Ian Black notice of complaint

[UCF2008 0]

I should probably add of course that the date of the EGM hasn't been set yet. However, if it does go ahead then I believe it would have to be held no later than the 12th Sept. So it is pure speculation to suggest any funny business regarding a possible albeit likely coincidence with the date.

[bluebear54 0]

In my book, there are 3 issues.:

Is he guilty?

How did this information arrive in the hands of the SFA. Also when and why, when this has been going on since 2006.

Lastly, have any Data Protection laws been broken - a serious criminal offence.

I would tend not to pre-judge any of these until there is more information available.

The Information Commissioner would happily determine the answer to the last question.

Presumably the SFA will answer the first question and then would be the time to discuss consequences.

The second answer may come out via a report by the Information Commissioner and some subtle reading of the SFA inquiry. However this should also be public knowledge.

[barca72 440]

According to a couple of media reports I read it was Ladbrokes that contacted the SFA. Apparently they have some sort of arrangement in place to 'protect the integrity' of the game. I'm not sure when it happened though.

 

These rules lifted from an answer on the DTB site -

 

If a player is betting on matches involving his own team I would imagine the bookmakers would be duty bound to report it to the relevant association? ... If he has been doing it he has also broken the Ladbrookes terms and conditions:

 

 

 

5.2. It is a condition of our acceptance of bets from you that, and by offering to place a bet with us you warrant that:

 

 

1.you are not prohibited from entering into the bet by any term of your contract of employment or any rule of a sport governing body which applies to you;

2.you are not aware of any circumstances which would make the placing of the bet a breach of a rule on betting applied by a sport governing body; and

3.where the bet is placed on the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process or on the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring, you do not know the outcome of the event.

 

and they can report him to the SFA:

 

17. Information we collect about you

17.1. It is your responsibility to ensure that your personal account details and personal information is kept up to date. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate your account if this information, which includes your username and security questions, is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate.

 

17.2. We process information about you in accordance with our 'Privacy Policy'. Our privacy policy forms part of these Terms of Use and contains details on the types of information we collect and what we do with that information.

 

17.3. We are entitled to share the information we hold on you which includes personal data and betting history with the regulator, sporting bodies and other bodies, including the police, in order to investigate fraud, money laundering or sports integrity issues and to comply with our regulatory duties.

[amms 0]

Several people I know are saying that Ladbrokes reported Black for 'suspicious betting patterns'. Why they'd report him to the SFA rather than the police I don't know, I can only assume they feel only 'football laws' have been broken.

Aren't Ladbrokes Rangers official betting partner? Perhaps he was reported to the club initially.

[Darthter 542]

I don't buy the conspiracy stuff....and I don't buy that the SFA or anyone else sat on this info waiting for the right time to release it.

 

Chances are, that someone within Ladbrokes noticed the latest bets from Blacks account - he may well use it to bet on other sports. This then prompted an internal investigation @ Ladbrokes, which is when they discovered the other football related bets going back several years.

 

Once the "severity" of the betting was established, it was then reported to the footballing authorities. Why not the Police??? It's not a Police matter - it is not unlawful to anyone (over 18) to bet on a football match. It is the SFA that prohibit this action.

 

IF found guilty, he should be dismissed immediately....but we shall await the outcome of the hearing.

[chilledbear 16]

This happens all the time in Horse Racing, suspicious betting patterns are far easier to spot nowadays with the advance of internet betting.

 

To tell the truth I couldn't care less who/why he was reported, if he is guilty or not guilty I would rather he was miles away from Ibrox. Not someone you would want around youngsters at the Club.

[chilledbear 16]

SELF-CONFESSED gambling addict Kevin Kyle insists the SFA opened the floodgates by charging Ian Black with football betting offences.

 

The Rangers midfielder is at the centre of a betting scandal after being accused by the governing body of putting money on his own team not to win matches on three occasions.

 

He is also alleged to have bet in 10 games involving clubs he was playing with at the time – and of gambling on 147 matches between March 4, 2006, and July 28 this year.

 

But Kyle, who has admitted to his own gambling problems, is adamant betting is rife among footballers and that the SFA could find themselves charging dozens of players if they are embarking on a crackdown.

 

The striker, who played with Black at Rangers and Hearts, said: “If the SFA are going to charge Ian Black they may as well charge us all.

 

“Footballers betting on games they are playing in is nothing new, it’s a well-established culture which has taken place for generations.

 

“It’s impossible to expect players not to bet as the SFA take the money from betting firms and sponsors who are involved in the gambling industry so they can’t have it both ways.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/kevin-kyle-says-sfa-charge-2190196?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[der Berliner 3,744]

A couple of things ...

 

- data protection ... well, if Ladbrokes thinks he has broken some laws or rules, they are obviously required to make this known to the relevant authority (or may face legal consequences). That said, we all know that the RTC site, Phil Threenames, BBC and various other people have been privvy to all sorts of confidental information of our club and used it to their hearts' content, sure breaking various data protection rules along the way. Have we seen ANY reaction to that? I for one would assume that a private person being subjected to this behaviour would sue these people till Ragnarök, whether the info is valid or not. I still wondering why Rangers have not gone down that route too, or, if required, why the RFFF have hunted the(se) leaks down.

 

- why now and not 2006 or thereafter? The simplest answer would be that it was only now that they became aware of it. (And I wouldn't be surprised if some Yahoo overheard Black's brother talking about it and gave Lunny the hint.)

 

Anyway, we have far too little info from the relevant sources to condemn anyone right now, I would say.

[amms 0]

I don't buy the conspiracy stuff....and I don't buy that the SFA or anyone else sat on this info waiting for the right time to release it.

 

Chances are, that someone within Ladbrokes noticed the latest bets from Blacks account - he may well use it to bet on other sports. This then prompted an internal investigation @ Ladbrokes, which is when they discovered the other football related bets going back several years.

 

Once the "severity" of the betting was established, it was then reported to the footballing authorities. Why not the Police??? It's not a Police matter - it is not unlawful to anyone (over 18) to bet on a football match. It is the SFA that prohibit this action.

 

IF found guilty, he should be dismissed immediately....but we shall await the outcome of the hearing.

 

I don't see any conspiracy either.

It becomes a police matter if they believe matches have been 'fixed'. Betting to lose matches you are actually playing in is a grey area. If it's felt other people benefited financially from these defeats Black has a serious problem. I assume that's not the case here as it isn't a police matter.

Tony Swan served four months for agreeing to lose one match.

[bossy 0]

If he is guilty then he should be punished. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with Rangers being effectively punished for Black's actions as a Hearts player. As such, Rangers should not be liable for any of his wages during the period of any punishment and we should have the right to terminate his contract with no recourse if the length of the punishment is overly damaging to Rangers.