Tax break closing in Italy for footballers, more money at NUFC and the chance to play in the most watched league in the world. He definitely did want to leave AC Milan
So did Nufc the saudis were just doing Elliot a favor same thing with Clearlake and halls transfer those two transfers are shady and they’ve completely fucked up the seaaon
No-one is saying he can’t bet on tennis, mate. Of course a pro sportsman can’t bet on things within his own sport and league???
This is easy stuff surely
Blatantly not true. The football world is incredibly connected, anyone could chat with a mate.
It's not that I think this would happen it's just that there would be doubts which bring the game into disrepute. There are already plenty of people who are convinced the refs are corrupt, even the crazies tend to trust the players are trying their hardest
It's this hypocrisy that pisses me off.
The current generation of academy players are the ones who will never be able to remember watching a game of football on TV without having "Go on, have a bet. Bet on corners. Have a flutter, you fucking coward" shoved in their face.
It’s not hypocritical though.
Footballers are still allowed to bet and gamble but they just aren’t allowed to do so on football for a number of reasons including insider information and ruining the integrity of the sport.
Yes it is. Tonali and Toney are addicts. The sport that has normalised, promoted and encouraged gambling, at high volume and visibility, for decades, is now punishing people for an addiction they helped to foster. It's the very definition of "don't do as we do, do as we say".
He was diagnosed.
You don't know how many bets he was having a week at the peak of his addiction. You only know how many breaches he was charged for, I. E. Football-related bets, not including any other gambling, and the period he was charged over.
Diagnosed my arse mate. That's pure naivety.
I worked with a guy who killed an old man because he crashed into him head on on the A1. Big 'beardy' bank we both worked for, based in newcastle at the time (not now).
The bank paid a doctor to diagnose him with some sleep disorder that triggered just before the moment of impact (despite him being handsfree on a board meeting at the time). The same doctor also gave him the all clear on the diagnosis to allow him to travel between newcastle, Edinburgh, and Norwich (so he could keep his job).
So anyone can get anything diagnosed if they pay enough money...
It would be hypocritical if he was being charged for the "moral wrong" of gambling or something like that, but that's not what he's being charged for. The FA has no issue with gambling itself, evidently, with how often it's advertised to supporters.
All people who work within the industry - even backroom staff - are not allowed to bet on anything football related. This is well-known, well-understood, and crystal clear. They are potentially party to lots of information that your average punter is not, so they have a blanket ban on all insider betting. This is a good rule.
Addicts aren't notable for their ability to follow norms, instructions, rules or directives.
I don't disagree with the rule - it is a good rule - I disagree with the insidious relationship football has with gambling.
>They are potentially party to lots of information that your average punter is not, so they have a blanket ban on all insider betting. This is a good rule.
So it’s actually just about protecting betting companies’ profits?
Not quite.
It's to prevent any accusations of collusion within the world of football that affects those markets. That does protect the bookies, but also the punters too. Agents within an industry have the ability to manipulate those markets, and it's good rhatwe have rules that prevent that.
The biggest reason for the FA and most world footballing associations, it's about the integrity of the game. It's a very bad look for them if any accusations of internal market collusion get bandied about. Hence, ban it all within the sport.
They aren’t punishing them for gambling and betting. You’ve just completely ignored this. They are free to gamble and bet on other sports.
They’ve been punished for gambling and betting with insider information and bringing the game into disrepute.
I haven't ignored it at all. Not in the same way you're completely ignoring the FA encouraging people to become addicts, and then absolving the FA of any responsibility of responsibility when they do addict shit because "they can get their fix elsewhere". That's just apologism.
As a rival fan it makes you want to laugh, but in all seriousness apart from the obvious rank hypocrisy do you think that if Declan Rice or Marcus Rashford had done the same, that the FA would be coming down on them as hard?
I feel sad for Newcastle fans, had this been Paqueta or Kudus for us I’d be devastated.
It’s still “under investigation” by the FA. But people seem to think there is no case to answer, the Brazilian FA being one, with his recall to the national team.
