Will Swansea be Barton's last game for us

[nil_desperandum]

I don't think it will be open to any appeal - he's already admitted the charges and I think the decision, which I expect will be issued on the day, will be final.
.

I can't see how any decision can't be appealed in one court or another if it has an impact on his ability to ply his trade.
Obviously I have no idea what the actual charges relate to, but there is no suggestion that any criminal charges could be brought.
Whatever ban he receives - if indeed he gets a ban, will prevent him from playing professional football, (earning a living). If the punishment is not proportionate or consistent with precedent, then I would imagine that there are several judicial routes he could go down - IF he chose to do so.
Admitting a charge does not mean that you then automatically accept the punishment. It has to be fair and reasonable.

[claretspice]

I don't think it will be open to any appeal - he's already admitted the charges and I think the decision, which I expect will be issued on the day, will be final.

I don't have a clue but - I can't believe I've read on this thread a comparison with the Gray ban and I don't believe it will be one or two matches, neither do I think it will be career ending. We'll have 11 games left after Swansea, maybe the ban will be something around that number. But I do expect him to be able to continue next season even if his 2016/17 season is brought to an end.

I would be astonished if he had no right to appeal - if needs be to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He can't appeal the verdict (he will be guilty) but in any walk of life that im aware of you can still appeal the sentence. Athletes who have been caught doping have appealled their sentence, but their guilt was never in doubt.

Within football, although i must admit i havent looked it up properly, a quick google search throws up the example of Massimo Cellino appealling his sentence separately to the finding he was guilty of breaking ownership rules.

[evensteadiereddie]

Another thing that occurred to me regarding any potential ban : will it be a ban from all BFC - related activities such as training, setting foot in the ground, dressing room discussions, sitting in the stand or on the bench ?
We'd miss him as a player, no doubt, but also, I feel, as a motivator too if the FA loons were powerful enough to decree a total ban from football for whatever length of time.

[claretspice]

A better example may actually be Croatian defender Josep Simunic who in 2014 appealled a 10 game ban for a fascist salute to CAS. He failed, so was was suspended for the world cup finals, but the precedent stands.

[Lowbankclaret]

I will be very interested to see what happens, I was once banned from working overtime by my own union. Long story, not going to bore people with the detail.
I was going to take the union to court but the full time official came to mediate and basically In employment law you cannot stop someone from working. I don't know the full law but the union officials had to do a massive climb down .
If he gets a big ban and does take the FA to court I suspect the FA might get a big shock and find they are breaking the law doing what they are doing.
Fine yes but I think a ban is actually illegal.

[evensteadiereddie]

On the other hand, Barton has done wrong, knew the rules and any potential punishment. I wouldn't be very happy to see BFC mount a legal challenge on this one......we'd lose a hell of a lot of hard-earned respect.
Maybe a bit of behind-closed-doors diplomacy from all parties required ?

[Rileybobs]

I will be very interested to see what happens, I was once banned from working overtime by my own union. Long story, not going to bore people with the detail.
I was going to take the union to court but the full time official came to mediate and basically In employment law you cannot stop someone from working. I don't know the full law but the union officials had to do a massive climb down .
If he gets a big ban and does take the FA to court I suspect the FA might get a big shock and find they are breaking the law doing what they are doing.
Fine yes but I think a ban is actually illegal.

Players are banned every week. Barnes is banned next week.

No-one is stopping Barton from working, he's under contract.

[nil_desperandum]

Here are 2 interesting recent / relevant cases, though admittedly they were adjudicated by the SFA.
Both cases involve betting AGAINST their own team, which hopefully Barton has not done.
"In September 2013, (Rangers) Eric Black was banned for 10 games — with seven of those suspended until the end of that season — and fined £7,500 after admitting betting on 160 matches over a seven-year period, including, crucially, laying three wagers against his own club winning.
In another case in 2014, Michael Moffat of Ayr United, was given a four-game ban — with two suspended — after placing 150 bets, including seven bets on six matches involving his own team."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z4ZoTJApqJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[dsr]

If, for example, the FA decide it's time to make an example and they ban my hypothetical Colne FC player for life for a bet on the Cup Final, that Colne player would be able to take them to court and the FA would lose. The penalty would be disproportionate and unfair.

