Mark Bowen betting charges

[Fezza]

I wouldn’t be in a rush to label him an addict either. Based on what the FA have said it would equate to 3-4 bets a month on average, hardly the stuff of an addict.

It also doesn't say when they were. I feel this may be key, especially if it coincides with his time off last year for "family reasons".

[Armadillo Roadkill]

There's no excuse if he's guilty, and it seems likely he I; the FA don't tend to just float charges based upon flimsy evidence in cases like this.

In any job, if any condition (health, mental health, whatever) means you cannot abide by strict and transparent rules, you should get support. But it won't absolve you of guilt.

One of my hopes for a new owner was continuity. I'm not so sure anymore...

[Sutekh]

There's no excuse if he's guilty, and it seems likely he I; the FA don't tend to just float charges based upon flimsy evidence in cases like this.

In any job, if any condition (health, mental health, whatever) means you cannot abide by strict and transparent rules, you should get support. But it won't absolve you of guilt.

One of my hopes for a new owner was continuity. I'm not so sure anymore...

Or failing that perhaps you just shouldn't be working in that line of business.

However I don't get why, say, player/manager x can't bet on games that have no relation/association with their club/division eg. why couldn't a player/manager/other employee at a lower division club put a bet on ManC in the FA Cup final or Dortmund tonight or Kane to be top scorer at the Euros?

[Snowflake Royal]

I wouldn’t be in a rush to label him an addict either. Based on what the FA have said it would equate to 3-4 bets a month on average, hardly the stuff of an addict.

Apart from the fact he shouldn't be doing it in the first place and has apparently already been done before. Why else would he do something so monumentally stupid and irresponsible?

[Snowflake Royal]

There's no excuse if he's guilty, and it seems likely he I; the FA don't tend to just float charges based upon flimsy evidence in cases like this.

In any job, if any condition (health, mental health, whatever) means you cannot abide by strict and transparent rules, you should get support. But it won't absolve you of guilt.

One of my hopes for a new owner was continuity. I'm not so sure anymore...

Or failing that perhaps you just shouldn't be working in that line of business.

However I don't get why, say, player/manager x can't bet on games that have no relation/association with their club/division eg. why couldn't a player/manager/other employee at a lower division club put a bet on ManC in the FA Cup final or Dortmund tonight or Kane to be top scorer at the Euros?

Because it's easier and more reliable to put 100% ban in place than a partial ban under some circumstances.

[South Coast Royal]

There's no excuse if he's guilty, and it seems likely he I; the FA don't tend to just float charges based upon flimsy evidence in cases like this.

In any job, if any condition (health, mental health, whatever) means you cannot abide by strict and transparent rules, you should get support. But it won't absolve you of guilt.

One of my hopes for a new owner was continuity. I'm not so sure anymore...

Or failing that perhaps you just shouldn't be working in that line of business.

However I don't get why, say, player/manager x can't bet on games that have no relation/association with their club/division eg. why couldn't a player/manager/other employee at a lower division club put a bet on ManC in the FA Cup final or Dortmund tonight or Kane to be top scorer at the Euros?

It may feel that for us but as a comparison we might feel that we could drive safely on a motorway at 90 mph with nobody else on the road.
The law however says 70 and in professional football the rule is that you can't bet on any football so there can be no defence.

[grey_squirrel]

Further evidence of my football club being rotten to the core.

[72 bus]

I wouldn’t be in a rush to label him an addict either. Based on what the FA have said it would equate to 3-4 bets a month on average, hardly the stuff of an addict.

Apart from the fact he shouldn't be doing it in the first place and has apparently already been done before. Why else would he do something so monumentally stupid and irresponsible?

Most folks would just get their mate to put the bet on for them, so yes he was monumentally stupid and irresponsible.

[Snowflake Royal]

I wouldn’t be in a rush to label him an addict either. Based on what the FA have said it would equate to 3-4 bets a month on average, hardly the stuff of an addict.

Apart from the fact he shouldn't be doing it in the first place and has apparently already been done before. Why else would he do something so monumentally stupid and irresponsible?

Most folks would just get their mate to put the bet on for them, so yes he was monumentally stupid and irresponsible.

No, most folks wouldn’t do it.

[72 bus]

Apart from the fact he shouldn't be doing it in the first place and has apparently already been done before. Why else would he do something so monumentally stupid and irresponsible?

Most folks would just get their mate to put the bet on for them, so yes he was monumentally stupid and irresponsible.

No, most folks wouldn’t do it.

You're so naive at times Ian, almost as if you have little life experience.

[Snowflake Royal]

Most folks would just get their mate to put the bet on for them, so yes he was monumentally stupid and irresponsible.

No, most folks wouldn’t do it.

You're so naive at times Ian, almost as if you have little life experience.

Don't worry bus, we know you're incapable of understanding not being a selfish pcunt and having a sense of responsibility and integrity.