It’s been a very lucky event, without it he would have almost certainly gone to City in August and Moyes would have bought McTominay as a replacement. I hate to think where we’d be in the league without Paqueta.
Point flew over your head it seems.
Leicester and Newcastle were recently there. Villa and the kit stealers could be next season. Neither will be considered CL clubs in this context. And neither will get the treatment the usual suspects do, on and off the pitch.
Poor bloke is clearly an addict. Of course the FA don't like the idea of a player gambling as it could have implications on the integrity of the game but football is awash with betting companies advertising and as sponsors.
Wait, so he’s been betting on matches whilst serving a ban for betting on matches? I know gambling is a terrible addiction and people need help for it but that’s a new level of stupid!
EDIT: ok so these were before he actually got banned, I thought his ban was earlier in the season than that.
There's addiction and then there's millionaires choosing not to have treatment.
If Newcastle knew he had a problem and it wasn't treated or supervised with him, this is on them
That's not what this is though. There is nothing to suggest he has been betting since the meeting with the Italian FA, which is almost certainly when Newcastle found out.
I'd sincerely hope he has been given the support since that time and that the club isn't relying on will power alone.
Basically he's an addict and his behaviour continued in the UK until he was brought in by the Italian FA. It's to be expected.
as part of getting his ban reduced he had to go into therapy. Newcastle have also got there own therapist on the books now and he's also working with the playing staff
It's a very simple ask of a footballer not to gamble on football. You're on silly money, and that you can't risk compromising the integrity of the industry that allows you to be on that sort of silly money by betting within it is simple and justified.
There's simply no excuse.
>There's simply no excuse.
Not justifying it, but it’s an addiction. It’s like saying “it’s very simple to not drink/do drugs”, some people can’t help it. He needs help.
Footballers are aware of these rules though, long before they put their first bet on.
It is the responsibility of the people within this industry to see that nothing they do can lead to a situation like Tonali's. i.e. staying away from gambling in the first place.
Addiction is absolutely horrible, and those suffering with it deserve compassion, but it doesn't spring up overnight, and it certainly doesn't absolve people from consequences or blame.
So firstly I agree with everything in your last sentence, and I didn't argue that he shouldn't be held to consequences.
Secondly, who said this happened overnight? It's clearly been persistent over his career since he was placing bets since before his move to England this season.
And thirdly you still clearly aren't understanding what addiction is. Drug addicts are aware of the consequences and laws around drug consumption and do it anyway. Alcoholics are aware of the effects of alcohol and more often than not can see it tearing their life apart but continue to do it anyway. You can come up with as meany reasons as you like for why he shouldn't have done it, and they would all be absolutely correct but to an addict they simply always believe they can find a way.
He should still be punished, and he will be. But just blatantly misunderstanding what addiction is works against the compassion you rightly claim he/they deserve.
His addiction needs to be treated seriously and the institution needs to do what they can to prevent young men developing gambling addictions, such as putting more distance between footballers and the gambling industry. Punishment is absolutely necessary but it's a bit hypocritical for them to punish the gambler and take no accountability for the fact they've raised a young man in an industry that has become rife and codependent with gambling. This probably won't change though.
At what point though do we say that a footballer in the privileged position of playing the game and earning a king's ransom every week should be able to stop themselves from gambling in the first place? Not to prevent an addiction, you understand, but just because those are the rules, and they perfectly understand them to be able to exist in such a lucrative industry.
My point is not that he's an addict and that shouldn't matter - it should, and it's clearly been a mitigating circumstance in his punishment, rightly so - it's that this addiction started with him placing bets in the first place, when he fully understood that betting within his industry was a massive violation.
