Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
16 Apr 19
16:30
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Dec 05
getting done for breaking betting rules 140 times between 2015 and 2019
somones mask deffo slipping
somones mask deffo slipping
Show More
Probably got someone to hunt around and find a bookie who'd price up next Oldham manager
That's what I never get with the whole KYC rules these days. Isn't it bookies job to know who is betting with them, thus if it's Paul Scholes with his birth date red flags should be going off immediately?
What rules was Scholes even breaking? Because he was part-owner of Salford?
What rules was Scholes even breaking? Because he was part-owner of Salford?
Paul Scholes is charged with misconduct by FA after placing 140 bets on football matches between 2015 and 2019 when he was part-owner of Salford City with Class of '92
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-6928385/Paul-Scholes-charged-misconduct-FA-placing-140-bets-football-matches.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-6928385/Paul-Scholes-charged-misconduct-FA-placing-140-bets-football-matches.html
From the Guardian.....
"There is no suggestion that he was betting on the outcome of Salford matches, and no bets were placed by Scholes during the short time he was manager of Oldham Athletic. The FA tightened up its rules on gambling in 2014, effectively bringing in a blanket ban on any betting on any level of football for anyone involved in the game throughout the league pyramid.
Scholes has until 26 April to respond to the charge, and is thought likely to be fined if found guilty rather than suspended.
It is a less clear-cut issue than with players when owners, directors and shareholders place bets on football matches; the extent of their involvement is not always as apparent.
An FA spokesman explained the distinction now used is whether someone is a participant in football, a catch-all description intended to include players, managers, owners, agents and anyone working within the game. “The rule of thumb is that if you work in football you cannot bet on football,” the spokesman said. “It doesn’t matter if it is a bet on a different club or a different country. If you are a participant in football, all bets are off.”
"There is no suggestion that he was betting on the outcome of Salford matches, and no bets were placed by Scholes during the short time he was manager of Oldham Athletic. The FA tightened up its rules on gambling in 2014, effectively bringing in a blanket ban on any betting on any level of football for anyone involved in the game throughout the league pyramid.
Scholes has until 26 April to respond to the charge, and is thought likely to be fined if found guilty rather than suspended.
It is a less clear-cut issue than with players when owners, directors and shareholders place bets on football matches; the extent of their involvement is not always as apparent.
An FA spokesman explained the distinction now used is whether someone is a participant in football, a catch-all description intended to include players, managers, owners, agents and anyone working within the game. “The rule of thumb is that if you work in football you cannot bet on football,” the spokesman said. “It doesn’t matter if it is a bet on a different club or a different country. If you are a participant in football, all bets are off.”
However the FA are willing to overlook the billions of pounds pumped into its members by betting companies.
[:laugh:)Baker Boy, I was thinking the same, it's so hypercritical.
Its beyond that.
They like to try and throw the book at a few famous ex pro's (Scholes is doing nothing wrong, he isn't betting against his own team etc) - they turn their back on massive gambling issues suffered by many of their members (we hear about Merson but there are hundreds of players with serious gambling issues that doesn't get mentioned) and they allow any unruly betting firm to sponsor and highlight their wares. I think i'm pretty savvy and know most betting firms, but a look at this years football sponsors threw up names i hadn't encountered before.
All whilst trying to encourage more kids to the game.
The FA are about the only organisation left that make todays MP's looks relatively people friendly.
They like to try and throw the book at a few famous ex pro's (Scholes is doing nothing wrong, he isn't betting against his own team etc) - they turn their back on massive gambling issues suffered by many of their members (we hear about Merson but there are hundreds of players with serious gambling issues that doesn't get mentioned) and they allow any unruly betting firm to sponsor and highlight their wares. I think i'm pretty savvy and know most betting firms, but a look at this years football sponsors threw up names i hadn't encountered before.
All whilst trying to encourage more kids to the game.
The FA are about the only organisation left that make todays MP's looks relatively people friendly.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539