SpartyBlue

They have 1000 avenues already to make a bet though. Stake.com’s goal is more likely to want a bigger piece of the already existing pie. More exposure for them means more gambling minded people see their brand and perhaps give it a try. I’m sure somewhere there will be young people whose first bet is through stake.com but if they are that susceptible I imagine they’d have bet somewhere else if that didn’t exist. Given they have deals with the UFC, Drake, Aguero etc.. I think the goal is to just get their name out there as much as possible.

Dangerous road for a government to start imposing on the rights of its citizens to make choices for themselves. Fine line between public health concerns and oppression.

Yeah if he was a 10% better finisher and decision maker in the final third he’d be very special. As is he’s still a good well rounded winger who works very hard but not quite at that world class level

We do though. Nevermind the general feeling before he said anything that he’d look for a move this summer . He was directly quoted as saying “when I talk about leaving a club..” etc.. which means he has talked about leaving our club. I suppose you could say they made up a direct quote but, barring that, he’s had those discussions.

I would argue that nicotine or heroin is inherently toxic, even in moderation. Of course people can find a way to live with it but it’s always damaging to some degree. A few beers or glasses of wine a week doesn’t have any real negative health consequences.

Haha. Right and at least in the states most gambling companies have warnings/hotlines etc.. dealing with addiction. I just think if you’re allowing gambling in stadiums or on fantasy football etc.. it’s a bit rich to say that a shirt sponsor is too far. It’s also slightly insulting in my view to say that someone with a serious addiction is so easily swayed by “stake.com” or a picture of a beer. It diminishes what’s really at play there. I don’t mean to diminish the seriousness of these addictions, I know many people affected, as do we all. I just believe a free country is the right to have personal responsibility and make choices/even destructive ones as long as what you’re doing is not inherently dangerous. * In the U.S. in New York State they tried banning “Big Gulp” drinks that are 72 or 144 Oz. You should have seen the backlash. You’d have thought they took away the vote.

Of course gambling companies advertise to encourage people to gambling. The point was that if you have such a relationship with gambling that “Stake.com” on a shirt sends you over the edge then you already have a serious issue. You can bet on games within stadiums. You’ll see advertisements everywhere on social media and television and in print. You’ll hear it on the radio. I don’t particularly think a shirt sponsor is going to move the needle given like 60% of Championship and EPL teams have them. High cholesterol kills a lot more people than gambling and many people have food addictions but you don’t hear a lot of folks saying we should ban fast food restaurants from being able to promote their businesses.

You’ve not read my response properly here. When you ABUSE alcohol or fatty foods or many other things it’s an issue. A couple of pints or a glass of wine is not inherently problematic. There is no safe amount of nicotine. It’s worse if you smoke a lot, of course, but it’s always poison. Most drinking alcohol is only toxic in large quantities.

It depends what you’re drinking I guess. Some types of alcohol not meant for ingestion obviously are toxic. The alcohol we drink is generally not in moderation. If you drink a dangerous amount it can be which is why we get alcohol poisoning or damage our livers. In small quantities some alcohol can actually be a benefit to circulation etc.. I’m sure we’ve all heard about the benefits of a glass of wine a day.

I agree alcohol is about as a destructive a thing to our society as exists. My point was simply that it isn’t inherently dangerous. It is dangerous in excess. Heroin or nicotine or various other substances are inherently harmful.

The reality there is if Spurs make the best offer to us then it’s not really Richie being undervalued. It would just be some of us overvaluing what the market will pay, given our situation. I think anything 50+ is pretty good business for us given everyone knows he wants to leave and we could use the funds. Very good player but He’s a bit short of being the world class guy that could demand 80m.

They are dangerous when abused. They are dangerous to addicts. The significant majority of people can have a beer or a cheeseburger or place a sports bet and be just fine. The distinction between those things and something like nicotine is that nicotine is inherently damaging. There is no safe way ingest nicotine. It’s a poison. Having a glass of wine doesn’t have that same effect. Again, I’m sympathetic to those that battle addiction but it is not a substance that is destructive in moderation any more than an occasional cheeseburger is. It becomes an issue when it is abused or for those who have an addiction. If we are comparing these things to gambling specifically I certainly think alcohol abuse and addiction is far more destructive to society than gambling.

You’re equating things that aren’t quite the same here. Smoking is inherently dangerous. Nicotine is a poison. Gambling, alcohol or cheeseburgers are not inherently dangerous. The vast majority of people who deal with those things are perfectly fine. It’s about personal responsibility. You can hurt yourself if you drink too much water or eat too many carrots. People huff paint or put on unhealthy weight eating ice cream. It is not incumbent on these industries to protect the world from abusing their products. Should we ban McDonald’s because they might contribute to someone’s high cholesterol? If somebody has a destructive relationship with gambling it’s a hard sell to say the word “Stake” on a shirt is what is going to send them the over the edge. If you’re an alcoholic and the image of a pint pushes you off the wagon then you were already in desperate need of help. Aside from that can’t you already bet on games from within English football stadiums? Your personal thoughts on these things is your own business but it seems the ship has sailed on these issues long ago both as a club and as a league. I’m sympathetic to those who struggle with addiction issues but it’s not realistic to shutter yourself away from the world or expect society to cater itself to your sensibilities.

Obviously they aren’t going to spend money on something that won’t help them. It’s just less about appealing to addicts and children than it is getting wider exposure for their brand in general. They want people to know who they are. Being on our shirt increases the likelihood of that and exposes them to people already predisposed to gamble.

Yes I think he’s certainly got a high ceiling. The issue, of course, is that he’s 20 and making a big step up in competition. The plan was likely to have Kenny (an OK option) as insurance as Seamus winds down his career and Patterson develops. Now I’d imagine you might see some of Holgate or Godfrey over there If need be.

I don’t think it’s a matter of dropping him for performance. The plan has to be for Patterson to take over. He just has to show he’s good enough to do that at some point. Probably gonna get his chance sooner than expected if we don’t bring in another RB.

I think he will and then you play Patterson in spots and hope he takes off. We were really spoiled when Digne came in and rather seamlessly replaced Baines.

It’ll be interesting to see how this works out. Our RB are now a near retirement Seamus and a 20 year old coming off a surgery. Presumably Holgate or Godfrey can slide over if need be but it does seem like Patterson is going to have to learn on the job

True though it means we have a problem to solve at RB. Once Seamus leaves we will have Patterson who is promising but a question mark and now true cover. So either we bring someone in or we continue to just play Holgate or Godfrey out of position which isn’t ideal. If Patterson doesn’t develop then we’d be in a bind there.

I guess this is why these players get paid so much eh. You can have a good career and then one mistake and supporters “never forgive you”. Harsh.

I don’t think there is any way we bring one in and then both Mina and Keane leave. One will stay. Best partnership will be Tarkowski and Godfrey (Possibly Mina if he stays and is fit) with Holgate and Mina/Keane as cover. Branthwaite needs to be loaned and play.

Allan is a tough one. Good leader and he’s always out there giving effort but I think age has caught up with him a bit. 1,2,5 times a game opposing midfielders are cruising past him at this point. I expect we will keep him but I wish we had a better longterm option in that role. Perhaps Davies can step up as I doubt it’ll be a priority position for us on a limited budget.

How often do these deals actually involve player swaps? It’s always mentioned by supporters but seems to very rarely happen, especially with a high profile guy like Richie.

Right that’s why it isn’t a thing. You might end up with a great player you didn’t spend much money on but going in they will have been a risk.

Low risk and high value isn’t really a thing without spending a lot of money. At least they wouldn’t be viewed as high value to begin with.