But and I think that this is the critical part, he only ate the pie when it was clear that he was not going to be used as a substitute. That provides the basis for the bet. If you cannot have a bet like this, then why can you bet on the sex of a baby that someone is expecting? Everyone knows that it will be male or female. Betting is allowed on the name of a royal child. Even a bet on who is the next football manager is allowed, when that could be as easy to manipulate. The eating of a pie was not fully in Waynes control, if Sutton had not used all of their subs, or he had been on the pitch playing, he would not have had the pie. The only thing wrong with this bet is that I head nothing about it from the horses mouth!
As long as he didn't take any financial gain he should be fine. Fair play to the fella to be honest. Maybe the betting regulations should look into the moronic betting markets than investigating this youth.
Why did he eat a pie when sat on the subs bench? is this something he normally does sometimes or did he do because he knew people were betting on it happening?
A bookie could run a market on what ****ish thing Ehab might do next but anyone connected to City could not bet on it. The likelihood is that the GC will look into it but there wont be any further action. If you remember, some bookies used to run a market on what colour the Queen would wear at Ascot, so in effect all her staff could be in on it so it is quite a grey area as to what the GC could do, it will be more a telling off for being stupid for Sutton. The rules around football are far more strict because of the betting syndicates, this was a silly bet, not linked to the result of a match, at some generous odds where the payouts would be negated by the publicity gained to Sun bet, hence what we are discussing.
He has done it before, during the Leeds game and I suspect it is quite normal for him to have one, once he knows he isnt going on. If you look at the clubs social media, Wayne is featured quite a bit. He is expected to be in the bar, when the draw for the last 5th round was made the club, apologised because he would not be in the clubhouse and that the mascot was taking his place!
Exactley. the GC are likely to just tut and shake their head at what wayne clark did. Sun bet are going to get a kicking behind the scenes for offering this type of bet.
The sub part is irrelevant, he shouldnt be betting on anything connected to that game, which he didnt I believe so he'll have no case to answer. the sex of a baby the odds will be so poor they wouldnt be worth a bet anyway, as soon as wind gets out and one price change from one bookie moves, the others will, you'd get more on the name. Yes, some people connected may have a clue as to the name of the baby, but as soon as 2 or 3 lumpy bets come in in quick succession the odds will be slashed. If you think to the Marco rumour that he was to do one, as soon as 3 or 4 city fans bet as much as a tenner in quick succession, it will be flagged instantly and the chaps in charge off odds will spot this and slash the price as they will think someone knows something. So in effect those 3 or 4 City fans would have got 30/1, the rest of us would have got 10/1. it's not about the 'in the know', its about the trends.
Maybe if the FA didn't block Arsenal from giving their share of the profits to Sutton they wouldn't have had to take The Suns money.
Hi For those of you who think he deserves to get his job back there is a petition at: https://www.change.org/p/sutton-uni...utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
Why should he get his job back? He's broken strict gambling laws and has painted the club in a very bad light.
In the newsagents this morning I did chuckle at the Sun's front page. They're making out that the bet was "just a bit of fun". It's made people a lot of money. Are they comparable then? Hopper, Pearson and Smith were rightly sacked for it.
As someone else has pointed out, the bet was set before the game, and seemingly not with him involved. All of what you put applies, had he NOT eaten a pie. By your version, he's wrong whether he ate one or not. Looking at him, a choice of pie or no pie is a no brainer.