Jump to content
talkfootball365

  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Daniel Sturridge Charged With Breaching Betting Rules

football forums

Recommended Posts

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 17
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator
football forums

Stan

Posted
  • Author
  • Administrator
Posted
Quote

 

The FA announced the charges in a statement on Monday afternoon, which read: "The charge relates to a breach that occurred during the period of January 2018.

"The alleged breaches concern Rule E8(1)(a)(ii) and Rule E8(1)(b) of the FA’s betting rules."

Rule E8(1)(b) states: “Where a participant provides to any other person any information relating to football which the participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time, the participant shall be in breach of this Rule where any of that information is used by that other person for, or in relation to, betting.

"Sturridge has until 6pm on Tuesday November 20 to respond to the charge."

A Liverpool Football Club spokesperson commented: "Daniel has given his full and unequivocal cooperation throughout this process and has assured the club he will continue to do so.

"Daniel has also stated categorically that he has never gambled on football.

"As with any issue of this nature, we will allow the process to be concluded in its entirety before making any further comment."

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/liverpool-striker-daniel-sturridge-charged-misconduct-fa-alleged-betting-breaches-a3988091.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
football forums

LFCMike

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mel81x said:

That's a pretty serious allegation then because he would have certainly known ahead of time.

Reading the rule posted above, he's probably going to get found guilty even if he hasn't passed the information on for betting purposes. I wouldn't expect it to be any more than a slap on the wrists and a hefty fine though if he's able to argue he only passed the information onto family members or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites
football forums

Dr. Gonzo

Posted
Posted

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/11/13/five-figure-bet-placed-daniel-sturridge-leaving-liverpool-inter/

but he didn’t join Inter... also xD hell of a way to lose money. 

If he broke betting rules to trick someone into betting a lot of money on something that wasn’t true, that’s pretty stupid but also pretty funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
football forums

Dave

Posted
Posted

Joey Barton has called on the FA to be more "21st century" in its approach to gambling regulations.

Daniel Sturridge is waiting to find out if he will be punished for allegedly breaching football betting rules.

Liverpool say "Daniel has stated categorically that he has never gambled on football".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber
football forums

Mel81x+

Posted
  • Subscriber
Posted
6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/11/13/five-figure-bet-placed-daniel-sturridge-leaving-liverpool-inter/

but he didn’t join Inter... also xD hell of a way to lose money. 

If he broke betting rules to trick someone into betting a lot of money on something that wasn’t true, that’s pretty stupid but also pretty funny. 

I once met a guy in Vegas who literally was trying to get me to bet on what the color of the hair was of the waitress that was going to put the next set of drinks on our table. Its amazing what people bet on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
football forums

Dave

Posted
Posted

Daniel Sturridge has requested more time to respond to a misconduct charge relating to alleged betting breaches. It sounds like a member of his family made a bet on his career. Which I'm not sure how he can be expected to control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
football forums

Stan

Posted
  • Author
  • Administrator
Posted
12 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

Daniel Sturridge has requested more time to respond to a misconduct charge relating to alleged betting breaches. It sounds like a member of his family made a bet on his career. Which I'm not sure how he can be expected to control.

He could have told them the move was happening (if it's true that it's alleged he told a family member he was moving to West Brom). And if there was a discussion to arrange for a large bet to be put on, knowing he was going to West Brom, then that's against the rules surely?

It's like when you hear of football players who used to bet on there being a goal-kick or throw-in in the first minute or something (pretty sure I read somewhere that many players used to do this before bans were made across the game for players). They know they're going to do it and if they've told people to bet on it happening, it's not right by the letter of the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
football forums

LFCMadLad

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Stan said:

He could have told them the move was happening (if it's true that it's alleged he told a family member he was moving to West Brom). And if there was a discussion to arrange for a large bet to be put on, knowing he was going to West Brom, then that's against the rules surely?

It's like when you hear of football players who used to bet on there being a goal-kick or throw-in in the first minute or something (pretty sure I read somewhere that many players used to do this before bans were made across the game for players). They know they're going to do it and if they've told people to bet on it happening, it's not right by the letter of the law. 

The bet in question was for 20k on Sturridge moving to Inter Milan.

Also, there's a big difference between a professional footballer discussing his next career move (to a different country no less) with his family, to a player telling his mates to bet on early corner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber
football forums

CaaC (John)+

Posted
  • Subscriber
Posted

It's a long read so I put most in as a spoiler.

 

It is not down to Daniel Sturridge to keep the betting market honest

£10,000 bet over Daniel Sturridge moving to Inter Milan is a sign of knowledge

Mauricio Pochettino is wrong over his feeling of negativity around Harry Kane

Victories like England's over Croatia should be savoured not cast in doom  

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 19 November 2018 | UPDATED: 22:30, 19 November 2018

They must have been feeling very generous at Paddy Power the day they let Daniel Sturridge's cousin place £10,000 on him going to Inter Milan.

Try it. Try to get 10 grand on a footballer going anywhere in the January transfer window. Try to put it on Anthony Martial, say. The market exists.

Martial to Inter Milan before February 1, 2019, is 3-1 with Paddy Power, and here is how much of £10,000 they want to lay — 83 quid. Anything more and the customer is advised to contact them directly and we all know the way that conversation goes.

You will not find a serious gambler who believes Paddy Power took a £10,000 bet on a single football transfer, to leave them with a liability of £17,000.

 

 

 

To bet £83 on Martial to Inter pays out £249. Indeed, each price throughout the entire Martial market leaves the bookmaker with a liability of between £242 and £253. You can't have £83 on Martial to Juventus, for instance, because that's 4-1. So the maximum bet there is £63 and a payout of £252.

