Ian Black

[draganict]

Ross Tokely and Grant Munro will always be ICT legends. That can't be taken away. I was one of the doubters when Munro was released but Butcher was spot on! Recruiting Warren and integrating a young Josh Meekings into central defence then merging them into a partnership has been a master-stroke! Munro/Dods were good but I reckon this pairing is even better.

Totally agree. I was gutted when Munro was released but moving Meekings into partner Warren has formed the strongest central defence pairing in Scotland. Bar none

[Scotty]

He is not the first, and is definitely not going to be the last. Seemingly some of these bets were just a pound, so was he really going to throw a game for ten or twenty quid. just stupidity on Blackies part. By the way, not defending his actions, but how many footballers do you see going into the bookies, certain ones are there every day, and dont tell me they only bet on the horses, a habit is a habit

Very true, but they won't bet on their own team to lose a game in which they are playing and could have an influence.

 

 

The wording of the complaint makes it pretty clear the charge is simply for betting and thereby breaking rule 22 (which basically prevents footballers betting on any football games). Rule 23 is the far more serious rule (match fixing or attempted fixing) and the SFA seem keen to point out that there is no suggestion of a breach of that rule. 

 

Sounds like he just made an honest mistake ...... (160 times !)

 

This is the full complaint as listed on the SFA site:

 

---

---

[PaderbornCaley]

Surely number 1 breaches SFA Rule 23?!  If he has placed a bet against his team not to win, and plays in that game surely that is evidence of attempting to rig the game?

[Scotty]

Surely number 1 breaches SFA Rule 23?! If he has placed a bet against his team not to win, and plays in that game surely that is evidence of attempting to rig the game?

Unless he has done something in the game that is blatant - like the Le Tissier example - then its nigh on impossible to prove.

 

In our game (assuming it is the one on the first date in the complaint) he got booked but not sent off by a ref who had a shockingly inconsistent performance that day. He also had a header cleared off the line that looked like it may have been over the line so it doesnt sound like he was trying to fix the game, just maybe (naively) using "insider knowledge" of injuries and/or other issues in predicting we might lose ..... given his well publicised second career while at Hearts, doesnt sound like he was a very good gambler anyway, otherwise he could have lived off his winnings !!!

 

Having said that, I have a feeling he will get hammered for it despite the clear indication from the SFA that they dont believe he tried to 'fix' games. The 3 times he bet against his own team will see to that, and he probably deserves some punishment for what could be viewed as a lack of sporting integrity rather than criminality. Personally, I have no issues with the other '10' bets involving his registered club as he appears to have bet on them to win (assuming the 'not to win' in charge 1 includes both losing and drawing) ....and I certainly have no issue on the 147 games not involving a club he was with ... that just makes him a punter like anyone else, albeit one who may be better informed than some.

[Rasczak]

 

This is the full complaint as listed on the SFA site:

 

---

20-08-2013 3-06-11 PM.png

---

 

 

Is it me or is rule 23 poorly worded ?

 

It basically says if you do anything in a match which you know may influence the result, and someone wins a bet, then you are in breach. In that case surely all goal scorers and goalkeepers or defenders who save or block a shot on target in any game that has had a bet placed on it are in danger of being in breach. 

 

I know the intention is to get the cases such as the Le Tissier example, and vagueness can be the prosecutor's friend, but it seems to be too much of a catch all to me.

[Scotty]

Is it me or is rule 23 poorly worded ?

It basically says if you do anything in a match which you know may influence the result, and someone wins a bet, then you are in breach. In that case surely all goal scorers and goalkeepers or defenders who save or block a shot on target in any game that has had a bet placed on it are in danger of being in breach.

I know the intention is to get the cases such as the Le Tissier example, and vagueness can be the prosecutor's friend, but it seems to be too much of a catch all to me.

 

SFA and poorly worded rules .... there's a surprise !!!

 

I think you are correct in thinking the vagueness is designed to try and cover every eventuality and that leaves it open to interpretation, but we all know what the spirit of the rule means .....

 

However - as we know from the forum rules on here which developed over the last 20 years until I chopped them by about 80% last year - its a double edged sword ... try to cover every possible scenario and you end up with a rulebook that is so unwieldy that few people know what's in it and people can escape on a technicality if you haven't already put it in there ... we now go with the approach that people know what is right/wrong without having to carefully word it and this smacks of something similar.