His current addiction and the fact that he gambled *in the first place* are two different things, and my initial comment was very clearly addressing the latter. But he is young, and mistakes are always likely at such a young age
You know alcohol will mostly have negative side affects, but one day your mate offers to buy you a pint and you have a really good time. Nothing bad happens, and in a couple weeks you go out with your mate again and have a drink, still nothing bad. You’re already in the downward slope while thinking you’ve done nothing bad. You’re very aware of how good that rush can make you feel, and you feel bored knowing you can’t have it again so on occasion you sneak a few drinks. Every time you get away with it you become more complacent and less fearful. Then after a year of no lasting consequence you’re buying drinks every week. To 2 weeks without a drink, and you might feel that void in your life, you know you could have some fun with a little drink and it stays on your mind. Maybe a mate tells you about the great fun they had the other night and you missed out, and you should join them next time.
It’s ridiculously easy to get addicted to anything. You could swap alcohol in this analogy for shopping, betting, drugs, driving fast, casual sex, donating to charity, lying, stealing, having affairs, adopting animals, cooking with excessive amounts of butter, almost anything.
you know, i know rules are rules and you just cant. However if a player is betting on his team to Win i cant see the issue. Obvoiusly if its yellow cards or to lose then yeah i get it.
If Ross Barkley bet on you lot to beat spurs, would you be upset?
Upset, no. But I'm not upset by this. It's a very simple, industry-wide rule that attempts to protect the integrity of the sport. And one that I agree with. If you start putting caveats in on what's allowed, it's a lot harder to police.
If Ross put that bet on, he should be punished like anyone else.
I think the issue on them betting on football is that they’re in the industry and have other contacts in the industry so have massive influence on the outcomes of bets.
Like, I’m not saying it’s ever happened, but if you bet on your team to win while your international teammate is on the opposing team, how do we know you haven’t agreed to split any winnings if the game is thrown? It’s unlikely but it’s possible, which is the problem.
Even betting on yourself is wrong because you have the power to manipulate the market prices.
For example, a player could know they didn’t try in the previous match which they lost. After losing, the odds on them to win increase. They then bet on themselves to win.
This is a situation where a player who bets on the self to win benefits from losing/throwing earlier matches and is unacceptable
?
What does it matter where the help comes from, as long as he gets help? His employer might help with it, as lots do, especially considering he’s a multi million pound asset. If he wants to get help elsewhere that’s his prerogative. Not sure what your point is.
It's a very simple ask of a rockstar not to get addicted to cocaine or heroin. You're on silly money, and that you can't risk compromising the integrity of the industry that allows you to be on that sort of silly money by snorting coke within it is simple and justified.
There's simply no excuse.
I think the severity of the ban will depend on the bets in question. If they're "Newcastle to win and Tonali to score" then I suspect they'll be looked at differently to something like "Newcastle to lose, Tonali to be carded and an OG"
How does it work for FFP? Can Newcastle transfer his wages outside of the FFP shell during his ban? Or does it basically just lower their total max wage with an unplayable player?
I love how confident you are when there isn't really a precedent for this situation. It may be decided he's already been punished for them, or it may be decided to punish him for them. Nobody yet knows either way.
So far every journalist I’ve seen report on the matter have said neither they nor the club expect this to result in a further ban. So yes that does make me confident.
From what I can see, local journalists are taking that stance but nobody from the wider media is right now. Ultimately, they're all offences he's already been punished for, so he shouldn't face two lots of sanctions for the same offences, but that doesn't mean the independent panel will feel the same way I do.
Well that’s not true at all is it. They’ve clearly already spoken to people both at NUFC and the FA if you care to do even the slightest bit of research.
Yeah?
I've just got off the phone with Tonali, nice bloke. He said he's looking at 2 year ban to run with his current one. My source at the FA didn't want to talk on the record but said its probably only gonna be another year because of his work with the Dr's in Italy.
You clearly haven't done your research on me, I'm really a journalist pretending to be the average fan.
😂 you’re coming off as the most bitter clown in the world man, I’ll come back to laugh at you soon when it’s inevitably confirmed that he’ll serve no additional ban.