And on it goes: Everton 9-1, maximum bet £28, pay-out £252; Monaco 10-1, maximum bet £25, pay-out £250; Lyon 11-1, maximum bet £23, pay-out £253; AC Milan 12-1, maximum bet £21, pay-out £252; Roma, Napoli 14-1, maximum bet £18, pay-out £252; Newcastle 22-1, maximum bet £11, pay-out £242. It is the same range of liability for bets on Jadon Sancho's future, too.

So why would Paddy Power let one punter leave them facing a hit of £17,000 if his hunch came in? And why would anyone have £10,000 on a guess?

The size of the stake implies inside knowledge. Indeed, it couldn't have been more plainly from the horse's mouth, had Sturridge's relative literally ridden into the bookmakers on horseback.

It could not have been more obvious if he had then asked for his winnings up front. Nothing about this story makes sense, least of all the supposed bet.

Noticeably in the email correspondence that emerged at the weekend — in a story alleging Sturridge's cousin received inside information — no stake money is mentioned.

There is confirmation from Paddy Power that a bet was placed on Sturridge to Inter Milan on January 17 at 11.44 but no reference to the outlay, a crucial detail.

While the principle is the same, there would be considerable difference if the Sturridge family were attempting to unfairly relieve bookmakers of £17,000 or £25, say. Theft is theft, but the Brink's-Mat robbers got more time than the office junior with a hand in the petty cash till.

In what circumstances would a bookmaker take such an obviously suspect wager? The only possible explanation would be if they wanted to expose a conspiracy.

If by its very nature, the supposed £10,000 bet as good as revealed the passing of information, the bookmakers were on a win-win. If the bet lost, as it did, they were £10,000 up. If it won, well, they wouldn't be paying out anyway because the bet was crooked. Yet there are other ways to uncover nefarious activity.

The Football Association has placed nine charges against Sturridge, over a variety of bets covering a range of transfer outcomes. Not just Inter Milan and West Brom, his ultimate destination, but other clubs he was linked to, including Sevilla.

Other family members are involved and wagers were placed in the West Midlands area. Given the money in football — and without as yet hearing his side — it appears rather unsavoury.

Yet it raises other questions which, in their desperation to do the bookmakers' bidding, the FA do not seem inclined to answer.

What protection is there for the individual who does not want his life, professional or private, turned into a betting market over which he has no control?

Why should Sturridge, or anyone, have to take a vow of silence, even with family and closest friends, lest he passes on privileged information?

A person changing jobs tells the family. It's an exciting time. It could affect social arrangements, involve a move closer to home, or one farther away.

Yet amid this commotion, Sturridge has to issue the reminder: 'Don't have a bet on it.' This is an insult to intelligence — his, theirs — and completely unnecessary. 

Sturridge didn't ask Paddy Power, or anyone, to make their market. It is not up to him to keep it honest and not up to the FA, either. They should be protecting their stakeholders — clubs, players, referees — not the bookmakers.

Indeed, considering the individual right to privacy, why is this even allowed? Horse racing as a sport trades on its relationship with gambling and one might say football does, too, when 95 per cent of advertising in commercial breaks during live matches is based on betting.

The betting companies help fund the television companies and they help fund the leagues. Yet beyond that? Do players get a cut of the markets that are specifically about them? Should they? Shouldn't they at least be asked?

Clubs, too, when the bets concern individual members of staff. Manchester United to beat Crystal Palace on Saturday is a very different market than Jose Mourinho to be sacked before Christmas, or Martial to join Newcastle.

So if bookmakers wish to take bets on areas of the game that are highly vulnerable to inside information, isn't it their job to ensure the model cannot be corrupted?

Put it like this, if Sturridge had to grant permission for his career to be a tool in Paddy Power's revenue stream, then the FA charge would have considerably greater basis.

If Sturridge was financially rewarded for permitting that market and was then found to have deliberately corrupted it for his personal gain, or that of his family circle, then injustice is evident. He has deliberately corrupted a market that he helped create, disadvantaging those who are involved, whether as gamblers or bookmakers.

As it is, he has been landed with the unfair burden of protecting a flawed business model that exists to fleece mug punters and the unwitting.

It is not his responsibility, nor that of the FA, even if Paddy Power were daft enough to take £10,000. Those who bet for more than fun, however, are willing to wager they didn't.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6407235/It-not-Daniel-Sturridge-betting-market-honest.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
football forums

Bluewolf

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

I just don't believe Sturridge would risk his whole career to win what......A weeks wages? 

Nah.

You shouldn't be shocked that just because someone has enough money in their pocket that they are not open to having more no matter how it's gathered... It happens the world over... Not that I am saying he is guilty of anything but to assume that it's beyond someone to do just because they have enough money already is not realistic is it... 

Does all seem a bit odd... It would be near impossible for Sturridge not to want to talk to his family about any potential moves and as we know family talk to friends and other family etc and things get about so not sure how you could expect him to be handling that situation and it would be very, very silly to put such a huge sum on the potential outcome of a move without drawing attention to it... If his cousin has decided to go ahead and use what he has found out to better line his pockets on what he thought would be a sure thing then I have to wonder why the bookies would be taking such a huge bet that would leave them so much out of pocket?? 

If that was the case and his cousin has just whacked that on off his own back I would ask how much blame can be realistically laid with Sturridge?? surely they would need to prove he had a deliberate hand in that?? I suppose if they looked into the financial situation of his cousin they might have a better understanding of his ability to have the funds for such an outlay in the first place, if not where did all that money come from?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...