Ian Black Given 3 Match Ban (7 Suspended) & £7.5k Fine

[tannerall 25,935]

The Club should discipline him and draw a line under it. He bet against us in a game we won 4-0 in which he played well. I know Rangers fans who have bet against us. Black has never claimed to be a Rangers supporter, so I have no issue with him doing it. He will be down a lot of money with the combination of the SFA fine and Club fines. Lesson learnt IMO.

I don't gamble, partly cause I am against it, and partly cause my Dad was quite good at it (he lost money slowly, not quickly, over the years), but if I did I could never back against Rangers. Never.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

To be fair, normal punters bet against their own team all the time. They see it as a win/win situation.

I've bet against Scotland before hoping it wouldn't come in.

And if you were playing in that match would that be acceptable?

[SE5 107]

Jig will no doubt play CM now

Not Peralta?

[GrandSuckMaster 1,775]

To be fair, normal punters bet against their own team all the time. They see it as a win/win situation.

I've bet against Scotland before hoping it wouldn't come in.

You were not playing for Scotland that night sadly.

[maverick1200 2,882]

.

[Spectre 1,663]

I don't gamble, partly cause I am against it, and partly cause my Dad was quite good at it (he lost money slowly, not quickly, over the years), but if I did I could never back against Rangers. Never.

That's the difference between normal fans and superfans i guess.

[shankillblue1 349]

Different reports, but £5 accum. in one, and betting us to win 3-0 in another and we won 4-0? Sorry, but on someone who 7.5k pw, this is a non story. A fun bet, a habit bet, not a corrupt I need to win loads a money because I'm desperate and I'm going to play shite. Now, if it were in the thousands, that's a different matter and is serious. Tin hat on, listening to snyde for about 15 minutes there and of course the obsessed haters on giving big 'uns, including the pundits. Balck is one of ours. Yes he did a wrong, but not a big one in my eyes, when gambling is rampant amongst players, betting on who knows what. I will publicly defend him and privately some condemnation. I do hope our club do not bend to the haters and give them blood. Give a statement along the lines, ''yes we acknowledge he broke the rules and he has been punished, now move along and get a life, you shower of two faced Rangers hating scum, taig loving bastards. FUCK THEM I say and GIRU THE FUCKING LOT OF THEM!

[Terry Hurlock Loyal 12,133]

Looking forward to the SFA continuing their investigation into other players having a punt! Ally, pass that wee list to Hampden.

[jonbryce 63]

There's conflicting info here.

It doesn't look like Black bet against his own team in a game he played in. Read the relevant section again:

If he had bet against his own team in any of the games he was actually playing in, then Rule 23 would have been breached and the outcome of the case would have been far more severe.

As I understand it, he bet against us, but then scored the winning goal that caused him to lose his bet. That's why he's not being charged under Rule 23.

[jonbryce 63]

So Ian Black is guilty on charges 1 and 2, with no evidence in breach of charge 3.

13 games in total, 3 games betting AGAINST and 10 games betting FOR "his then registered Club".

It's interesting to read Rule 23, especially where I've highlighted.

In summary:-

1. Did he bet against Rangers?, I'm not sure. If he did, he wasn't playing where Rule 23 is concerned.

2. The "then registered Club" covers 7 years and can be a somewhat cantankerous use of words in spreading doubt. Are the SFA saying Ian Black bet against Rangers 3 times, or, against ICT 3 time, or, against Hearts 3 times, or 2 of these Clubs, or a conglomeration of all 3 Clubs. I think they deliberately used this term to clusterfuck our support; and it has worked when reading through this thread.

A 3 match ban and £7500 fine is not as bad as was once thought, so quite light really. I think this also helps the SFA as they will now get notified of quite a few "betters".

Ian Black was stitched up by a Ladbrokes employee, that's obvious, but he was doing what hundreds, probably thousands of players, have been doing for years. Do we all work/live/play by the rules?, not many of us, I'm afraid.

To me, it doesn't matter whether he bet against Rangers while wearing a Rangers shirt or he bet against Hearts while wearing a Hearts shirt. It is not how a footballer should behave.

[AlBear. 8,499]

Been punished. Being dealt with by the club. End of story.