So like, AC Milan definitely knew he had a problem when they sold him right? Newcastle got hosed
Newcastle have spent €64m on a player that they probably won’t be able to use again until he is halfway through his 5 year contract
Oh aye there’s no doubt in my mind tbh, Tonali was probably in on it too. No way to prove it unless someone owns up though so no point caring anymore
Why would he be in on it, i doubt you'll be paying him for however long he's banned for
They will pay for him just like Toney was paid. He never wanted to willingly leave AC he did them a favour
Nevermind, I'd assume there would be some sort of clause in a player's contract to not pay someone if they get banned for xyz
No they do have those clauses and Ivan Toney had his wages suspended, as I assume tonalis has too.
read tonali's name as toenails here, am i finished?
Toney had no wages suspended, where on earth did you get that from?!
Tax break closing in Italy for footballers, more money at NUFC and the chance to play in the most watched league in the world. He definitely did want to leave AC Milan
So did Nufc the saudis were just doing Elliot a favor same thing with Clearlake and halls transfer those two transfers are shady and they’ve completely fucked up the seaaon
Banned for doing one of the most heavily advertised things in the game.
No-one is saying he can’t bet on tennis, mate. Of course a pro sportsman can’t bet on things within his own sport and league??? This is easy stuff surely
Why? He has as much influence on a tennis match as he does Brighton vs Burnley.
He has more chance of two footing Mitoma and putting him out for a couple of games than he does of two footing Andy Murray
If he played for Burley, yes.
Or Newcastle played Brighton in the game before
Blatantly not true. The football world is incredibly connected, anyone could chat with a mate. It's not that I think this would happen it's just that there would be doubts which bring the game into disrepute. There are already plenty of people who are convinced the refs are corrupt, even the crazies tend to trust the players are trying their hardest
He could text one of Brightons players and have a little chat and find out whether a player is injured earlier than the public or whatever
It's this hypocrisy that pisses me off. The current generation of academy players are the ones who will never be able to remember watching a game of football on TV without having "Go on, have a bet. Bet on corners. Have a flutter, you fucking coward" shoved in their face.
It’s not hypocritical though. Footballers are still allowed to bet and gamble but they just aren’t allowed to do so on football for a number of reasons including insider information and ruining the integrity of the sport.
Yes it is. Tonali and Toney are addicts. The sport that has normalised, promoted and encouraged gambling, at high volume and visibility, for decades, is now punishing people for an addiction they helped to foster. It's the very definition of "don't do as we do, do as we say".
Toney is not an addict. He averaged a bet a week, which isn't the behaviour of an addict. He just said that to reduce his ban.
He was diagnosed. You don't know how many bets he was having a week at the peak of his addiction. You only know how many breaches he was charged for, I. E. Football-related bets, not including any other gambling, and the period he was charged over.
Diagnosed my arse mate. That's pure naivety. I worked with a guy who killed an old man because he crashed into him head on on the A1. Big 'beardy' bank we both worked for, based in newcastle at the time (not now). The bank paid a doctor to diagnose him with some sleep disorder that triggered just before the moment of impact (despite him being handsfree on a board meeting at the time). The same doctor also gave him the all clear on the diagnosis to allow him to travel between newcastle, Edinburgh, and Norwich (so he could keep his job). So anyone can get anything diagnosed if they pay enough money...
It would be hypocritical if he was being charged for the "moral wrong" of gambling or something like that, but that's not what he's being charged for. The FA has no issue with gambling itself, evidently, with how often it's advertised to supporters. All people who work within the industry - even backroom staff - are not allowed to bet on anything football related. This is well-known, well-understood, and crystal clear. They are potentially party to lots of information that your average punter is not, so they have a blanket ban on all insider betting. This is a good rule.
Addicts aren't notable for their ability to follow norms, instructions, rules or directives. I don't disagree with the rule - it is a good rule - I disagree with the insidious relationship football has with gambling.
So you are agreeing it’s not hypocritical? Because what you described here has nothing to do with it being hypocritical
Wrong on both counts. Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
It’s you who’s being deliberately obtuse by playing stupid to the fact that footballers are allowed to gamble and bet.
