Blah Blah Blah, he says 'people used to put bets on for me when I was a kid, I did the pools when I was a kid' it would be refreshing if he just said 'I've been a bit of a cnut'
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
Isnt a bad Statement and accepts his ban despite not agreeing with it.
Wasn't the best at predicting though was he... Out of the 30-Bets he provides that the bottom he only won three of them, lost just under £1200 with his winnings less than £200 lol!
Isnt a bad Statement and accepts his ban despite not agreeing with it.
Wasn't the best at predicting though was he... Out of the 30-Bets he provides that the bottom he only won three of them, lost just under £1200 with his winnings less than £200 lol!
Surely the fact that he is appealing the leength of the ban suggests that he does not agree with it?
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
That's a bit like saying horseracing has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
Do we know that 99.9% of players don't gamble on football? I reckon there's a fair few that do (purely supposition but I'd hazard a guess at more than 0.1 per 100) but maybe they're just not as thick as Barton is and get others to wager on their behalf.
Agree that he deserves everything coming his way but also agree that he raises valid points re the gambling industry cosying up to the football authorities.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
I don't disagree with you, and I agree he get's everything thrown at him. However, he is correct in his points about football wanting to crack down on gambling yet being in bed with gambling companies.
He does especially about how ubiquitous betting is when watching football on TV and even at matches but he's still bang to rights. He knew he shouldn't have been betting but still did it.
Whether it is too harsh or he is being made an example of I don't know. It certainly seems so but that is only reading his version of the story. How many convicted of an offence say "yeah, that was just about the correct sentence" - 2% would be my complete guess.
That he is a nasty bit of work (IMHO) shouldn't come into in but schadenfreude can be sweet
Isnt a bad Statement and accepts his ban despite not agreeing with it.
Wasn't the best at predicting though was he... Out of the 30-Bets he provides that the bottom he only won three of them, lost just under £1200 with his winnings less than £200 lol!
Backed himself as first goalscorer in one of them as well.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
yes, but have their parents, brothers, mates etc ;-))
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
Do we know that 99.9% of players don't gamble on football? I reckon there's a fair few that do (purely supposition but I'd hazard a guess at more than 0.1 per 100) but maybe they're just not as thick as Barton is and get others to wager on their behalf.
Agree that he deserves everything coming his way but also agree that he raises valid points re the gambling industry cosying up to the football authorities.
Over 1000 bets, that's enormous for someone who isn't supposed to bet at all.
That's not a Welling player having a cheeky fiver on Arsenal to beat Spurs.
There's not been many incidents though, if it were that rampant I'd imagine more players would get found out
Besides, innocent until proven guilty and all that
(Unless you're Millwank, then it's never your fault even if found guilty)
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
That's a bit like saying horseracing has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
True but that is not to say that those inter-dependencies are not potentially unhealthy to the end users.
Similar to old smoking adverts it makes betting on games "cool" and portrays it a a normal and almost an essential element to watching football . I do find the all the check out and free bet if you lose gimmicks worrying as it appears to imply that you can't lose.
And yes, I bet £2.50 every week at Charlton games but never bet against us.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
That's a bit like saying horseracing has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
True but that is not to say that those inter-dependencies are not potentially unhealthy to the end users.
Similar to old smoking adverts it makes betting on games "cool" and portrays it a a normal and almost an essential element to watching football . I do find the all the check out and free bet if you lose gimmicks worrying as it appears to imply that you can't lose.
And yes, I bet £2.50 every week at Charlton games but never bet against us.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
Do we know that 99.9% of players don't gamble on football? I reckon there's a fair few that do (purely supposition but I'd hazard a guess at more than 0.1 per 100) but maybe they're just not as thick as Barton is and get others to wager on their behalf.
Agree that he deserves everything coming his way but also agree that he raises valid points re the gambling industry cosying up to the football authorities.
Over 1000 bets, that's enormous for someone who isn't supposed to bet at all.
That's not a Welling player having a cheeky fiver on Arsenal to beat Spurs.
