The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary ... 10110.aspx

At least this shows he didnt bet against us.

If your gonna take the risk of betting on your own teams match, at least bet on something that might win - Curtis Woodhouse to score first

Steve wrote:If your gonna take the risk of betting on your own teams match, at least bet on something that might win - Curtis Woodhouse to score first

Didn't Woodhouse take penalties?

Actually I do remember him taking a couple. I just didn't want to miss the oppurtunity to badmouth Woodhouse - because he was shitttt ;)

Steve wrote:Actually I do remember him taking a couple. I just didn't want to miss the oppurtunity to badmouth Woodhouse - because he was shitttt ;)

Not defending him, just trying to make sense of the bet ;)

Good thing the bets didn't come through, or we could be in trouble

So he bet on us winning, that's fine then, would have given him more motivation to put in a good performance. ;)

First of all let me say that this is not an attack specifically on Burge, a player who I like and who seems like a nice enough guy outside of the game.

However, it is not acceptable, at all, for him to bet on games involving us even if it was for us to win. In fact it is way out of line. Again, I'm not saying any of this happened or would have happened considering the sums involved but in principle:

Woodhouse to score first - It's 0-0 and Rushden have a free-kick. Burgess (who had influence and veteran leadership) influences a change of decision as to who takes a free-kick. He wants Woodhouse to take it instead of another player who might be the better option. Or Woodhouse might take a corner and Burgess rules it out - he wants him in the box. Just some of the ways such a bet could negatively influence the team.

Rushden to win - A win at all costs mentality for a single game in February is never a good thing. Working too hard might end up in an injury if a knock was sustained that would ordinarily lead to a substition. If we are drawing 1-1 and going for a well-earned point, perhaps Burgess might have taken an absurd win at all costs risk and ended up seeing us lose rather than draw. What if a teammate messes up and costs us the game, will Burge be the player to pick them up or it cause a lot of strife in the dressing room/

The point is not that any of these things happened - they sound pretty far fetched in fact ESPECIALLY given what we know about Burgess and the nature of the bets in reality. The point is that Burgess broke a very justifiable FA rule and did something in principle worthy of serious punishment. The fact that he bet on us is absolutely no 'get out' clause at all.

Everyweeker wrote:First of all let me say that this is not an attack specifically on Burge, a player who I like and who seems like a nice enough guy outside of the game.

However, it is not acceptable, at all, for him to bet on games involving us even if it was for us to win. In fact it is way out of line. Again, I'm not saying any of this happened or would have happened considering the sums involved but in principle:

Woodhouse to score first - It's 0-0 and Rushden have a free-kick. Burgess (who had influence and veteran leadership) influences a change of decision as to who takes a free-kick. He wants Woodhouse to take it instead of another player who might be the better option. Or Woodhouse might take a corner and Burgess rules it out - he wants him in the box. Just some of the ways such a bet could negatively influence the team.

Rushden to win - A win at all costs mentality for a single game in February is never a good thing. Working too hard might end up in an injury if a knock was sustained that would ordinarily lead to a substition. If we are drawing 1-1 and going for a well-earned point, perhaps Burgess might have taken an absurd win at all costs risk and ended up seeing us lose rather than draw. What if a teammate messes up and costs us the game, will Burge be the player to pick them up or it cause a lot of strife in the dressing room/

The point is not that any of these things happened - they sound pretty far fetched in fact ESPECIALLY given what we know about Burgess and the nature of the bets in reality. The point is that Burgess broke a very justifiable FA rule and did something in principle worthy of serious punishment. The fact that he bet on us is absolutely no 'get out' clause at all.

Yer, what 'e sed Top Post everyweeker. It is easy to write this issue off as "well he wasn't causing any harm" but as mentioned there are very sensible reasons for these rules, and a player who infringes them deserves what they get. Imho, the punishment is justified, in that he broke the rules, but as stated, the sums involved were relatively small.

The bigger question is quite what Bruge was thinking when he thought this was a sensible move tbh!

He willmiss our game up there, I BET he is p##sed about that. :lol: :lol:

I bet Andy Mangan will be pretty frustrated after he got a 5/6 month ban for betting offences...