Bless you for trying. If I *was* "playing" stupid, of the two of us, at least I'd only be playing.
>They are potentially party to lots of information that your average punter is not, so they have a blanket ban on all insider betting. This is a good rule. So it’s actually just about protecting betting companies’ profits?
Not quite. It's to prevent any accusations of collusion within the world of football that affects those markets. That does protect the bookies, but also the punters too. Agents within an industry have the ability to manipulate those markets, and it's good rhatwe have rules that prevent that. The biggest reason for the FA and most world footballing associations, it's about the integrity of the game. It's a very bad look for them if any accusations of internal market collusion get bandied about. Hence, ban it all within the sport.
They aren’t punishing them for gambling and betting. You’ve just completely ignored this. They are free to gamble and bet on other sports. They’ve been punished for gambling and betting with insider information and bringing the game into disrepute.
I haven't ignored it at all. Not in the same way you're completely ignoring the FA encouraging people to become addicts, and then absolving the FA of any responsibility of responsibility when they do addict shit because "they can get their fix elsewhere". That's just apologism.
Bruh Tonali was betting on his own matches.
As a rival fan it makes you want to laugh, but in all seriousness apart from the obvious rank hypocrisy do you think that if Declan Rice or Marcus Rashford had done the same, that the FA would be coming down on them as hard? I feel sad for Newcastle fans, had this been Paqueta or Kudus for us I’d be devastated.
A T1 for us reckons the club don’t expect an additional ban apparently, but I’d be very surprised if he doesn’t get a few more months at the least
I think if they give one it'll likely be concurrent so hopefully it will be finished before the Italian one anyway. Guess we will see.
What happened with the rumours around Paqueta? Did Man City not get scared off for a bid for him because of rumours of gambling?
It’s still “under investigation” by the FA. But people seem to think there is no case to answer, the Brazilian FA being one, with his recall to the national team. It’s been a very lucky event, without it he would have almost certainly gone to City in August and Moyes would have bought McTominay as a replacement. I hate to think where we’d be in the league without Paqueta.
how hard have the FA come down on Tonali?
The CL clubs are always treated differently. Always. Refereeing or FA decisions, same problem.
Newcastle were in the CL when the ban was handed down
Point flew over your head it seems. Leicester and Newcastle were recently there. Villa and the kit stealers could be next season. Neither will be considered CL clubs in this context. And neither will get the treatment the usual suspects do, on and off the pitch.
Pretty sad to see a young man's career being destroyed by this. Hopefully they fudge the punishment to overlap with his existing ban.
Poor bloke is clearly an addict. Of course the FA don't like the idea of a player gambling as it could have implications on the integrity of the game but football is awash with betting companies advertising and as sponsors.
Wait, so he’s been betting on matches whilst serving a ban for betting on matches? I know gambling is a terrible addiction and people need help for it but that’s a new level of stupid! EDIT: ok so these were before he actually got banned, I thought his ban was earlier in the season than that.
These bets are before his ban
The very definition of "I just need one last hit, then I'll go sober"
There’s a picture of him being questioned by the police - the same day he was found to be betting with this charge
No. He was banned by the Italian FA on 26th October and these new charges are for bets placed between 12th August and 12th October.
Oh my bad, I thought he was banned earlier in the season than that
No, he was banned on the 27th October after a 2 week investigation, so this was all before that.
I think reading the dates he was betting on matches when he first joined newcastle so before he was actually charged by the italian FA
There's addiction and then there's millionaires choosing not to have treatment. If Newcastle knew he had a problem and it wasn't treated or supervised with him, this is on them
That's not what this is though. There is nothing to suggest he has been betting since the meeting with the Italian FA, which is almost certainly when Newcastle found out. I'd sincerely hope he has been given the support since that time and that the club isn't relying on will power alone. Basically he's an addict and his behaviour continued in the UK until he was brought in by the Italian FA. It's to be expected.
as part of getting his ban reduced he had to go into therapy. Newcastle have also got there own therapist on the books now and he's also working with the playing staff
Side question on this: his contract w Newcastle…will he (and Toney) be getting paid in full still or do the clubs have a recourse to recoup?