If, on the other hand, the FA found that a professional player had been taking bribes to lose a game and had in fact deliberately lost the game or games, and they chose to ban that player for life, he also could take the FA to court, but he would lose because the punishment on that occasion would be fair. That has been done in cricket and racing, and also in football - Knocker Wood in the 1910's and Peter Swan (not ours) in the 60's come to mind.

All FA penalties are subject to the rule of law. Barnes could take the FA to court for his one match ban, claiming it was unfair and disproportionate, or that is wasn't in accordance with FA rules, or that it was motivated by bias, or any other futile defence he can think of. He won't, because he isn't such an idiot - no player ever has taken them to court over that sort of thing, so far as I know. But there's nothing that can stop him doing it.

[evensteadiereddie]

The Scottish cases should give us some grounds for optimism, perhaps.
Does anyone know whether the ban applies just to games or all football-related stuff ?

[Chester Perry]

Would anyone see the incentive based performance contracts based on win bonuses and bonuses for promotion - staying up as players betting on themselves/their team

[Lowbankclaret]

Some have been suggesting a very long career ending ban. That would be stopping him working at his profession and I believe that's illegal.
When i was taking my union to court I was initially thinking it was disproportionate but When the full time official came in he sorted it within an hour. No ban of any length was legal.

[dsr]

Some have been suggesting a very long career ending ban. That would be stopping him working at his profession and I believe that's illegal.
When i was taking my union to court I was initially thinking it was disproportionate but When the full time official came in he sorted it within an hour. No ban of any length was legal.

No it's not. You can get life bans for breaking rules. The BMA strikes off doctors, the Law Society strikes off solicitors, and the FA gives life bans to footballers. There was someone in Wales a year or two back got a life ban for stamping on someone when the ball was dead. Broke his leg, I think. (He got a jail sentence too.) You don't have carte blanche to work at a profession if you won't abide by its rules.

[Lowbankclaret]

Yea your right.

We will have to wait and see I guess.

[nil_desperandum]

No it's not. You can get life bans for breaking rules. The BMA strikes off doctors, the Law Society strikes off solicitors, and the FA gives life bans to footballers. There was someone in Wales a year or two back got a life ban for stamping on someone when the ball was dead. Broke his leg, I think. (He got a jail sentence too.) You don't have carte blanche to work at a profession if you won't abide by its rules.

You're right, but this doesn't stop him appealing any such ban on the grounds that it is disproportionate, and I think that that is one of the key issues that we have been debating on here.
The longer they ban him for, the more likely it is that there could be a protracted appeal process, and it is for this reason that it is most likely he will either serve a shortish ban immediately or it will go to a lengthy appeal, which means he could be available all season.

[Enola Gay]

Support for one of your players is fine but some people's desire to see Barton as some kind of naive victim of Kafkaesque rules really are making them look pretty daft. There's been an awful lot of desperation floating around on this topic ever since it was announced; the bets might not have been against the rules... there weren't any rules pre-2014 anyway... why are they punishing Burnley, it's Andre Gray all over again... there must be others who've done it, why single out Barton... surely the betting company should have kept their mouths shut. The nadir was probably reached a month or so ago when someone suggested that some of these bets might have been on snooker or golf.

Sticking to what we know, prior to 2014 footballers couldn't bet on matches or competitions they were involved in or could influence. Post 2014, this ban was extended to everything - matches, competitions, team selections, everything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38800821" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Barton was charged with placing 1,260 bets on matches between 26 March 2006 and 13 May 2016. If those bets were on other sports, The FA wouldn't have given a monkey's. If they'd been on football but out of the scope of the rules in place - and post 2014 it's difficult to see how they could have been, apart from his time out of FA jurisdiction in Scotland - The FA couldn't have charged him for them. They were interested and did charge him though, and crucially he's accepted the charges. So all this stuff about the legality of the charges is almost certainly moot, or he'd be contesting them. The only wriggle room I can see is on the number of bets, i.e. does a five-team acca count as five bets or one. Even here though you'd imagine that this issue will have been squared away before he accepted the charges. If not, he'd again be likely contesting them. Hopefully it won't be an argument along these lines forming any kind of key part in his defence.

However many bets he ends up with on his rap sheet he's broken the rules on betting for a period of over a decade. The idea that The FA can't de facto finish his career if they deem that list of offences serious enough is frankly b*ll*cks. I want him playing for us so I'm hoping for the best, but I won't be surprised or overly sympathetic if it's the worst.

