Joey Barton

[kaz7]

He's bang on though, not a game goes by without you being bombarded about what odds have been raised as specials etc... to entice someone. The whole concept of the game grabbing as much cash as it can from the bookmaker yet then clamping down on the bets is a bit hypocritical imo.
They should look at getting their own house in order first.

I also hate that line, 'when the fun stops, stop!' It's never fun when you lose and i lose a lot!!

I think you are right about that but he is doing what he always does when he gets in trouble and blame someone else

 

[meeesh]

Enforced honesty meeesh... he hasn't got an honest bone in his body..

As stated above, we can more than assume he had information pertaining to 'big' player injuries, which would undoubtedly stack the odds in his favour!

I must admit mate,I'm purely an outsider when it comes to personal information about players etc etc,that is why I like to read what yourself and close others say at certain situations,but looking at that list of bets £2's and fivers,i mean hardly doing fortunes in,and also appears he was losing more than he won,a lot like me !!

But we all know his general background,he is what he is,but to be punished so severely for this when countless others have and probably are still doing it now,I think it's quite harsh.

I was only listening to Charlie Dimmock chatting with Boiled Bollock on Talkshite a few week back and he was talking about the betting aspect whilst he was playing,along with a few others in that particular team he was playing in,they were lumping big,but like I say,although they are in a far more privilidged position than most of us,he's been made a bit of a scapegoat here

 

[domalino]

He was betting on his own team although he claims not to have been part of the squad for the games he bet on. Bet on us to win against Fulham in April 2006 (which we lost of course) and quite a few bets on the Toon when he went there.

No that's not true, he's literally bet on himself to be first goalscorer, so he clearly was part of the squad or thought he was going to be.

I think he's claiming he wasn't in the squad for the games he bet on his team to lose.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Draft statement from D Gill:

"Manchester City, henceforward to be referred to only as FC Pariah, are held responsible for Barton's activities, and are immediately stripped of all honours in their history. Said honours are transferred to the record of the closest Premier League team (edit: secretary, make that senior team, as no other divisions actually count, DG)."

 

[Zin 'messiah' Zimmer]

I must admit mate,I'm purely an outsider when it comes to personal information about players etc etc,that is why I like to read what yourself and close others say at certain situations,but looking at that list of bets £2's and fivers,i mean hardly doing fortunes in,and also appears he was losing more than he won,a lot like me !!

But we all know his general background,he is what he is,but to be punished so severely for this when countless others have and probably are still doing it now,I think it's quite harsh.

I was only listening to Charlie Dimmock chatting with Boiled Bollock on Talkshite a few week back and he was talking about the betting aspect whilst he was playing,along with a few others in that particular team he was playing in,they were lumping big,but like I say,although they are in a far more privilidged position than most of us,he's been made a bit of a scapegoat here

The scapegoating is because he was a member of the teams he bet on, regardless if he was suspended/injured.... as someone who' has flirted with betting addiction I have no sympathy, I'd also point towards that in his statement he states that this is his 'only account' has been 'verified' etc etc. Firstly, most 'addicts' have more than one and I would be amazed if he hasn't been pulled on it, secondly, the epos systems employed by bookies contain stored information that legally has to be kept for 75 years, I'd again say it's highly likely that betting patterns have been compared and contrasted, they'll know without concrete proof but enough to say 'fuck you'...

 

[ancoats]

hahahaha 18 month ban hahahahahah good old joey barton making out its not his fault

he's been at it for years and years even man city some dodgy results when you scratch your head and rethink. the only thing is he finds away back into football some how and they talk of this good player over the years so its not a gamble to sign him. but can you name a club joey barton been at where the football talked and not the person

always remember that c*nt Willie McKay saying joey barton is bigger than manchester city and joey wanted a bigger better contract or he would not play and just think back then we was on our knees with nothing to piss in and joey wanted that little bit more the greedy get the chances we give to joey and then he comes out with that am bigger than the club what a loon

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

No that's not true, he's literally bet on himself to be first goalscorer, so he clearly was part of the squad or thought he was going to be.

I think he's claiming he wasn't in the squad for the games he bet on his team to lose.

Yes you're right. He was in the team for that Fulham game.

