Rob heys

cashman said:
If thats true, the point is theres many Ceos in football,plus many others in important positions in football, I'm damn sure the F.A. aint got time or manpower to follow em all? Therefore it leaves the thought that someones shopped him.
Click to expand...

this article was taken from Mailonline 12th Aug

((((Accrington Stanley’s managing director Rob Heys, who has admitted multiple betting offences going back to 2003, at an FA hearing next week.
The charge follows a tweet last season being spotted by the authorities in which he revealed he had bet on Aston Villa’s 4-2 third-round Capital One Cup victory over Manchester City: ‘Laid City with Betfair at 1.18.))))

CHARLES SALE: Football can't penalise gambling violators while accepting huge betting sponsors | Mail Online
 
What a daily rag says n what the F.A. says can well be 2 different things, Rules are Rules n Stupidity is Stupidity.
 
Im aware there are betting rules in place but IMO these charges are pathetic.
If Stanley where involved I would understand but the villa vs city game is as far removed from league 2 as you can get.

Also, the way the story has been leaked to the press is unfair, no reason the FA couldnt have made it clear when they charged Rob it was relating to a league cup game that had nothing to do with Stanley.

And why has it taken the FA so long to charge him?
There are as many questions for the FA to answer as there is for Rob.
 
DAV007 said:
Im aware there are betting rules in place but IMO these charges are pathetic.
If Stanley where involved I would understand but the villa vs city game is as far removed from league 2 as you can get.

Also, the way the story has been leaked to the press is unfair, no reason the FA couldnt have made it clear when they charged Rob it was relating to a league cup game that had nothing to do with Stanley.

And why has it taken the FA so long to charge him?
There are as many questions for the FA to answer as there is for Rob.
Click to expand...
Are you aware how many bets are involved?:rolleyes:and who they involve? Even if a cup match not involving us the rules state clearly no bets in anything your own club is taking part in, go listen to the video on the F.A. site.
 
DAV007 said:
Im aware there are betting rules in place but IMO these charges are pathetic.
If Stanley where involved I would understand but the villa vs city game is as far removed from league 2 as you can get.

Also, the way the story has been leaked to the press is unfair, no reason the FA couldnt have made it clear when they charged Rob it was relating to a league cup game that had nothing to do with Stanley.

And why has it taken the FA so long to charge him?
There are as many questions for the FA to answer as there is for Rob.
Click to expand...

Dav, the FA rules on betting are clear and unambiguous and cover competitions your team are involved in, and, for cup competitions, the rule applies even if your team have been knocked out and are no longer 'active' for that season.

For me, it's not a question of how long it took or how many bets, it's a question of the judgement our MD has shown by betting when it's clearly contrary to the rules, especially in light of the recent episode with the players, and the judgement he's shown by broadcasting it on Twitter. Why would we want someone who's demonstrated such poor judgement making the fundamental decisions about our club?

I'm struggling to see how Rob could return to do his job with any genuine credibility after this
 
DAV007 said:
Im aware there are betting rules in place but IMO these charges are pathetic.
If Stanley where involved I would understand but the villa vs city game is as far removed from league 2 as you can get.

Also, the way the story has been leaked to the press is unfair, no reason the FA couldnt have made it clear when they charged Rob it was relating to a league cup game that had nothing to do with Stanley.

And why has it taken the FA so long to charge him?
There are as many questions for the FA to answer as there is for Rob.
Click to expand...
If it was just the one charge for betting on the Villa v City game I might agree that it's a little harsh but the Accy Observer stated that : 'Around 500 bets have been investigated with some relating to Accrington Stanley or competions in which they were involved' so it's not so simple
 
cashman said:
What a daily rag says n what the F.A. says can well be 2 different things, Rules are Rules n Stupidity is Stupidity.
Click to expand...

you don't have to believe the daily rags account it can easily be verified by looking at Rob Heys twitter post on 25th Sept 2012
 
AccyMad said:
If it was just the one charge for betting on the Villa v City game I might agree that it's a little harsh but the Accy Observer stated that : 'Around 500 bets have been investigated with some relating to Accrington Stanley or competions in which they were involved' so it's not so simple
Click to expand...

Fair enough Accy Mad,
I was under the impression it was the one game.

I presume Peter Marsden has been briefed on what's happened?
How fast do the FA decide upon a suitable punishment?
Is it normally a fine or a ban from the game?
Is there a risk the club could be fined?
 
I know the club is always strapped for cash but I can only hope the bets weren't being made in Stanley's name.
Maybe that could be Mr Heys' defence; it wasn't stupidity, your honour, I was just exploiting some funding opportunities with one of the League's official sponsors.
Betting = a mug's game. Twitter = a mug's medium.
Let's hope he learns if he still has a job after this.
 
DAV007 said:
So the risk to the club is reputation?
No risk of a fine?
Click to expand...

Reputation is about all that Stanley have and with the alleged behaviour of its CX, that can easily be lost.
Some will, and have on here, argued that the FA rule on betting is rather petty (not least given the willingness of football authorities and clubs to get into bed with gambling firms). But what bothers me is that the club's CX, by publicising his gambling, appears to have not known or cared about such a rule.
 
From the BBC website earlier today;

"Stoke's Cameron Jerome has been fined £50,000 for breaking Football Association betting rules.

The striker, 27, admitted repeatedly breaching the regulations. But the charge is not related to match fixing or betting on games he was involved in and he has the right to appeal against the sanction.

"Cameron Jerome has been fined £50,000, subject to any appeal, following an Independent Regulatory Commission hearing," the FA said in a statement.

"Jerome, who was also severely warned as to his future conduct, admitted a number of breaches of the FA's Betting Rules and requested a personal hearing which took place on Tuesday 13 August 2013."

Accrington Stanley managing director Robert Heys also admitted breaking betting rules earlier this month and is to have a hearing at the FA. "

Heck!
 
You missed out this one DivThreeN

Tottenham midfielder Andros Townsend has been fined £18,000 by the Football Association for breaching betting regulations.

The 21-year-old was also suspended for four months backdated to 23 May although three of those months have been suspended until 1 July 2016.

Heys will be somewhere in between I'll wager ;)
 
DtheP47 said:
You missed out this one DivThreeN

Tottenham midfielder Andros Townsend has been fined £18,000 by the Football Association for breaching betting regulations.

The 21-year-old was also suspended for four months backdated to 23 May although three of those months have been suspended until 1 July 2016.

Heys will be somewhere in between I'll wager ;)
Click to expand...
I bet yeh it is.:D
 
so if those two precedents can be followed Rob will also be fined a weeks wages of £300 with a backdated two months (pre-season) suspension.

Back at work next week then ;)
 
maccawozzagod said:
so if those two precedents can be followed Rob will also be fined a weeks wages of £300 with a backdated two months (pre-season) suspension.

Back at work next week then ;)
Click to expand...
Are the bets the same Circumstances as those others?:confused: Cos yeh know more n me if they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top