[SCIAG]

There's no excuse if he's guilty, and it seems likely he I; the FA don't tend to just float charges based upon flimsy evidence in cases like this.

In any job, if any condition (health, mental health, whatever) means you cannot abide by strict and transparent rules, you should get support. But it won't absolve you of guilt.

One of my hopes for a new owner was continuity. I'm not so sure anymore...

Or failing that perhaps you just shouldn't be working in that line of business.

However I don't get why, say, player/manager x can't bet on games that have no relation/association with their club/division eg. why couldn't a player/manager/other employee at a lower division club put a bet on ManC in the FA Cup final or Dortmund tonight or Kane to be top scorer at the Euros?

I agree that, from where I'm standing, betting on another division should be fine.

I suppose the rule exists in order to dispel every suggestion of impropriety. Football is ultimately a fairly "matey" sport. Do we want a situation where, for instance, Yiadom texts Olise for the Crystal Palace team news and makes a bet with that information? If a journalist found out about something like that it would look bad and might damage the game's reputation.

It also helps keep the rules simple, and therefore makes them easier to follow - this is important when we're talking about rich people with average (and in many cases, well below average) intelligence and often no academic training beyond GCSE. They often struggle to understand the laws of the game they play for a living.

In any case, the rules aren't a secret. Bowen should be following them. Maybe I should be more sympathetic, but if he gets a ban for this (which, considering it is a second offence, he might well do), we should sack him for gross misconduct, perhaps with some offer to help him pay for treatment if it is needed.

[Stranded]

There are 2 way to look at this. Bowen is either an arrogant individual who despite having already broken the rules, decided that only making a small number of bets on football was fine as there is no way anyone will find out about that or he has a compulsion to bet.

Yes, this is a small number of football bets but it is unlikely that someone who bets on something they shouldn't do, isn't also placing larger more frequent bets on sports/events that they are allowed to.

If it is the latter, I hope he is able to accept he has a problem and gets help. Whilst it does not appear to have impacted his work, if he gets found guilty esp if a ban follows, then it may be most sensible for all parties for him to move on but if the new owners feel they can support him then I'll support that as we will unlikely be party to all the details.

[Dirk Gently]

There's no excuse if he's guilty, and it seems likely he I; the FA don't tend to just float charges based upon flimsy evidence in cases like this.

In any job, if any condition (health, mental health, whatever) means you cannot abide by strict and transparent rules, you should get support. But it won't absolve you of guilt.

One of my hopes for a new owner was continuity. I'm not so sure anymore...

Or failing that perhaps you just shouldn't be working in that line of business.

However I don't get why, say, player/manager x can't bet on games that have no relation/association with their club/division eg. why couldn't a player/manager/other employee at a lower division club put a bet on ManC in the FA Cup final or Dortmund tonight or Kane to be top scorer at the Euros?

Compliance, definition and administration. What's easier to check up on - whether someone has bet on any football whatsoever, or whether someone has bet on only certain types of football, types which will vary depending on what their role and club is?

Regulatory authorities would also need the detail of every single bet to check if it's allowed or not, which is a nightmare.

Trying to define rules for only certain allowed bets will inevitably be massively complicated and create loopholes or challenges. Saying "no bets on football" is clear and simple and can't be challenged.

[Berxwedan Zinar]

I think we should be prepared to be forgiving, as long as he paid up on any bets he lost.

[Forbury Lion]

The FA should publish details of all the bets he made, that way we can see if he's any good judging teams and picking a winner, something that might be a good skill for a director of football to have.

Also, if he is really good at it is there a rule against him sharing his predictions with others and not betting on it? - You can arguably make more money for this consultancy service than you would gambling.

[Mr Angry]

It is never bloody ending, isn't it?

They say a fish rots from the head down; it would appear that the same applies to Reading Football Club as well.

I had hopes that, from the ashes of destruction wrought by Dai, at least we would have Howe, Bowen and Selles leading us out; it now appears that the last hope we have is for Selles to take us out of the sh1t..............................................

[Sutekh]

So, after a month, any news yet on what his punishment is?

[RoyalBlue]

So, after a month, any news yet on what his punishment is?

Judging by the way the women's side of things has been managed, it would seem his punishment was to be locked in a room and not communicate with players, coaching staff, employees and players.

However, in true Bowen style, he did manage to sneak out a message with a tiny bit of good news regarding Abrefa's contract before going silent again.

[traff]

So, after a month, any news yet on what his punishment is?

Judging by the way the women's side of things has been managed, it would seem his punishment was to be locked in a room and not communicate with players, coaching staff, employees and players.

However, in true Bowen style, he did manage to sneak out a message with a tiny bit of good news regarding Abrefa's contract before going silent again.

Keeping himself as far under the RADAR as possible to ensure he keeps getting an income. Can only assume that keeping a job is his #1
priority as I would guess FA charges for a DOF doesn't
look that great on a CV.