SpartyBlue

I think, given he wants to leave and we aren’t in a strong negotiating position, 50-60m is about right. We might also get consideration on a deal for a spurs player coming our way. Though I tend to think Richie agreeing personal terms doesn’t quite mean it’s imminent as he was always sure to get a big raise and that would have been the easiest part of a deal. Could still take a bit especially if it’s got players coming our way.

Interesting. Looks like, according to this research the making factors (unsurprisingly) are whether a young person has a caregiver or close family member who gambles and exposure to advertising through social media marketing.

Sure but the ones spending money on it are adults. I don’t think whatever the shirt sponsor is will materially effect kids becoming fans and eventually adults who spend money on their teams.

I don’t really see how this would be a good move for either party. Gordon would be like 5th choice at best across an attacking 3 and it doesn’t seem likely to me that they’d offer us what we would value him at given that likely role. To me (if there is any truth to it at all), it’s more likely to be just kicking the tires in the event he has a good season or two and becomes someone who might start for a top 6 side. Young, talented and English is always gonna attract some eyeballs.

I get it from a parenting perspective. But football is not really for kids, at least not exclusively. It’s a huge industry and sponsors are naturally going to want to appeal to the predominantly male audience. Which means alcohol, gambling etc.. are a natural fit. I would likely feel a lot different if it was an activity whose main viewership was children. All in all I don’t care too much. If the club or the league wants to sustain a certain moral code when it comes to that stuff I think that’s fine. I just don’t like a government dictating these things (with some exceptions).

Agree. I’m sure he wants the club to do well as it’s in his interests but he wasn’t born to Everton. The last couple years have likely been hard on him from a business standpoint so I can’t really blame him if it’s not where he wants to devote himself anymore. It’s his money and his life. Nobody can say he hasn’t invested. If all he gives us in the end is the financial push that was needed for a new stadium then that’s still quite a lot.

Interesting. I take that point it just seems like a rather small thing in the grand scheme. Less so if you’re a parent to an Everton fan, of course.

I’m not sure your comments really address much that is in my response there. I get it that little kids want what they want but you’re right that for me that isn’t a big deal. Little kids also might want to drink a beer like daddy or use the internet without supervision at a young age. I’m curious as I don’t know the answer, are the youth kits always without a sponsor or is it only when the league/club seems then to be inappropriate for kids?

I’m curious how they decide on that number. If they are capable of identifying underage accounts then why are their underage accounts? Presumably this requires a bank account and/or credit card. If their parents are so lax that they don’t notice their children loading money on to gambling sites I’m not sure any degree of regulation is going to change that. I don’t think it’s particularly the fault of a gambling site anymore than I think it’s the fault of a porn site for people under 18 (or whatever the age is there) finding their stuff. As long as they aren’t specifically targeting kids then I don’t really think you should punish a legal business for just existing in the world. It’s not advantageous for a gambling site to target children as the blowback would not be worth the short term gain. Show me a gambling site advertising to children and I’m happy to voice my disapproval. Being a shirt sponsor isn’t an example of that just because young people like to watch football.

Cigarettes is a bit different for me because it’s something that is just inherently poison. So I get that. I’m just a person who is hesitant for my government to dictate morality because adults can’t be trusted etc.. Starts to lean authoritarian.

Then you’re catering to the minority at the expense of the majority. Lots of people are obese. Any food advertisement could be a trigger. Lots of people are addicted to pharmaceuticals. Any commercials there could have a similar effect. I’m sure you can think of other examples. At what point do we say that you are an adult and you make your own decisions. It is not the government’s responsibility to shield you from the reality of the world around you. Nevermind that you’re stifling perfectly legitimate businesses from promoting themselves. If an entity like the Premier League wants to restrict certain things then that’s their right, but I don’t believe a government should pick and choose in that way except in instances where a business is targeting a group for whom use of their product/service is illegal (smoking ads near a school, for instance).

It’s a well thought out response but I think we are going to disagree a bit here. Again, it’s thin lines but gambling is not inherently dangerous in the way some other things are. Let’s take your seat belt analogy. Driving in a car without a seatbelt is inherently hazardous. There isn’t a safe way to do it. Alcohol, gambling, fatty foods etc.. can be very destructive but that is when they are indulged in excess. Freedom, to my mind, is the ability for adults to make stupid decisions of their own accord as long as they aren’t excessively trampling on others. I’m hesitant that a government needs to or should protect its citizens from themselves except in situations where an activity is inherently dangerous (seatbelts, no masks in a pandemic, supporting Liverpool etc..).

The issue is once you start down the road of banning companies from sponsoring things with less and less reason suddenly everything is under a microscope. For instance Nike and it’s business practices over the year. I’m not saying this is right or wrong but it is a bit of a Pandora’s box and risks hypocrisy when you have oligarchs and such owning clubs.

I’m curious since I’m not from the UK, was that a league thing or from the government?

Nothing in particular. I don’t like guns and I’m for gun restrictions but I’m also for law and order. I don’t find anything unethical in an adult safely practicing a legal activity in a way that doesn’t infringe on others. If you want to get into a more philosophical discussion I’ll say that guns are inherently destructive in a way that gambling, alcohol etc.. is not. The intended purpose of a firearm is to maim or kill. That’s what it’s made for. While alcohol or gambling or fatty foods can be very destructive when abused, that isn’t inherent.

I understand. It’s just a fine line. I respect someone having the opinion that they don’t want it in the league but then that has some repercussions. You’d have to also outlaw alcohol related things. You might also want to take a harder look at kit makers and their business practices etc.. At the least, you’d have much less money in the league and invariably the quality of the product would suffer. I’m sure some people would be fine with that trade-off and that’s fair enough but I don’t see how you can pick and choose if you’re trying to be consistent there.

Of course. They are a business trying to make a profit. Of course they are going to promote themselves in a positive way. McDonald’s doesn’t show its customers in a hospital getting a bypass from too many burgers. To that end Everton don’t put out videos of us being scored upon. Most gambling ads, in the states at least, will have some fine print about the risks of gambling and what to do about addiction in the case that someone doesn’t already know that for some reason. It just strikes me as hypocritical when the league allows you to place bets in the grounds. Not to mention advertising or sponsorships from alcohol companies or others with dubious histories. Then we have the associations of the owners..

I’m curious what you think is inherently unethical about an adult placing a bet?

It doesn’t confirm anything like that.

Fair points on both sides here. I’m of the mind that until proven wrong we should trust Frank in general and most specifically when dealing with the midfield. If he thinks he can get the best out of someone in that area I’m not sure many are more qualified to judge.

Digne, Klassen, Gbamin, Mina, Gomes, Myko, Kean etc.. Can certainly point to poor scouting in some cases but it’s not because we haven’t looked outside of England.

Because we have not sold anyone and Tarkowski is done pending his contract running out. So clearly weren’t waiting to sell a CB though I’m sure one will leave.

Well a stadium is a different deal. If you prefer, 99% of the time we don’t announce something until a deal is official.

Well that’s why I said “effectively signed” and “exceedingly rare”. I realize things can happen but since only 1 case has been mentioned I think it proves my point. My comment was in response to the idea that we aren’t buying a CB until we sell one, which is clearly not the case.

We have 4 different matchups that repeat themselves throughout the year. Arsenal/Liverpool, Spurs/Man U, Forest/Brentford, Palace/Fulham. Is this usual and I haven’t noticed it or is it as odd as it seems?