There's not been many incidents though, if it were that rampant I'd imagine more players would get found out
Besides, innocent until proven guilty and all that
(Unless you're Millwank, then it's never your fault even if found guilty)
I'm not having at pop at you, just questioning the figure as I reckon there's plenty at it at the top of the game. There's only so many selfies and rounds of golf these players can fit in to a week before they'd get bored
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
That's a bit like saying horseracing has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
True but that is not to say that those inter-dependencies are not potentially unhealthy to the end users.
Similar to old smoking adverts it makes betting on games "cool" and portrays it a a normal and almost an essential element to watching football . I do find the all the check out and free bet if you lose gimmicks worrying as it appears to imply that you can't lose.
And yes, I bet £2.50 every week at Charlton games but never bet against us.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
But why have 99.9% of professional footballers been able to abide by the rules, whereas this cunt has placed over 1000 bets on? People trying to deflect the blame onto betting companies and football, need to focus on just how much this fucker has flounced the rules
Do we know that 99.9% of players don't gamble on football? I reckon there's a fair few that do (purely supposition but I'd hazard a guess at more than 0.1 per 100) but maybe they're just not as thick as Barton is and get others to wager on their behalf.
Agree that he deserves everything coming his way but also agree that he raises valid points re the gambling industry cosying up to the football authorities.
Over 1000 bets, that's enormous for someone who isn't supposed to bet at all.
That's not a Welling player having a cheeky fiver on Arsenal to beat Spurs.
There's not been many incidents though, if it were that rampant I'd imagine more players would get found out
Besides, innocent until proven guilty and all that
(Unless you're Millwank, then it's never your fault even if found guilty)
I'm not having at pop at you, just questioning the figure as I reckon there's plenty at it at the top of the game. There's only so many selfies and rounds of golf these players can fit in to a week before they'd get bored
Oh I know, I'm certain there's loads of them betting away, but over 1000 is extreme, gambling problem or not, thats putting on bets twice a week for a decade, and for someone who reckons they are smarter than the average footballer, he really is thick as.
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
That's a bit like saying horseracing has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
True but that is not to say that those inter-dependencies are not potentially unhealthy to the end users.
Similar to old smoking adverts it makes betting on games "cool" and portrays it a a normal and almost an essential element to watching football . I do find the all the check out and free bet if you lose gimmicks worrying as it appears to imply that you can't lose.
And yes, I bet £2.50 every week at Charlton games but never bet against us.
Gambling is a problem for 0.5% of gamblers - it has been at that level for 15 years, or ever since the Gambling Prevalence Survey has been carried out. Bookmakers invest a lot of time and money in identifying and helping those with a problem. If people believe they can't lose then they really do have a problem!!
The FA rules are, as I'm sure you appreciate, designed to protect the integrity of the sport. Gambling companies have the same desire (if it's bent, who pays?) - and one of those inter-dependencies is the flow of information from gambling companies to sports regulators.
Yes of course I have a vested interest but the above is me being as objective as possible.
I suspect that footballers, managers, coaches, pro cyclists, race horse trainers, jockeys, tennis pros, snooker players and all other sundry sports personnel who are prohibited from gambling to a greater or lesser extent by the rules of their sport .. simply get their mates or their mum to pop down to the bookies for them or set them up with a nice anonymous online account or two
Don't like him. Think he deserves whatever he get's.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
That's a bit like saying horseracing has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
True but that is not to say that those inter-dependencies are not potentially unhealthy to the end users.
Similar to old smoking adverts it makes betting on games "cool" and portrays it a a normal and almost an essential element to watching football . I do find the all the check out and free bet if you lose gimmicks worrying as it appears to imply that you can't lose.
And yes, I bet £2.50 every week at Charlton games but never bet against us.
Gambling is a problem for 0.5% of gamblers - it has been at that level for 15 years, or ever since the Gambling Prevalence Survey has been carried out. Bookmakers invest a lot of time and money in identifying and helping those with a problem. If people believe they can't lose then they really do have a problem!!
The FA rules are, as I'm sure you appreciate, designed to protect the integrity of the sport. Gambling companies have the same desire (if it's bent, who pays?) - and one of those inter-dependencies is the flow of information from gambling companies to sports regulators.
Yes of course I have a vested interest but the above is me being as objective as possible.