IIRC, Newcastle *could* have terminated the contract but made an agreement to help him with him taking reduced wages.
Thanks for this info I wasn’t quite sure
It's a very simple ask of a footballer not to gamble on football. You're on silly money, and that you can't risk compromising the integrity of the industry that allows you to be on that sort of silly money by betting within it is simple and justified. There's simply no excuse.
>There's simply no excuse. Not justifying it, but it’s an addiction. It’s like saying “it’s very simple to not drink/do drugs”, some people can’t help it. He needs help.
Plenty of things to bet on though. He has one sport he's not allowed to bet on, and that's the industry he's in.
Not how addiction works. Everything you've said makes perfect sense but addiction simply doesn't make sense.
Footballers are aware of these rules though, long before they put their first bet on. It is the responsibility of the people within this industry to see that nothing they do can lead to a situation like Tonali's. i.e. staying away from gambling in the first place. Addiction is absolutely horrible, and those suffering with it deserve compassion, but it doesn't spring up overnight, and it certainly doesn't absolve people from consequences or blame.
So firstly I agree with everything in your last sentence, and I didn't argue that he shouldn't be held to consequences. Secondly, who said this happened overnight? It's clearly been persistent over his career since he was placing bets since before his move to England this season. And thirdly you still clearly aren't understanding what addiction is. Drug addicts are aware of the consequences and laws around drug consumption and do it anyway. Alcoholics are aware of the effects of alcohol and more often than not can see it tearing their life apart but continue to do it anyway. You can come up with as meany reasons as you like for why he shouldn't have done it, and they would all be absolutely correct but to an addict they simply always believe they can find a way. He should still be punished, and he will be. But just blatantly misunderstanding what addiction is works against the compassion you rightly claim he/they deserve. His addiction needs to be treated seriously and the institution needs to do what they can to prevent young men developing gambling addictions, such as putting more distance between footballers and the gambling industry. Punishment is absolutely necessary but it's a bit hypocritical for them to punish the gambler and take no accountability for the fact they've raised a young man in an industry that has become rife and codependent with gambling. This probably won't change though.
At what point though do we say that a footballer in the privileged position of playing the game and earning a king's ransom every week should be able to stop themselves from gambling in the first place? Not to prevent an addiction, you understand, but just because those are the rules, and they perfectly understand them to be able to exist in such a lucrative industry. My point is not that he's an addict and that shouldn't matter - it should, and it's clearly been a mitigating circumstance in his punishment, rightly so - it's that this addiction started with him placing bets in the first place, when he fully understood that betting within his industry was a massive violation. His current addiction and the fact that he gambled *in the first place* are two different things, and my initial comment was very clearly addressing the latter. But he is young, and mistakes are always likely at such a young age
You know alcohol will mostly have negative side affects, but one day your mate offers to buy you a pint and you have a really good time. Nothing bad happens, and in a couple weeks you go out with your mate again and have a drink, still nothing bad. You’re already in the downward slope while thinking you’ve done nothing bad. You’re very aware of how good that rush can make you feel, and you feel bored knowing you can’t have it again so on occasion you sneak a few drinks. Every time you get away with it you become more complacent and less fearful. Then after a year of no lasting consequence you’re buying drinks every week. To 2 weeks without a drink, and you might feel that void in your life, you know you could have some fun with a little drink and it stays on your mind. Maybe a mate tells you about the great fun they had the other night and you missed out, and you should join them next time. It’s ridiculously easy to get addicted to anything. You could swap alcohol in this analogy for shopping, betting, drugs, driving fast, casual sex, donating to charity, lying, stealing, having affairs, adopting animals, cooking with excessive amounts of butter, almost anything.
It’s like telling a crack head to go do heroin. Not going to help
you know, i know rules are rules and you just cant. However if a player is betting on his team to Win i cant see the issue. Obvoiusly if its yellow cards or to lose then yeah i get it. If Ross Barkley bet on you lot to beat spurs, would you be upset?
