Jump to content

Black, Betting, Sponsorship


Young Bob

Recommended Posts

I'm sure it would not take Mr Lunny very long to compile a similar list and apply the same rules to those on the said list. I do not however believe that Mr Lunny has any appetite or inclination in pursuing the other known foolballers and officials who continually flout the rule he is using to sanction Ian Black. I also wonder if Ian Black's legal representative will be seeking to gain access to Mr Lunny's files on this matter to ascertain if he, or any Ladbrokes employee have broken the Data Protection Act 1998, and if so what action can be taken against them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it would not take Mr Lunny very long to compile a similar list and apply the same rules to those on the said list. I do not however believe that Mr Lunny has any appetite or inclination in pursuing the other known foolballers and officials who continually flout the rule he is using to sanction Ian Black. I also wonder if Ian Black's legal representative will be seeking to gain access to Mr Lunny's files on this matter to ascertain if he, or any Ladbrokes employee have broken the Data Protection Act 1998, and if so what action can be taken against them?

I may be mistaken, but I think it's part of their terms and conditions that they can report any activity they believe to be in breach of rules.

In my opinion, black must have been taking them for a right few quid and they got pissed off. Why would they shop someone that is lining their pockets I.e John hartson, the worst gambler of all time

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it would not take Mr Lunny very long to compile a similar list and apply the same rules to those on the said list. I do not however believe that Mr Lunny has any appetite or inclination in pursuing the other known foolballers and officials who continually flout the rule he is using to sanction Ian Black. I also wonder if Ian Black's legal representative will be seeking to gain access to Mr Lunny's files on this matter to ascertain if he, or any Ladbrokes employee have broken the Data Protection Act 1998, and if so what action can be taken against them?

I am sure Mr Lunny could get an even bigger list from the bookies rather than the one Ally has but he wont be interested. There are other threads on here where Laddies have claimed they have highlighted illegal betting. Fair play but they should be revealing every player as should the SFA be bringing the charges. Rangers and McCoist have done well here. I would play Black tomorrow and keep this line on the other players up. Easy to get the question asked at the press conference. Lunny is a vindictive bassa amongst other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it would not take Mr Lunny very long to compile a similar list and apply the same rules to those on the said list. I do not however believe that Mr Lunny has any appetite or inclination in pursuing the other known foolballers and officials who continually flout the rule he is using to sanction Ian Black. I also wonder if Ian Black's legal representative will be seeking to gain access to Mr Lunny's files on this matter to ascertain if he, or any Ladbrokes employee have broken the Data Protection Act 1998, and if so what action can be taken against them?

You saved me writing the same!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spoken Ally, and I'd go as far to say myself, even if Ally doesn't want to comment, that this targeting of Ian Black is more than hypocricy, it's down right bias within the SFA and Recunt must go, and go now.

half wit wasting Scottish teams money on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, but I think it's part of their terms and conditions that they can report any activity they believe to be in breach of rules.

In my opinion, black must have been taking them for a right few quid and they got pissed off. Why would they shop someone that is lining their pockets I.e John hartson, the worst gambler of all time

Would that not only apply to the law rather than a governing bodies regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure Mr Lunny could get an even bigger list from the bookies rather than the one Ally has but he wont be interested. There are other threads on here where Laddies have claimed they have highlighted illegal betting. Fair play but they should be revealing every player as should the SFA be bringing the charges. Rangers and McCoist have done well here. I would play Black tomorrow and keep this line on the other players up. Easy to get the question asked at the press conference. Lunny is a vindictive bassa amongst other things.

Well he could ask his Chairman for a list of players with accounts with William Hill - after all he is a director of William Hill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure Mr Lunny could get an even bigger list from the bookies rather than the one Ally has but he wont be interested. There are other threads on here where Laddies have claimed they have highlighted illegal betting. Fair play but they should be revealing every player as should the SFA be bringing the charges. Rangers and McCoist have done well here. I would play Black tomorrow and keep this line on the other players up. Easy to get the question asked at the press conference. Lunny is a vindictive bassa amongst other things.

I'm sure it would not take Mr Lunny very long to compile a similar list and apply the same rules to those on the said list. I do not however believe that Mr Lunny has any appetite or inclination in pursuing the other known foolballers and officials who continually flout the rule he is using to sanction Ian Black. I also wonder if Ian Black's legal representative will be seeking to gain access to Mr Lunny's files on this matter to ascertain if he, or any Ladbrokes employee have broken the Data Protection Act 1998, and if so what action can be taken against them?

We all know who and what lunney is and he should be unceremoniously hunted. How hard would it be to get a rap sheet on this piece of scum?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, but I think it's part of their terms and conditions that they can report any activity they believe to be in breach of rules.

In my opinion, black must have been taking them for a right few quid and they got pissed off. Why would they shop someone that is lining their pockets I.e John hartson, the worst gambler of all time

the bookies have a duty to report any irregular betting patterns and if any player is betting against his own team that is irregular
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that this was reported to Lunny by some morally outraged Ladbrokes employee but by some Sellik minded Ladbrokes employee who in my mind has therefore broken the Data Protection Act 1998.

:lol:

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The fact is it's Blacks fault. He's the one in the wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if ian black bets against team he's playing for. If his team wins he get's win bonus if it doesn't he get's a nice one aff the bookies. It doesn't mean he's trying to throw the game single handled fuck. Youd need half a team for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he SFA & Mr Lunney may have made a real mistake with this move. When there is so much information readily available that others have been betting on Football the decision to go after Black will only confirm in any even handed observers mind that there is indeed a witch hunt going on against Rangers. Otherwise they would have pulled in a group of players from across the divisions.

If it emerges over the next week or so the match officials have been betting on football then they will either have to go after everybody or collapse their own case against Black to try and carry out a damage limitation exercise.

It has been pointed out that Ladbrokes have an agreement to inform the SFA of any suspicious betting that may well be the case, however it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny in this case. The charges that Black has against him date from 2006 through till 2013. Why did Ladbrokes wait until now to report Black to the SFA? What was so suspicious this time round? It seem that they are saying that Black put on a £5 accumulator where he bet that Rangers would draw a game that he actually scored in and ruined his own bet. It would have been more suspicious if he had scored an own goal, but no he scored for Rangers and busted his own bet.

When this story is being reported they are saying he bet against Rangers, if that is so he would have bet that we would lose the game not draw it. Perhaps they see a player betting that his team will draw as more suspicious then if he had actually bet that the team would lose. So there we have it Ladbrokes finally after seven years realised that they were supposed to contact the SFA and only did so when he bet that the team would draw. I agree it is suspicious, it is suspicious that they reported him at this particular time, it is suspicious that the SFA were so quick to get their shot into the press and it is also suspicious that once again the SFA use a Rangers player as a marker for a disciplinary case when there are so many others engaged in betting and making it known to all via Facebook and Twitter.

Wouldn't it be funny if we were to find out that maybe Mr's Lunney, Doncaster or Regan also liked a wee coupon now and again. Now that really would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...