THE Football Association commission members that banned Joey Barton from all football activity for 18 months felt the punishment handed down to the Burnley midfielder was 'reasonable, proportionate and fair'.

The commission felt that sanction was the 'shortest possible' given the breaches, it has been revealed in the written reasons behind the ban.

Barton faced the hearing at Wembley last Friday after admitting a Football Association misconduct charge for betting offences, having placed 1,260 bets on football between March 2006 and May 2016.

In the written reasons it was revealed that the FA had written to Barton on January 24 2012 after being informed of reports he had posted about bets on football on his Twitter account, and the letter included a copy of the latest rule.

Barton said he had a 'general awareness of the rules', but added: "There was also a difference in my mind about what was against the rules, and what was harmful and would be enforced by the FA."

He said he had attended meetings of Gamblers' Anonymous and said he had managed, with considerable effort, not to bet on football since being told of this investigation, but added he not yet been able to stop betting entirely on sporting events.

During his time with Burnley in the 2015/16 season Barton placed 253 bets, with a total stake of £43,395.90. He lost £4,758.64. None of those bets was placed on a Burnley match.

In the written reasons it was revealed that Barton placed 42 bets in 20 matches involving teams he was registered with at the time. He played in only two of those 20 matches in which his team was involved. In neither match did he place a bet on his team to lose that match.

Barton's counsel, Nick De Marco, said at the hearing: "A reasonable and fair sanction would be a suspension…for between three and four months, with all but the first two weeks being suspended upon the repeat of any breach of the rules within the next 24 months."

In the written reasons the commission said: "The commission considered the reason advanced on the player’s behalf. They do not justify suspending any part of the sporting sanction. The totality of the offending is so serious as to merit an immediate suspension of the length determined.

"As for his age, and the fact he is coming towards the end of his career, the commission makes these points: He has enjoyed a full career. He has been breaching the betting rules for a substantial part of that career. Had he been apprehended and charged earlier, the result - almost certainly – would have been an immediate playing suspension (and all the consequences). He has avoided that and enjoyed the fruits.

"He cannot now pray in aid chronology to avoid a meaningful sanction. Further, a younger player charged earlier in their career might well have a legitimate sense of grievance if s/he loses part of their career to suspension, but an older player (by virtue of that fact alone) does not. In the commission’s judgement, the suspension must lie where it falls.

"At the end of the exercise each member of the Commission stood back and reflected on the sanction. By whatever route it was arrived at, are we, as individual members, satisfied that the sanction is reasonable, proportionate and, in a single word, fair? Each member concluded that it was."