[Yngwie]

In our game (assuming it is the one on the first date in the complaint) 

 

I was just thinking about that. Whilst reports like the BBC one very much suggested that is the case ("It is alleged Black bet against his "then registered club" three times between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013") there is nothing in the SFA Notice of Complaint which specifies when any of the 3 types of offence took place, other than they were within the overall date range mentioned.  So unless the media have got hold of further details of the alleged breaches, I suppose it is possible that on March 4 2006 he bet on ICT to win, or on a completely unrelated game.

[Scotty]

 

In our game (assuming it is the one on the first date in the complaint) 

 

I was just thinking about that. Whilst reports like the BBC one very much suggested that is the case ("It is alleged Black bet against his "then registered club" three times between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013") there is nothing in the SFA Notice of Complaint which specifies when any of the 3 types of offence took place, other than they were within the overall date range mentioned.  So unless the media have got hold of further details of the alleged breaches, I suppose it is possible that on March 4 2006 he bet on ICT to win, or on a completely unrelated game.

 

 

very true .... the 3-10-147 could have been in any order !

[bauhaus]

One of our neighbours sons worked in one of the towns betting shops a few years back, during Blacks spell here. He knew just about ALL the players by there first name, and they all knew him. Several were daily customers, and one who is still actively playing was in every day during his time here, and would bet on our games. 160 bets in how many years, thats nothing, some of them will have done that in a month or fortnight. Betting against your own team, I dont have a problem with, aslong as he wasnt sent off, scored an own goal or missed a penalty. One thing about Ian Black you couldnt say was he didnt put 100% into his game, thats why he has been booked so often.

If Black gets done, its more stupidity on his part, but where do the Authorities go then with ex players now coming out and confirming how rife players betting is in the game.

[Yngwie]

Betting against your own team, I dont have a problem with

 

I do. Clear conflict of interest.

 

That doesn't mean he would be deliberately trying to throw a game, but it might mean he is less bothered about the outcome than he would otherwise have been.

[Alex MacLeod]

For the game against Celtic Corals are offering 1/4 for a home win and 8/1 away win. Regardless of what I want the result to be I'd be tempted to place a bet against us winning. Perhaps thats how Black thought of it. He didn't want to lose a game but seen the odds as being very tempting. Or perhaps he bet against his team but also bet for in the same game to hedge his bet somewhat. The gist of this thread is that he done something to influence outcomes for his own benefit but none of us know the facts. We assume he bet on a particular game yet the charges dont state which games. Blacks only charge is that he breached the rules that disallow footballers from betting on matches outwith the approved lists. A rule that many footballers tend to ignore.

[Yngwie]

For the game against Celtic Corals are offering 1/4 for a home win and 8/1 away win. Regardless of what I want the result to be I'd be tempted to place a bet against us winning.

 

At those odds I'll be placing a bet for us winning!

[KingBeastie]

 

 

Maybe we can get him back on the cheap!

Aye - maybe we can get Ross Tokely, Grant Munro and Michael Fraser back too eh.

 

Is there a narcotics problem in the City? You have taken that too far

 

There's only one person on drugs around here if you think taking back Ian Black (and 99% of former players) is a good idea.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

For the game against Celtic Corals are offering 1/4 for a home win and 8/1 away win. Regardless of what I want the result to be I'd be tempted to place a bet against us winning.

 

At those odds I'll be placing a bet for us winning!

 

Aye that too!!

[Snafu]

The PFA has been asking the SFA for clarification on betting rules for players.

 

PFA ask the SFA to clarify bet rules  

JACK ROSS, the PFA Scotland chief, has called on the SFA to look at their rules on betting

 

Ian Black has been charged

 

 

The Scottish football governing body's views on gambling are stricter than those in England.

And Ross believes punishing players for putting money on games that are played in foreign countries makes no sense.

 

He was speaking after it emerged the SFA have charged Rangers player Ian Black with illicitly betting on 160 games over seven years.

The former St Mirren player said: "Should a player in Scotland's second division be banned from betting on a Champions League game?

"It's a good question and one that should be looked at.

"It comes from Fifa, who want to protect their big international tournaments like the World Cup. It is they who say they don't want any betting on football.

"But they don't take too much to do with how it is governed locally."

