Ian Black notice of complaint

[blueflag 378]

You are missing what I'm saying. If a 'tech savvy' Dhim is behind it then that is the 'Rhat' that 54andcounting is referring to. If Black has bet against us then he is a Rat. Who would you be most angry with? Rat or Rhat?

 

Rat. without a doubt. He shouldn't be betting on his team to loose. He's a first class idiot if that's proven.

I don't want to be paranoid and automatically think that the leaker is a Rhat, he/she could very well be a hibee Rat. or even a disgruntled Jambo Rat.

Or even just friend he's fucked over John terry Style lol( so just another Rat? )

God knows. to be honest, as I said, I would like the SFA to prove the information came from 'Legal' ways. that's all. The Rat could even be Charlotte, but I would think not as again pointed out above it would be just published online and the SFA would be rushing to make a statement, the first leak of this came from them releasing the story from what I can see anyway

[Cotter 0]

He earns an awfully high wage does he not? Has anyone considered this leak came from within? Would certainly be typical given club behaviour of late. I always got the impression the club gleefully jumped on the sandaza situation.

[54andcounting 0]

If Ladbrokes,or any other bookie,suspects a player betting on matches can influence the result,therefore taking money from the bookies then they will be duty bound to report the player,no?

 

...but if he was doing it for 7 years it would have been detected before now. The whole thing stinks of shit stirring for me.

[blueflag 378]

...but if he was doing it for 7 years it would have been detected before now. The whole thing stinks of shit stirring for me.

 

Totally agree. Ladbrokes would never have willingly allowed it for 7 years and then reported it.

[ian1964 10,377]

...but if he was doing it for 7 years it would have been detected before now. The whole thing stinks of shit stirring for me.

 

Whether it's shit stirring or not if he is breaking the rules,which apparently he is/has,then he is a silly boy and could be the end of his career!

[54andcounting 0]

He earns an awfully high wage does he not? Has anyone considered this leak came from within? Would certainly be typical given club behaviour of late. I always got the impression the club gleefully jumped on the sandaza situation.

Black has been playing really well for us since the seasons start.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Nonsense and a bit too dramatic. If he is betting on his own team to win and his bets are obviously within reason i.e. he is not paying off an opposition player then where is the cheating? He gives it his all for the Club and his bet. Yes it is not allowed, but ban him for life? Calm down.

If he has bet against his club? Different story.

 

dramatic? really? Rather than telling me to calm down, you should perhaps give a bit more thought to your argument. let's start with "within reason". Who decides what is "within reason"? Is a £5,000 bet within reason? if so, what's the rational? £5000 would represent a year's disposable income to me. If I bet that amount on a football game, is that reasonable? The same amount of money would represent a week's disposable income for some or half a day's disposable income for others. So what's reasonable and who decides?

 

Let's now move on to "he is not paying off an opposition player". How do you know who he is paying off?

Then "where is the cheating". Let's say he bets on his team to win by between two and three goals. We're winning 3-1. He puts his foot on the ball, slows the game down and does his best to make sure we don't score another one, let alone two goals. Is that cheating?

What happens when I, as a punter, bet on Rangers to win 5-1, but our central midfielder has bet the ranch on a scoreline of 3-1. I have no chance of getting my 5-1.

Is that cheating?

 

The obvious and indisputable fact is that if you are involved in a game, the outcome of which you can manipulate or influence, and you have a financial incentive to manipulate that game to any extent, then that game becomes corrupted and unfair.

 

Gambling is the biggest and most serious cancer in any sport - and it will destroy any sport in which it gains a foothold. It must be completely eradicated at the first whiff of it, otherwise we lose faith in the sport and then we lose interest and then it dies.

 

If you don't already know the story, have a look at the 1919 Chicago Whitesox - a scandal that almost killed Major League baseball. Then look at what happened to Pete Rose at the end of last century.

[ian1964 10,377]

Lifted from FF:

 

 

manfromdelmonte manfromdelmonte is online now

The GERS TV

 

Join Date: 30-07-2006

Location: banned

Posts: 8,102

Default Re: Ian Black charged by the SFA for betting

Meeting scheduled to take place tomorrow at 2 pm with Blacks lawyers , the SFA and Rangers , no statement will be released until after the meeting and I will get details as soon as the meeting is over.

 

The info I have is it was his brother's coupons and his brother's bets which were fivers etc not serious money.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Prepare to be shocked. Employers can't run rough shod over European legislation just because they fancy finding out a bit more about their staff.

 

I think you misssed my point there. What I meant was that I agree that it would be difficult to justify that kind of check, even if it was possible; but absent that, then a clause in the contract saying what will happen to you if you do bet on matches, might be an alternative.

 

Ask Charles Green about his attempts at complying with TUPE (a European legislation that he got badly wrong).

 

This something I do know a bit about and it always seemed to me that Green was either incredibly naïve or incredibly badly advised or both. You have to offer to employ exisiting staff on the same terms and conditions but they don't have to accept. I know the lawyer who represented Whittaker and Naismith and he's a top man; but even he would admit that that was probably the easiest money he's made in a while. A lot easier than avoiding the immediate point deduction that would have relegated Hearts.

Edited August 20, 2013 by BrahimHemdani

[Cotter 0]

Black has been playing really well for us since the seasons start.

 

Lol so you accept the real reason we sacked sandaza was because he was shite?

 

Black has played 1 and a half decent games for us. He was the first post meltdown signing and probably the highest earner at the club as a result.