Wayne Shaw Sutton UTD

What's everyone's thoughts on Pie bet with Wayne Shaw? He's resigned from Sutton over it. Didn't he sleep there a couple of nights a week to look after the place? Other players (Joey Barton) allegedly sacked from Rangers over betting then signs for a Prem League club

 

I don't see how he has done anything wrong. They advertised a stupid bet and they told him about it so whether he ate the pie or didn't eat the pie he would be knowingly affecting the result of a bet.

Is it somehow more of a crime to knowingly do an action that causes somebody to win a bet than it is to knowingly do an action that causes somebody to lose a bet?

Barton is scum. How he is allowed to continue playing while the fa drags its feet in deciding his punishment is a joke. A none league player got in trouble for betting on games in the exact manner that Barton did. His punishment was extended because he had TRAINED with his team after the offence but Barton is allowed to play in the premiership

 

It's all a bit daft really, but like the guy on talkshite said earlier. Why the hell are bookies giving odds on such stuff? They're inviting it.

Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk

 

He shouldn't have been eating. The bet aside it's just not something you expect a sub to be doing.

 

I think you're missing the point here. Players don't normally eat pies while sat on the bench. He did it to affect a bet. The FA rules state

“A participant shall not bet, either directly or indirectly, or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet on the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in, a football match or competition.”

He clearly broke that rule.

I do wonder how the bet arose in the first place. Did he have a history of eating pies on the bench? Not a good idea if you're about to play football.

 

Teks all scrutiny of the other more important decisions and judgements in their in-tray

#weakbackgreedycorrupt*******satfa

Who the fek came up with a bet like that deserves to be taken to cleaners imo

 

Which bit would you say he clearly broke? As far as I know from the report I read he didn't bet, either directly or indirectly. He didn't instruct anyone to bet. He didn't "permit" anyone to bet in any other sense that every footballer permits people to bet on them every week. He didn't cause anyone to bet and he didn't "enable" anyone to bet, again other than in the usual sense. it could be argued he probably broke the spirit of the law if not the letter but I wouldn't say it's as clear as all that. It seems to me that the law is there to stop players acting in a way that enriches themselves or specific others, not just others in general. Unless there is evidence that he has knowingly acted in collusion with others then the reaction to it seems a bit OTT to me.

 

The betting office not the player by the way in answer to my above post.

 

How bad must Sutton be to actually have a 46 year old 20 stone reserve goalie in the first place?

 

Which part of the rule did he break?

A participant may not bet. He didn't
Directly. He didn't
Indirectly. He didn't
Or instruct any person to bet. He didnt.
Permit any person to bet. He didn't.
Enable any person to bet. He didn't.

If it is illegal for him to eat the pie when a bet exists whether he will or won't eat one then surely legally the bet can only have one outcome which is 'he did not eat the pie. Any other outcome f that bet is illegal. Not if the bet can legally have only one outcome how can the bet exist? How can you be offered odds of 8 to 1 on an outcome that legally cannot happen?

Anyway he didn't eat a pie, he ate a pasty so how has he actually affected the outcome of the bet? Is it because a pasty is similar to a pie? So if he ate a peppered steak slice would he be guilty? How about a sausage roll?

The idiots are the newspaper offering a stupid funny bet, all he has done is said a big **** you to the paper and decided to make them pay out.

Surely the issue here is whether or not he TOLD people in advance to put the bet on because he was going to do it and there is no suggestion that he did.

 

There was a bet as to whether or not he'd eat a pie, a not too common thing for a footballer to do during a match. Bookies were taking bets on it happening. You really shouldn't have to ask whether he broke the rule or not. If it's not obvious then follow though the following - bookies take bets on whether footballer eats pie during game - footballer eats pie during game knowing bets are being taken on this. I mean, come on.

 

Alternatively, "footballer doesn't eat pie during game knowing bets are being taken on this". As SuperTyke already pointed out earlier, he'd be affecting the outcome of the bets whatever he did.

I'm not saying what he did was clever or professional but I don't agree with your contention that he clearly broke the rules, not on the evidence I've seen anyway.

 

Which part f the rule did he break? You can't just keep saying he must have broken be because it is silly. What did he break?

PS a linesman once did a funny dance during a cup final because he knew people had placed bets on him doing it. He didn't tell them to bet on him doing it, he just knew that people (not friends, just randomers) had put bets on it. Was he charged? Was he ****

 

Or more recently Peter Crouch's robot celebration of his 100th premier league goal.

 

Of course. He was aware of the bets and made a conscious decision that those who better yes would win the bet, those who bet no would lose.

The issue here is whether bets in sport that rely on somebody making a conscious decision should be banned but that isn't the fault of the person who the bet is about, it is between the fa and the bettng companies

 

At end a day the bloke were just trying to earn his crust.

Coit

 

Lol.
He was making some dough out if it.