Should Ponces Be Able To Bet On Themselves?

Stoke City ponce Cameron Jerome has admitted breaking Football Association betting rules. In June, Tottenham midfielder Andros Townsend was fined £18,000 and banned for four months, three of those months suspended, for a breach of betting regulations.

But is it such a big deal? Ok, footballers shouldn't be able to make negative bets like their team losing for example. But what is wrong with betting on themselves to score in a game or score 20+ in a season?

Let's face it, footballers only care about two things - themselves and money. Perhaps shite players like Ngog and Sordell would improve if they had £10k on themselves to score a goal - is there any better motivation for a modern day footballer?

Would you be comfortable on Jermaine Beckford winning £10m for scoring 20 goals for us?

No I don't think they should bet full stop.

They might get themselves into lots of debt and have to sell their Lamborghini aventador , or Rolls Royce Phantom, then they wouldn't give a fuck about football even more than they don't now.

I have to agree with Nat, I think it would really motivate them. I remember the Portsmouth players all bet big on themselves to beat some half decent team in the league a few years ago and they won 3-0. If only our shower of shite bet on themselves at Burnley, they may have broken sweat had they staked £10,000 each on us winning. 
I don't see a problem in it.

That would put more pressure on them though Mike, they can't handle the pressure the championship brings as it is.

scottjames30 wrote:That would put more pressure on them though Mike, they can't handle the pressure the championship brings as it is.

Let me ask you this question Scott. Let's say for argument's sake that I am Bill Gates and I went into the Bolton dressing room on Saturday at noon and I said "If you win today, I will give you all a brief case containing £80,000 cash". Do you think we would have won?

What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Michael Bolton wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:That would put more pressure on them though Mike, they can't handle the pressure the championship brings as it is.

Let me ask you this question Scott. Let's say for argument's sake that I am Bill Gates and I went into the Bolton dressing room on Saturday at noon and I said "If you win today, I will give you all a brief case containing £80,000 cash". Do you think we would have won?

Do the players not get a win bonus anyway ?

NickFazer wrote:What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Miss.

NickFazer wrote:What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Nick, you aren't very familiar with betting are you? If you bet on a player to score a hat trick it means 3 or more goals. You don't suddenly lose the bet if he scores 4. 
Now repeat that back to me, I want to make sure you understand.

Michael Bolton wrote:

NickFazer wrote:What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Nick, you aren't very familiar with betting are you? If you bet on a player to score a hat trick it means 3 or more goals. You don't suddenly lose the bet if he scores 4. 
Now repeat that back to me, I want to make sure you understand.

Actually you are right, I am not a betting man and you are right of course, I didn't think it through and deserve your contempt and sarcasm.. However lets say he placed the bet to score 2 goals and has them in the bag already and has a chance for a hat trick, what does he do then?

NickFazer wrote:

Michael Bolton wrote:

NickFazer wrote:What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Nick, you aren't very familiar with betting are you? If you bet on a player to score a hat trick it means 3 or more goals. You don't suddenly lose the bet if he scores 4. 
Now repeat that back to me, I want to make sure you understand.

Actually you are right, I am not a betting man and you are right of course, I didn't think it through and deserve your contempt and sarcasm.. However lets say he placed the bet to score 2 goals and has them in the bag already and has a chance for a hat trick, what does he do then?

Does he miss ?

scottjames30 wrote:

NickFazer wrote:

Michael Bolton wrote:

NickFazer wrote:What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Nick, you aren't very familiar with betting are you? If you bet on a player to score a hat trick it means 3 or more goals. You don't suddenly lose the bet if he scores 4. 
Now repeat that back to me, I want to make sure you understand.

Actually you are right, I am not a betting man and you are right of course, I didn't think it through and deserve your contempt and sarcasm.. However lets say he placed the bet to score 2 goals and has them in the bag already and has a chance for a hat trick, what does he do then?

Does he miss ?

It's 50-1 and and he's bet a grand. What does he do, 2 weeks wages FFS.

NickFazer wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:

NickFazer wrote:

Michael Bolton wrote:

NickFazer wrote:What makes a negative bet? 

