MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Pie-Gate. You can't make this stuff up!!!! 😀
[b]BREAKINGFA launch investigation
Football
Posted at
14:11
The Football Association have launched an investigation for possible breaches of the governing body's rules concerning betting after Wayne Shaw's pie/ pasty eating during Arsenal's FA Cup win over Sutton last night.
An FA spokesperson said: “We are investigating to establish whether there has been any breach of The FA rules relating to betting.”
More on this in a mo.[/b]
Ha ha, just seen this on the news. The player was hungry apparently, nothing more to it 😀
Apart from the fact that the 8-1 against Shaw eating a pie on TV was offered by SunBets, which coincidentally appeared to be the Sutton shirt sponsor for the night...
Seems a bit odd to have an absurd mascot named on the team sheet, though.
There can't be any law (or even code of conduct) against acting so as to cause a bet to pay out. Only if he actually bet on it himself, or perhaps told a friend to bet,,,
He says he knew about the bet, and that some of his mates and fans of the club had put bets on. Given that the only person who had any say in the outcome was him, there's got to be some sort of conflict of interest, no?
The whole ground erupted when he was eating it, so I reckon it's more than a couple of folk.
He said some of his mates had put bets on. One of them paid out a 5 figures sum.
[img] 
[/img]
I don't understand why a bookies would offer odds on a bet it was so easy to make happen.
I wonder if anyone is going to offer odds on me getting moaned at by the wife today?
Actually, that's a bad example, he could have not eaten a pie.
SunBETS sets odds on a SunBETS sponsored team that a member of the SunBETS sponsored team would/wouldn't eat a pasty. I wonder whether the wake of free advertising for SunBets has been good or bad for them.
I suspect that is the reason why... The Gambling Commission, which licenses and regulates gambling in Britain, says it is looking into whether there was any "irregularity in the betting market and establishing whether the operator has met its licence requirement to conduct its business with integrity".SunBETS sets odds on a SunBETS sponsored team that a member of the SunBETS sponsored team would/wouldn't eat a pasty. I wonder whether the wake of free advertising for SunBets has been good or bad for them.
Well I don't know if "knowing that friends bet on it" could be against a code of conduct. I mean, if a friend bet on him scoring the first goal, would he have been obliged to deliberately miss had the opportunity arisen, so they did not get a payout? (Or perhaps more relevant for a goalie, bet on him saving a penalty.) But it's potentially a bit of a grey area. If he told them in advance he would eat a pie, or someone paid him to do so, then he certainly should be in trouble.
Incidentally I was at lords when that bowler bowled the ridiculous no-ball cos he'd been paid by a betting syndicate. Ran half-way down the pitch before letting go, it was completely bizarre. Thought he'd just had a completely mental failure but wasn't surprised to hear the real reason!
There was a big problem in football with that type of thing a couple of years back as well. Syndicates were betting on the time of the first throw in and paid off players were pretty much hoofing the ball straight out at kick off!!Incidentally I was at lords when that bowler bowled the ridiculous no-ball cos he'd been paid by a betting syndicate. Ran half-way down the pitch before letting go, it was completely bizarre. Thought he'd just had a completely mental failure but wasn't surprised to hear the real reason!
Thats brilliant, also i didnt know the boom boom club venue was suttons clubhouse. 23 stone thats dangerous, shame he didnt come on.
Re player scoring the first goal, at least the other team would be trying to stop him. I can't imagine anyone was trying to stop laddo scoff the pasty. More similar to the deliberate no ball imo.
Re player scoring the first goal, at least the other team would be trying to stop him.
not if they'd bet on him scoring 🙂
And he's gone.
“I think[s] Wayne[/s] [b]binners[/b] has become this global superstar on the back of being 23 stone.
FTFY
😉
What odds were SunBETS giving on that?
Given that the only person who had any say in the outcome was him, there's got to be some sort of conflict of interest, no?
It had to be on TV, so the BBC are therefore just as culpable?
It's a ridiculous bet though and clearly a publicity stunt by the sun. Can they do odds on Froome breathing whilst riding next years TdF?
The decision to televise that match will have been made a long time before SunBETS made the bet available.It had to be on TV, so the BBC are therefore just as culpable?
8-1 apparently, which would suggest that it was a publicity stunt that SunBETS didn't want to pay out too much on.captainsasquatch - Member
What odds were SunBETS giving on that?
I think there was a missed opportunity here: if he'd bitten into a stew with a pastry lid, we could have tested the thesis* that this is a pie in court and put the issue to rest once and for all.
*Which is incorrect of course
8-1 apparently, which would suggest that it was a publicity stunt that SunBETS didn't want to pay out too much on.
SunBETS were giving odds on him walking too? This goes deeper than I first thought. 😛
The decision to televise that match will have been made a long time before SunBETS made the bet available.
Yes, but the producer (or whoever) had to show that camera. He had no control over whether it would be on TV.
True, and the producer could well have been in on it as well. I personally think it's more likely that it was an extremely unusual thing to happen in a (relatively mundane) football match so was bound to be picked up on camera though.Yes, but the producer (or whoever) had to show that camera. He had no control over whether it would be on TV.
23 stone thats dangerous, shame he didnt come on.
I'd always wanted to see if Sanchez could have got a shot past/round me. 😀
If "the whole crowd erupted" (as reported above, I didn't see it) it's hardly a shocker that the Director then cut to a shot of it..
If "the whole crowd erupted" (as reported above, I didn't see it) it's hardly a shocker that the Director then cut to a shot of it..
True, he's as guilty as can be.
But I think the story is that the Sun ran a publicity stunt that really should get them into trouble with the gambling regulator, and the keeper was a bit of an idiot for playing along with it. But it does seem a bit harsh on him, OK he could not eat a pie, but it seems a bit daft to expect people to do/not-do everyday stuff just because there's a bet on them.
OK he could not eat a pie
Thats easy for you to say!
The roly poly goalie. I like that description.
What kind of pie was it?
I think It was after Sutton had used all their substitutions so he did not impact anything in the game.
but if he knew of the bet and then [i]did NOT[/i] eat the pie, he would be complicit in stiffing those punters that bet he would!
but if he knew of the bet and then did NOT eat the pie, he would be complicit in stiffing those punters that bet he would!
The correct action would probably be to have reported the Sun to the gambling commission before the match.
I bet (haha) that Premier League players probably have to sit through powerpoint presentations about gambling and ethics. Sutton probably don't have anything like that, although there's probably something generic from the FA covering match fixing or betting on yourself.
Thats easy for you to say!
I'm going to make venison pie with Sundays leftovers now as this threads made me hungry!
What kind of pie was it?
He [i]said[/i] it wasn't a pie, it was a pastie, which if true, is correct, it [i]isnt[/i] a pie, nor is it a stew or casserole with a pastry lid on top! 😉
boom