 

He added: "In England it is competition-specific, but the SFA have taken the decision to take a zero-tolerance approach to the whole issue of gambling on football. I suppose that begs the question about whether or not it should be enforceable or not and whether it is reasonable to deal with the issue in this way?"

 

Ross revealed that he and other PFA Scotland representatives have visited most of Scotland's 42 senior clubs to speak to players about gambling.

He explained: "We explain what the rules are and what options are available to them if they are having issues with gambling.

"As for players betting against their own side, it's not something that I have been made aware of."

[clacher_holiday2]

While I was working in a betting shop in Edinburgh, I took some of what were blatant fixed bets on an English Premier league game. Nothing ever came of it despite a hell of a lot of people knowing at the time.

For the curious out there it was Kevin Nolans first game back at Bolton with his new side Newcastle, the bets were on Davis and Elmander too score the first goal, 10's of thousands put on over the city and in Glasgow at odds of 6/1 the pair of them.

Early in the game, Nolan (former Bolton Captain) was chasing the ball away towards the corner flag and under no pressure, controled it with his arm...penalty and 1-0 Bolton, bets landed.

They were all paid out and no questions were asked, I can only pressume the bookies laid of most of their money with other firms abroad and made a killing or else there would've been some sort of media outrage.

That was a drop in the ocean compared to the fixed tennis, snooker and boxing matches that are rigged on a weekly basis. Nevermind horse racig where at least half the field in every race don't try lol.

I'm shocked anything is coming from this as it looks like it is. I used to take bets from footballers and coaches almost every week on games that were questionable, most of them wil be betting online these days.

If Ian Black has put anything under about a grand on us to lose he shouldn't be punnished at all.

Edited August 23, 2013 by clacher_holiday2

[starchief]

If Black was betting on ICT to win, that's fine by me.  He's supposed to be trying to influence the game for us in that direction.  For his own team to lose?  Nah. As Yngwie says, clear conflict of interest. Even if he's not aware of it, there's every chance he's not giving 100%. Just that little calculation in his unconscious mind slowing him down by a second.

[clacher_holiday2]

Depends on the stake. If its joke money then his motivation cant be questioned.

[Alex MacLeod]

As yet there has been nothing that states Black has been charged with betting against ICT to win. Indeed the three instances could just as easily have been while he was at Hearts or even Rangers. Maybe the bets were even for ICT to win against whichever team he was with. Until the facts are published then perhaps we should refrain from casting judgement.

[Yngwie]

What's more concerning (but perhaps unsurprising) is the kind of organised match fixing in the lower leagues that ex-player Gordon Parks talks about here. Just a pity that he won't name names.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23808606

 

I suppose for part-timers its the only way they'll ever make money out of football.

[Alex MacLeod]

A few years ago an ex footballer friend of mine suggested I place a bet on a central belt third div team. This team was playing at home against a north team in a near end of season league match. The team in question had not won a match all season and the north team had hammered them on the three previous occassions they had met. No prizes for guessing who won.

 

Match fixing and gambling among players has gone on forever and will continue to do so. Probably if you could delve deep into the people who uphold the rules and run the game you'd find many of them with murky past playing careers. One or two get caught and get punished. They are only the very tip of this iceberg. So long as there are bookies there will be people who can see ways to make a quick buck.

[Council Juice]

Maybe he only bet against his own team when he wasnt playing that day, believing that his team had no chance without him...

[Scotty]

I know the guys who run "Canadian Soccer News" as most are part of our supporters group as well as online journalists and they did an excellent expose of match fixing here in Canada last year.

 

Seems fixing for the purposes of betting are rife everywhere and interestingly enough they also quote an article from FIFpro I read earlier today that links problems with salaries being paid to players by clubs to the increased vulnerability of players falling in with those who seek to fix games ....

 

http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/content.php?3791-CSA-travels-to-Zurich-to-meet-on-CSL-match-fixing

[Yngwie]

Black has been issued with a 3 match ban and a fine of a week or two's pay.

 

Hard to say if that is appropriate without knowing the size of the stakes involved, especially when betting against his own team.

[FoolPhysio]

All three charges were for bets under £50 apparently - and in one he actually scored one of the 4 goals in a 4-2 win he had bet for his team to lose!

Not exactly a criminal mastermind. And silly boy for betting on the same league he plays in, let alone the same team.