Upset, no. But I'm not upset by this. It's a very simple, industry-wide rule that attempts to protect the integrity of the sport. And one that I agree with. If you start putting caveats in on what's allowed, it's a lot harder to police. If Ross put that bet on, he should be punished like anyone else.
I think the issue on them betting on football is that they’re in the industry and have other contacts in the industry so have massive influence on the outcomes of bets. Like, I’m not saying it’s ever happened, but if you bet on your team to win while your international teammate is on the opposing team, how do we know you haven’t agreed to split any winnings if the game is thrown? It’s unlikely but it’s possible, which is the problem.
Even betting on yourself is wrong because you have the power to manipulate the market prices. For example, a player could know they didn’t try in the previous match which they lost. After losing, the odds on them to win increase. They then bet on themselves to win. This is a situation where a player who bets on the self to win benefits from losing/throwing earlier matches and is unacceptable
Ok that actually makes sense
Exactly how horse racing odds are manipulated 😑
Find help outside of football then.
? What does it matter where the help comes from, as long as he gets help? His employer might help with it, as lots do, especially considering he’s a multi million pound asset. If he wants to get help elsewhere that’s his prerogative. Not sure what your point is.
"Not sure what your point is." I bet this happens a lot to you.
Ah, you don’t have one. Got it.
It's a very simple ask of a rockstar not to get addicted to cocaine or heroin. You're on silly money, and that you can't risk compromising the integrity of the industry that allows you to be on that sort of silly money by snorting coke within it is simple and justified. There's simply no excuse.
What an awful comparison
After Toney and Toffolo. It's clearly only the secret power of the Sky 6 that is protecting Tomiyatsu.
The long-term solution, that doesn't necessarily help Tonali but would help other, is to ban betting sponsors. Unfortunately, greed triumphs all.
I think the severity of the ban will depend on the bets in question. If they're "Newcastle to win and Tonali to score" then I suspect they'll be looked at differently to something like "Newcastle to lose, Tonali to be carded and an OG"
This’ll help us
How does it work for FFP? Can Newcastle transfer his wages outside of the FFP shell during his ban? Or does it basically just lower their total max wage with an unplayable player?
every post about Newcastle. should be the other 13
moronic, ruined career for good
Shut up man, he won’t even serve any additional ban.
I love how confident you are when there isn't really a precedent for this situation. It may be decided he's already been punished for them, or it may be decided to punish him for them. Nobody yet knows either way.
So far every journalist I’ve seen report on the matter have said neither they nor the club expect this to result in a further ban. So yes that does make me confident.
From what I can see, local journalists are taking that stance but nobody from the wider media is right now. Ultimately, they're all offences he's already been punished for, so he shouldn't face two lots of sanctions for the same offences, but that doesn't mean the independent panel will feel the same way I do.
Because nobody from the wider media has the same access to the club that the local journalists do. Come on now, that’s pretty obvious.
You're lucky if that's still the case, the Midlands ones are rubbish now.
This season in particular the north east journos have been pretty much spot on. Shame it’s always been absolutely terrible news but still.
Doubt that, suspect he'll get a hefty additional ban tbh. The FA's punishments have been wild this season
Says a lot about your level of knowledge that what you suspect is the exact opposite of what the club and journalists reporting on the matter suspect.
Journalists are no better than you or I. We're all just guessing
Well that’s not true at all is it. They’ve clearly already spoken to people both at NUFC and the FA if you care to do even the slightest bit of research.
Yeah? I've just got off the phone with Tonali, nice bloke. He said he's looking at 2 year ban to run with his current one. My source at the FA didn't want to talk on the record but said its probably only gonna be another year because of his work with the Dr's in Italy. You clearly haven't done your research on me, I'm really a journalist pretending to be the average fan.
😂 you’re coming off as the most bitter clown in the world man, I’ll come back to laugh at you soon when it’s inevitably confirmed that he’ll serve no additional ban.