For example we are 3-3 with 5 minutes to go, Beckford has placed a bet on himself to get a hat-trick at 100-1, motivating right , he has already scored all 3 of Bolton's goals and is put through one on one with the keeper, what does he do?

Nick, you aren't very familiar with betting are you? If you bet on a player to score a hat trick it means 3 or more goals. You don't suddenly lose the bet if he scores 4. 
Now repeat that back to me, I want to make sure you understand.

Actually you are right, I am not a betting man and you are right of course, I didn't think it through and deserve your contempt and sarcasm.. However lets say he placed the bet to score 2 goals and has them in the bag already and has a chance for a hat trick, what does he do then?

Does he miss ?

It's 50-1 and and he's bet a grand. What does he do, 2 weeks wages FFS.

It goes wide.

Jerome didn't bet on himself.

Obviously if players were allowed to do it, they could back themselves to lose and throw matches.

Im with Nat on this one.

I think players should be forced to bet 50% of their wages on themselves, it would motivate them.

I always actually said, the wage structure for footballers should be in 3 simple stages...

for example...

Win = 100% of your weekly wage.
Draw = 50% of your weekly wage.
Loss = No Wages at all that week.

This would apply to the whole team - including players on the bench, who never played, subs, even players left out of the squad - they are a 'team' afterall.

However, Nat's idea would also work.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Im with Nat on this one.

I think players should be forced to bet 50% of their wages on themselves, it would motivate them.

I always actually said, the wage structure for footballers should be in 3 simple stages...

for example...

Win = 100% of your weekly wage.
Draw = 50% of your weekly wage.
Loss = No Wages at all that week.

This would apply to the whole team - including players on the bench, who never played, subs, even players left out of the squad - they are a 'team' afterall.

However, Nat's idea would also work.

Im yet to see a topic you disagree with Nat on.

No wages would be illegal though so this ideas dead in the water. Bonuses are in place to motivate the players to perform, which is at least similar to your idea.

bwfc1874 wrote:



Im yet to see a topic you disagree with Nat on.

You either have not been with us long (which you have so i can rule that out)

Dont pay attention...

Or this comment is a joke, a bad one?

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:



Im yet to see a topic you disagree with Nat on.

You either have not been with us long (which you have so i can rule that out)

Dont pay attention...

Or this comment is a joke, a bad one?

No it's a genuine comment and I feel I pay attention well enough. 

During my time here, I can't remember much you've disagreed with her on. Although maybe that's more to do with BWFC stuff than general topics.

bwfc1874 wrote:
No wages would be illegal though so this ideas dead in the water. Bonuses are in place to motivate the players to perform, which is at least similar to your idea.

But why would you be bothered about your 10K bonus when its only like, a loss of a days pay anyway. I know for a fact, that end of season player bonus payments are total peanuts, they provide no motivation whatsoever.

If a player was worried about getting paid - he would preform so much better, this is true in any performance related industry - salesmen are a prime example, they work harder and longer for a bigger wage at the end of the month.

If we did the same thing with players, you watch the fight and passion come back.

We could get round the legal issues by offering them the National Min Wage + 'enhancements'

A loss involves a payment of £6.19 for every hour worked that week.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:
No wages would be illegal though so this ideas dead in the water. Bonuses are in place to motivate the players to perform, which is at least similar to your idea.

But why would you be bothered about your 10K bonus when its only like, a loss of a days pay anyway. I know for a fact, that end of season player bonus payments are total peanuts, they provide no motivation whatsoever.

If a player was worried about getting paid - he would preform so much better, this is true in any performance related industry - salesmen are a prime example, they work harder and longer for a bigger wage at the end of the month.

If we did the same thing with players, you watch the fight and passion come back.

We could get round the legal issues by offering them the National Min Wage + 'enhancements'

A loss involves a payment of £6.19 for every hour worked that week.

My friend plays football in league 1, end of season bonuses are a motivator they get great money. It's a cumulation of appearance/goal/international appearance bonuses over the course of the season, it's big money and definitely a motivator for any player. You're telling me you wouldn't want to score as many as possible knowing there was another few hundred quid (thousand in the prem) riding on it?

You're not wrong in what you're saying, Im not really arguing to be honest, just saying it's completely unfeasible and would never happen. Even if it did clubs would find a way round.