Close thread.

[Terry Hurlock Loyal 12,133]

Been punished. Being dealt with by the club. End of story.

Close thread.

Haven't heard the clubs take on things yet?! Could he be in breach of contract? If so he could possibly get the bullet.

[VERITAS VOS LIBREBETS 3,350]

Different reports, but £5 accum. in one, and betting us to win 3-0 in another and we won 4-0? Sorry, but on someone who 7.5k pw, this is a non story. A fun bet, a habit bet, not a corrupt I need to win loads a money because I'm desperate and I'm going to play shite. Now, if it were in the thousands, that's a different matter and is serious. Tin hat on, listening to snyde for about 15 minutes there and of course the obsessed haters on giving big 'uns, including the pundits. Balck is one of ours. Yes he did a wrong, but not a big one in my eyes, when gambling is rampant amongst players, betting on who knows what. I will publicly defend him and privately some condemnation. I do hope our ,club do not bend to the haters and give them blood. Give a statement along the lines, ''yes we acknowledge he broke the rules and he has been punished, now move along and get a life, you shower of two faced Rangers hating scum, taig loving bastards. FUCK THEM I say and GIRU THE FUCKING LOT OF THEM!

At fucking last - a Bear with common sense, right on the money (no pun intended) with this post Shankhillblue - proud of you Bro.

[JamieG54 812]

.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

The SFA must have considered it stupidity on Black's part and the stakes must have been pretty low judging by an extremely lenient punishment. We have only enemies at the SFA therefore this "slap on the wrist" speaks volumes for the lack of severity of the offence.

Black is an idiot and my preference for his punishment from RFC would depend on employment law and exactly how hard we could go.

[NixonRFC 1,473]

This ban is excessive and ridiculous only in Scotland, only to us.

Pisses me off saying this but Charles green would have contested this ban straight away... And I don't care if its a suspended ban... These corrupt fuckers can get to fuck!

Charles Green would have sacked him

[Mr Soprano 13,964]

Charles Green would have sacked him

Green's not here, irrelevant.

[NixonRFC 1,473]

Where has the information come from that it was the East Fife game?

Thats one hell of an irony if the only game he bet against us saw him score the winning goal

[NixonRFC 1,473]

Green's not here, irrelevant.

If you happened to read what I replied to then you'll see Charles Green was relevant

[wearethemighty 186]

.

[Steelee66 233]

Are you serious? If he has done it once, it is likely he has done it again, thats just logic, im not convicting him. It would certainly explain some of his performances from the season. Even if it was just once, irrespective of how he played, there would be no other reason that he placed the bet other than the hope it would come in. What man puts a bet on that he hopes to lose. A sudden change of conscience does not change intent.

There is another way of looking at it, using the same logic that you have.

Someone at Ladbrokes grassed on Ian Black.

I would assume thay had to provide evidence to go with that snake like behaviour,

If whoever grassed provided details of Black betting against his registered club on 3 occasions, surely they have been watching his bets and if he had done it on more occasions than those 3, surely those would have been reported as well.

[Beaujolais 1,371]

He's been a very silly Billy. He has now been punished. To my mind end of story.

Time to move on. He has a lot to do to restore his credibility- let him get on with it.

If the SFA have any balls or sense of balanced justice- they will now pursue all others who have been breaking the rules.

[NixonRFC 1,473]

The SFA have been very cute here, Black got a slap on the wrist for betting on matches outwith his team, that IS the precedent, there is bound to be countless cases like this now and they've paved the way to just dish out slaps on the wrist

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

Revenue stream for the SFA/SPFL me thinks.

[The Educator 1,572]

When this situation arose we were repeatedly told that it is against the SFA rules for a player to bet on any football match that takes place anywhere in the world and now we get this.

"Disciplinary Rule 22 (Rule 33 in updated Judicial Panel Protocol for season 2013/14): No club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bet in any way on a football match (except authorised and registered football pools)."

Now you either cannot bet on any football match or you can bet on some, but the above contradicts what we have been told. This looks like a get out clause for people who they don't want to charge. Perhaps somebody else on here knows which football pools are authorised and registered, but I sure as hell don't and I don't expect too many people will do either.