 

[BigOscar]

My favourite part of this is how robust the FA's anti-gambling unit clearly is. He only managed to get away with having a betting account in his own name and place thousands of bets across about a decade before they managed to catch this master criminal. It's pretty reassuring that they are clearly going to catch anyone doing anything suspect

 

[meeesh]

The scapegoating is because he was a member of the teams he bet on, regardless if he was suspended/injured.... as someone who' has flirted with betting addiction I have no sympathy, I'd also point towards that in his statement he states that this is his 'only account' has been 'verified' etc etc. Firstly, most 'addicts' have more than one and I would be amazed if he hasn't been pulled on it, secondly, the epos systems employed by bookies contain stored information that legally has to be kept for 75 years, I'd again say it's highly likely that betting patterns have been compared and contrasted, they'll know without concrete proof but enough to say 'fuck you'...

But the fact he has had an account since 2006 ? And it comes out 10 years later,mmmmmmmmmmmmm ok

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

My favourite part of this is how robust the FA's anti-gambling unit clearly is. He only managed to get away with having a betting account in his own name and place thousands of bets across about a decade before they managed to catch this master criminal. It's pretty reassuring that they are clearly going to catch anyone doing anything suspect

Yes I think we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing the football authorities will jump on wrongdoing instantly.

 

[mat]

*Putting tin foil hat on*

Tax raids on clubs and Barton suspended at same time day. Is there another story the FA are distracting us from?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The other issue is, as Barton alludes to, is that gambling is a huge part of the culture at football clubs. There have been quite a few stories of players getting into financial problems because of it. Didi Hamann, Michael Chopra, Matty Etherington, Keith Gillespie, Dominic Matteo, Eidur Gudjohnsen are all names in the public domain and I know for certain of three others who haven't been named, two of whom are still playing at a high level. What's happening about them?

 

[geoff clipp]

No that's not true, he's literally bet on himself to be first goalscorer, so he clearly was part of the squad or thought he was going to be.

I think he's claiming he wasn't in the squad for the games he bet on his team to lose.

He's seems to think it's ok to gamble on the games he's involved with providing he isn't backing them to lose. He's dumber than i thought if he can't see how problematic backing yourself as first scorer is. Supposing his team gets a penalty or free kick and he argues he ought to take it? What if he see's a team mate in a nailed on scoring position but shoots instead of passing? There are so many ways he's liable to damage the integrity of the result with a bet like that. Same with bettingh on correct scores. Just cos he's back ed his team to win, it's irrelevant when part of his bet relies on the opposition getting a goal. Leagues are won and team relegated based on goal difference and he should never be in a position where he benefits from his own team letting a goal in.

He's wrong to say there's nothing untoward about any of the bets he made as some of them raise huge problems. He's correct that neither the gambling industry or the football authorities come out of this looking good but his actions are nowhere near as innocuous as he makes out.

 

[cleavers]

The other issue is, as Barton alludes to, is that gambling is a huge part of the culture at football clubs. There have been quite a few stories of players getting into financial problems because of it. Didi Hamann, Michael Chopra, Matty Etherington, Keith Gillespie, Dominic Matteo, Eidur Gudjohnsen are all names in the public domain and I know for certain of three others who haven't been named, two of whom are still playing at a high level. What's happening about them?

Is one of them out on loan ?

I think Barton has a point, about football being surrounded by betting, even to the point of shirt sponsorship for the club he currently plays for, yet he gets this draconian ban, for something he'd been doing under his own name for a decade, and with an obvious addiction.

As is usual, the FA couldn't be more confusing in its signals here imho.

 

[discopop]

Talk sport are trying their best to distance the role that Bookmakers have played in the whole whole matter which is of little surprise seeing as the whole station is fed and funded by various betting company's, its been said on here that the presence of Sky Bet offering odds on live games they show is very disquieting, regarding Barton the guys a knob who is probably the getting the comeuppance he deserved for past misdemeanours. His statement which has probably been weeks in the writing is a little bit scatter gun (nothing new there)

The full written reasons from the FA for the severity of the ban will be very interesting reading.

 

[cleavers]

its been said on here that the presence of Sky Bet offering odds on live games they show is very disquieting

It's surely a potential conflict of interest.

 

[mat]

It's surely a potential conflict of interest.

Always has been in my book eversince they took over sponsorship of the EFL. The added bonus of a 7 second delay in HD feed coverage coins it in for them.

 

[Bozo]

Thanks Joey!

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

It's surely a potential conflict of interest.

They have never been called on it. How much cash have they made courtesy of sky sports news spewing nonsense about player x being linked to team y?

 

[willipp]

Just seen a list of his bets involving teams he was involved in, he deserves banning for being so shit at betting.