The cynic in me would say the betting companies, present company accepted, do what they do as much to protect themselves and the image of their industry rather than a genuine desire to control problem gambling.
In a similar way drinks companies tell you to drink responsibly and fag packets were forced to have health warnings but these were fought by respective industries. Gambling might be different, I don't know for sure.
I might be just my perception as a small time and occasional gambler but the check out and the refund of bets does appear, to me at least, to fudge the issue of "you're gonna lose a lot more than we win, you know" which is the case for all gamblers in the long term.
Anyway since gambling indirectly funds the museum via your wages I'm not going to complain too much ; - )
He makes some very good points in his statement and i'm almost certain that if A.N other from league one/two had committed the same offence they'd have got a ban around a third of what Barton has.
Also find it hilarious that one of his bets was laying his own team mate (Samaras) to score the first goal! He must've really rated him then!
He makes some very good points in his statement and i'm almost certain that if A.N other from league one/two had committed the same offence they'd have got a ban around a third of what Barton has.
Also find it hilarious that one of his bets was laying his own team mate (Samaras) to score the first goal! He must've really rated him then!
That made my eyes open too, Samaras couldn't hit a cows are with a banjo
I'll wager (!) that Barton is on one of the main media outlets this evening 'discussing' the issue of gambling and/or his virtual banishment from professional football .. it does look though as if the knives were out for him, I'd be surprised if he was the only pro footballer who had a wager on matches .. he's made a lot of enemies and if 'they' wanna get you, they surely will
He bet on himself to score and on his team to lose in some of his bets ffs, I mean what a complete prat. If he was only betting on Slovenian third division games and the pan-asian under 13's cup then it'd be easier to argue against
Comments
it would be refreshing if he just said 'I've been a bit of a cnut'
Bellend.
However, he makes some good points. Football has an unhealthy relationship with gambling companies.
Wasn't the best at predicting though was he... Out of the 30-Bets he provides that the bottom he only won three of them, lost just under £1200 with his winnings less than £200 lol!
The FA get their main income from SKY - SKY sell packages to people who like to watch live sport - gambling companies develop products that focus on live sport (in-play) - gambling companies spend fortunes with SKY on advertising - that advertising is designed to increase gambling company profitability. It's a micro economy with inter-dependencies all over the place.
Agree that he deserves everything coming his way but also agree that he raises valid points re the gambling industry cosying up to the football authorities.
Whether it is too harsh or he is being made an example of I don't know. It certainly seems so but that is only reading his version of the story. How many convicted of an offence say "yeah, that was just about the correct sentence" - 2% would be my complete guess.
That he is a nasty bit of work (IMHO) shouldn't come into in but schadenfreude can be sweet
That's not a Welling player having a cheeky fiver on Arsenal to beat Spurs.
There's not been many incidents though, if it were that rampant I'd imagine more players would get found out
Besides, innocent until proven guilty and all that
(Unless you're Millwank, then it's never your fault even if found guilty)
Similar to old smoking adverts it makes betting on games "cool" and portrays it a a normal and almost an essential element to watching football . I do find the all the check out and free bet if you lose gimmicks worrying as it appears to imply that you can't lose.
And yes, I bet £2.50 every week at Charlton games but never bet against us.
The FA rules are, as I'm sure you appreciate, designed to protect the integrity of the sport. Gambling companies have the same desire (if it's bent, who pays?) - and one of those inter-dependencies is the flow of information from gambling companies to sports regulators.
Yes of course I have a vested interest but the above is me being as objective as possible.
In a similar way drinks companies tell you to drink responsibly and fag packets were forced to have health warnings but these were fought by respective industries. Gambling might be different, I don't know for sure.
I might be just my perception as a small time and occasional gambler but the check out and the refund of bets does appear, to me at least, to fudge the issue of "you're gonna lose a lot more than we win, you know" which is the case for all gamblers in the long term.
Anyway since gambling indirectly funds the museum via your wages I'm not going to complain too much ; - )
Also find it hilarious that one of his bets was laying his own team mate (Samaras) to score the first goal! He must've really rated him then!
it does look though as if the knives were out for him, I'd be surprised if he was the only pro footballer who had a wager on matches .. he's made a lot of enemies and if 'they' wanna get you, they surely will