem here is gambling, not football.

But it’s still a problem for football and that needs to be addressed too. I don’t think the ban given is severe enough. The outcome of these games can have huge repercussions.

[Leveller]

45 minutes ago, David Brent said:

But it’s still a problem for football and that needs to be addressed too. I don’t think the ban given is severe enough. The outcome of these games can have huge repercussions.

But you could argue that he’s never set out to cheat or throw games. He’s basically bet on himself and his team to do well when he’s playing and to do badly when he’s not playing. It’s arrogant and foolish but only devious in the way that he avoided being caught.
The worst thing about players betting is the suspicion of match fixing, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, David Brent said:

But it’s still a problem for football and that needs to be addressed too. I don’t think the ban given is severe enough. The outcome of these games can have huge repercussions.

There's a lot to say here. 

Firstly you seem to be suggesting (and sorry if this isn't your intention) that Toney's bets could be considered to be match-fixing. That's unlikely to be the case.

We need to understand that there is a distinction between match-fixing and breaches of the Betting Rules. The FA Sanction Guidelines make that very clear and they are governed under separate FA Rules. Toney was not charged in any way with match-fixing, which tells us that the FA did not consider them to be of a nature that would cause "the reasonable person, with knowledge of the bets and circumstances of the bets, to conclude that the integrity of football has been compromised". Note that the "reasonable person" is not you and I writing on a forum or reading the BBC report in the pub. That "reasonable person" is presumed to have full knowledge of all the facts and relevant laws that the Regulatory Commission would have. Would that person be suspicious that the bets were something more.

Toney was charged only under Rule E8 (betting) rather than under Rule E5 (match-fixing). We can therefore assume that no one at the FA felt that any of his bets would pass the above test. Toney placed bets to score, something he did not (however good he might be at football) have direct and complete control over. A player has much more control over whether or not they are booked. In the Djassi Sambu case in 2021 there was a case of a player betting on himself to score (a Category 6 bet of which Toney made 15). In that case the Regulatory Commission accepted that the player was "only betting on that which any footballer personally strives to do", and the Category 6 bet was downgraded to a Category 3 bet. Essentially, as a striker Toney would always be trying to score, whether he had placed a bet on himself to do it or not.  I suspect that this case was one of the "Many previous cases..." referred to in paragraph 47 of the Toney reasons.

Contrast that with Kynan Isaac, also from 2021. Isaac also placed category 6 bets - but on himself getting booked rather than scoring. Getting booked is not "that which any footballer personally strives to do", and a player has more control over getting booked than he does over scoring. Isaac (due to other aggravating factors) got a ten year ban (after the FA appealed the initial 5 year ban).  There the starting point was a lifetime ban, but Isaac was not co-operative, showed no admission of guilt or remorse, and didn't attend his hearing, those were set against the facts that he bet small  amounts, and did not profit, the FA thought ten years was long enough to end his playing career, but permit him to use his skills to earn a living in later life..

The Toney reasons set out clearly why the Regulatory Commission went for a 15 month ban on face value, and then reduced that to 11 months due to Toney's guilty plea, but also recognising his contesting of certain other matters (a standard 25% reduction rounded down). The further 3 month reduction is very clearly described as being made due to "... his [Toney's] relative youth at the time when the breaches began, his previous good record in respect of anything other than on-field breaches, and his genuine remorse which he expressed in fulsome terms before the Commission. In addition, and of particular importance, the Commission finds that a significant reduction should be made to reflect the diagnosed gambling addiction identified by Dr Hopley. The lack of control the player has in respect of gambling is clearly a reflection of his diagnosed gambling addiction."

I agree with you that it is odd that there is no discussion as to why the maximum lifetime ban was not even considered as the starting point given the high number of category 6 bets placed. I can only assume that Djassi Sambu was considered "offline" and the reasoning there was applied here (indeed I am sure of it as the quote above comes from a book written by Nick de Marco KC - Ivan Toney's lawyer). However it would have been nice to have that set out explicitly if that is the case.