[Burnley Ace]

[quote="dsr"]I've never seen any suggestion that the goalkeeper colluded with a bookie. Nor does the suggestion make sense - the bookie lost money because of the pie.

it was a promotion by Sun Bets, that he was in on, that lost them a couple of grand. Why would a bookie even make a market in the sub goalie eating a pie? It backfired because the FA were a bit po faced.

[nil_desperandum]

I agree with virtually all your post enola - except the last paragraph.
They could theoretically inflict a ban that would de facto finish his career, but this would immediately be appealed and given the miniscule number of footballers "banned for life" during the entire history of the FA, (only 3 so far as I'm aware), it is highly unlikely that the decision would be upheld. In the meantime, following precedent I would expect that he would be free to play.
In the immediate aftermath of any such "lifetime" ban, I would imagine that the PFA would be very interested, because of the likelihood that the majority of their members are guilty to a greater or lesser extent, and unless the FA could prove that he was guilty of pre-meditated match-fixing, then I very much doubt that a career ending ban could be justified or upheld.
The difficult decision for Barton will be if he gets a ban of say 12 matches, which effectively rules him out for the season, but allows him to play from next season. Does he then take it on the chin, or does he contest it? A lot depends of course on what he has admitted to, and how any judgement is worded.

[Rileybobs]

How could a ban end his career? He could work in a different country.

[IWOODLOVETT]

I wonder if somehow he saw this coming at the end of last season and the notion that he could avoid a lengthy ban by playing in a "different country" encouraged him to join Rangers.

The subsequent discovery by Rangers of the extent of his gambling might also explain the sudden ban imposed by Warburton, followed by his swift exodus "by mutual consent" i.e. no disclosed pay-off by Rangers

[NEILTHO61]

I work for the governing body and have taken all your posts into consideration. Most of your posts are expecting a career ending ban so we will take this on board and do our best to give him the punishment you think he deserves. Thanks for your unbiased descissor

[Claretto]

It wouldn't have to be a 'life ban' to end his career, given his age.

Also, he certainly placed bets on games that he had influence over, so we can expect a lengthy ban.

[nil_desperandum]

Also, he certainly placed bets on games that he had influence over, so we can expect a lengthy ban.

How do you know this? I haven't heard / read this before.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

It wouldn't have to be a 'life ban' to end his career, given his age.

Also, he certainly placed bets on games that he had influence over, so we can expect a lengthy ban.

How are you 'certain' of the matches he actually bet on?

[IanMcL]

He hasn't crippled or bitten an opponent. It is not the task of the FA to end a player's career.

[dsr]

It was a promotion by Sun Bets, that he was in on, that lost them a couple of grand. Why would a bookie even make a market in the sub goalie eating a pie? It backfired because the FA were a bit po faced.

Publicity, publicity, publicity. How much does it normally cost to get your company name all over the national papers?

Anyway, if the bookie had this bright idea to collude with the goalie to lay bets on him eating a pie - then they would tell him not to eat the pie. It's not much of a bookie's bright scheme to come up with a silly bet, get the mug punters to put the money on, and then work hard to make sure you lose. They were after publicity, and the cost of the losing bets was small beer.

[Claretto]

He is charged with 1,260 bets on football between March 26, 2006 and May 13, 2016. Pre 2014 the only prohibited bets were those on games over which the player had influence. So the only bets he would be charged for between 2006 and 2014 were games he had influence over.

[dsr]

He is charged with 1,260 bets on football between March 26, 2006 and May 13, 2016. Pre 2014 the only prohibited bets were those on games over which the player had influence. So the only bets he would be charged for between 2006 and 2014 were games he had influence over.

Except that the definition of "games he had influence over" includes all games in competitions he played in. For that purpose, all four divisions of the Premier/Football leagues count as the same competition. So betting on any league game, any FA Cup game, or any League Cup game was against the rules - even if his side was already knocked out.

[Claretto]

Sooo exactly what I said? Thanks

[dsr]

Not really what you said, claretto. "Betting on games he had influence over" was the only betting offence until 2014. It was the absolute minimum possible offence. There's no reason for that offence to lead to a lengthy ban.

If he was betting on games he actually had influence over, rather than in strict technical definition he had influence over, then it would be a different matter.