[Football] Ivan toney going to be in trouble - BANNED for 8 months to 17th Jan 2024

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



May 1, 2023
66
I understand the need for there to be a sufficient penalty so that the 'integrity of the game' is never questioned (for the sake of all the PL partners) but given that racism/homophobia/light assault only gets a 6-10 game ban it seems excessive.

That's probably indicative of the under sentencing of those though as opposed to an excessive gambling ban
 




Official Old Man

Uckfield Seagull
Aug 27, 2011
8,656
Brighton
8 months ban, 4 months away from football.
The guy did wrong and deserves what he gets, but such a waste of talent. Who has had this sort of ban before (Cantona) and did they come back as fit and eager as before?
I'm also in the 'why not wait' camp. Just because he would have scored against Spurs.
 




Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,909
Hove
So he's not banned for 8 months of football, has been allowed to aid Brentford for the best part of this season and now Brentford's final two opponents will be benefit from his absence.

Utter joke. The suspension should start in August. The FA are just useless.
I agree, but Devil's Advocate....

Lets just say Toney scores hattricks against Spurs and Man City, Brentford gain 6 points and finish on 59 pts with +6 added to their GD (ie better than both Spurs and VIlla) and that meant they qualified for the Europa Conference.

That wouldn't be a good look for the FA either.
 


amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,311
Unbelievable has taken so long and more surprising seeing he had pleaded guilty that did not receive an immediate suspension. EFA so slow with these things which also shows in Nottingham Forest receiving a fine today for disturbance at play off game last season
 




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
I understand the need for there to be a sufficient penalty so that the 'integrity of the game' is never questioned (for the sake of all the PL partners) but given that racism/homophobia/light assault only gets a 6-10 game ban it seems excessive.

That's probably indicative of the under sentencing of those though as opposed to an excessive gambling ban
How many of those Premier League Partners are bookies?
 


Midget

Concourse Kabe. *Posts may be affected by alcohol.
Aug 16, 2015
837
Lurking
Just at the exact point where Brentford mathematically have nothing to play for, but might still spoil a 'big 6' team's European chances with him playing, just in time for the transfer window to get in cover so no detriment to the club, and with as much as possible served over the summer.

Yeah, nothing stinks here.
 






Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,025
hassocks
I work it out as around 22 games based on 18/19 seasons fixture list, the last normal season we had.

That's not really that much given the charges
 








chrisg

Well-known member
Apr 9, 2012
655
Trippier got a 2.5 month ban for 7 bets.
Toney did 232 bets and gets just over 3 x long ban.

How can the FA use those 2 cases for future reference when so different
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,909
Hove
Just at the exact point where Brentford mathematically have nothing to play for, but might still spoil a 'big 6' team's European chances with him playing, just in time for the transfer window to get in cover so no detriment to the club, and with as much as possible served over the summer.

Yeah, nothing stinks here.
They can still qualify for Europe and mathmatically can finish above us, Spurs and Villa.

If they were to beat Spurs and ManCity, Spurs would need to win away to Leeds to finish above them. Villa would need to beat either Liverpool or us, 2 draws wouldn't be enough.

ManCity will have title wrapped up by the time they visit, and probably thinking about giving some youngsters a run out. If Villa and Spurs both lost their last 2 games, then Brentford would only need a draw at City to qualify for Europe.
 


southstandandy

WEST STAND ANDY
Jul 9, 2003
5,725
The other thing that stinks here is the timing.

He admitted the offences in Feb, and if he had been banned then, Brentford would have had to struggle on this season not being able to replace him.

Ultimately as this kicks in with just 2 games to go, Brentford have plenty of time to look for a replacement forward in the summer, whether permanent or on loan, which wouldn't have been possible if the ban had come in from February when he admitted the offences.

If Brentford are organised this shouldn't now compromise them too much as they now have the summer to sort out a replacement.
 






Durlston

"Two grams please!"
NSC Patron
Jul 15, 2009
9,789
It won't affect the Tottenham result. I think they're around 5/2 (whoops!) to win there and will do. Spurs are either lucky or shite at the moment.

I saw Brentford on Sunday (without Toney) and they looked good against West Ham. I can see Bryan Mbuemo being moved into a more striking role and scoring far more goals now. He's still only 23. I think he's a fantastic player.

As for Ivan Toney, I thought it was quite lenient with the FA having screwed up the punishment with it running through the summer. Again. When will they ever learn? :facepalm:
 








Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
2,999
Uckfield
Process has taken far too long, and through taking so long stinks of a fix (whatever that fix may be). Even if the authorities needed extra time to decide on the appropriate length & value of the penalty & fine, he should have been suspended immediately once the guilty plea went in and was accepted. Even if it was a case of "suspended for a minimum of X period pending final decision on full duration of penalty". That then puts the onus on them to get moving and finalise the decision before the minimum suspension expires instead of dragging their heels and allowing a player that everyone knew was going to be banned to continue playing (and get picked for England!)
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Should definitely have been allowed to see the season out. Oh hang on Spurs benefit with this ban, just when they really need a hand, so that’s OK then. Given what happened to us, getting Spurs into Europe over small clubs seem to be an agenda.

Love a conspiracy theory…normally :angry:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top