Edited May 26, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[And Its Smith]

8 month ban is fine and hope he gets the help he needs.  No results need to called into question.  Lots of people will read the headlines and judge which is a shame

[jj77]

How do you think this got out in the first place? Do you think he had someone place the bets for him, won big and didn't give them a big enough share?

[David Brent]

39 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There's a lot to say here. 

Firstly you seem to be suggesting (and sorry if this isn't your intention) that Toney's bets could be considered to be match-fixing. That's unlikely to be the case.

We need to understand that there is a distinction between match-fixing and breaches of the Betting Rules. The FA Sanction Guidelines make that very clear and they are governed under separate FA Rules. Toney was not charged in any way with match-fixing, which tells us that the FA did not consider them to be of a nature that would cause "the reasonable person, with knowledge of the bets and circumstances of the bets, to conclude that the integrity of football has been compromised". Note that the "reasonable person" is not you and I writing on a forum or reading the BBC report in the pub. That "reasonable person" is presumed to have full knowledge of all the facts and relevant laws that the Regulatory Commission would have. Would that person be suspicious that the bets were something more.

Toney was charged only under Rule E8 (betting) rather than under Rule E5 (match-fixing). We can therefore assume that no one at the FA felt that any of his bets would pass the above test. Toney placed bets to score, something he did not (however good he might be at football) have direct and complete control over. A player has much more control over whether or not they are booked. In the Djassi Sambu case in 2021 there was a case of a player betting on himself to score (a Category 6 bet of which Toney made 15). In that case the Regulatory Commission accepted that the player was "only betting on that which any footballer personally strives to do", and the Category 6 bet was downgraded to a Category 3 bet. Essentially, as a striker Toney would always be trying to score, whether he had placed a bet on himself to do it or not.  I suspect that this case was one of the "Many previous cases..." referred to in paragraph 47 of the Toney reasons.

Contrast that with Kynan Isaac, also from 2021. Isaac also placed category 6 bets - but on himself getting booked rather than scoring. Getting booked is not "that which any footballer personally strives to do", and a player has more control over getting booked than he does over scoring. Isaac (due to other aggravating factors) got a ten year ban (after the FA appealed the initial 5 year ban).  There the starting point was a lifetime ban, but Isaac was not co-operative, showed no admission of guilt or remorse, and didn't attend his hearing, those were set against the facts that he bet small  amounts, and did not profit, the FA thought ten years was long enough to end his playing career, but permit him to use his skills to earn a living in later life..

The Toney reasons set out clearly why the Regulatory Commission went for a 15 month ban on face value, and then reduced that to 11 months due to Toney's guilty plea, but also recognising his contesting of certain other matters (a standard 25% reduction rounded down). The further 3 month reduction is very clearly described as being made due to "... his [Toney's] relative youth at the time when the breaches began, his previous good record in respect of anything other than on-field breaches, and his genuine remorse which he expressed in fulsome terms before the Commission. In addition, and of particular importance, the Commission finds that a significant reduction should be made to reflect the diagnosed gambling addiction identified by Dr Hopley. The lack of control the player has in respect of gambling is clearly a reflection of his diagnosed gambling addiction."

I agree with you that it is odd that there is no discussion as to why the maximum lifetime ban was not even considered as the starting point given the high number of category 6 bets placed. I can only assume that Djassi Sambu was considered "offline" and the reasoning there was applied here (indeed I am sure of it as the quote above comes from a book written by Nick de Marco KC - Ivan Toney's lawyer). However it would have been nice to have that set out explicitly if that is the case.

My, possibly ignorant, opinion was gained from reading this thread. It had been suggested that he was betting against his own team. Apologies if that’s wrong.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, David Brent said:

My, possibly ignorant, opinion was gained from reading this thread. It had been suggested that he was betting against his own team. Apologies if that’s wrong.

He did. 13 times.

But on games where he didn't play. So that's considered less serious.

[marcofisher]

5 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Didn’t realise it was on his own team and to lose, yeah that should be a much bigger ban 

In all cases it was in matches he was not involved in, which the headlines are not showing.

[joe jordans teeth]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

He did. 13 times.

But on games where he didn't play. So that's considered less serious.

Quite how I don’t know,he would of known of any injuries and who would be playing a long time before the odds were given