New Shirt Sponsor

[SpartyBlue]

5 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Never heard of alcohol poisoning then I take it, when you’re addiction is gambling drugs or drinking it’s not just the individual partaking in what ever vice that they maybe addicted to that is suffering, it’s their families who bare the brunt of their weaknesses, if advertising didn’t encourage people to gamble then why advertise, and for every so many new people attracted to these companies it will be the start of a devastating illness that will wreck many lives. 

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.

[StevO]

9 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

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.

Fast food restaurants have limitations on their advertising in the UK, just like alcohol companies do and gambling companies. 
 

Edit; those Arbie’s and Carl’s Jnr adverts always make me want to go and give them a try, but I’ve never managed to convince the missus (vegetarian).

[Matt]

Everything in moderation (which is relative to the thing in question) is the key. Even smoking a couple here and there isn't any worse than a couple of beers here and there. The issue is the moderation part, which is the crux of the matter. People can  and do live with a heroin habit. It's all about moderation.

[SpartyBlue]

2 minutes ago, StevO said:

Fast food restaurants have limitations on their advertising in the UK, just like alcohol companies do and gambling companies. 
 

Edit; those Arbie’s and Carl’s Jnr adverts always make me want to go and give them a try, but I’ve never managed to convince the missus (vegetarian).

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. 

[SpartyBlue]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Everything in moderation (which is relative to the thing in question) is the key. Even smoking a couple here and there isn't any worse than a couple of beers here and there. The issue is the moderation part, which is the crux of the matter. People can  and do live with a heroin habit. It's all about moderation.

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.  

[Bailey]

1 minute ago, SpartyBlue said:

 

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. 
 

Whilst I agree with you, to play devils advocate again, can people be trusted with that responsibilty given what we see in society? 

What is more acceptable, restricting some of the majority of peoples rights to make their own choices or trying to protect the health of a minority? 

[Palfy]

3 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

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.

Stake.com’s advertising is not going to make any difference to people who are or have already been involved with gambling whether in a controlled or out of controlled way, and that would apply to all companies who advertise and promote gambling, what the advertising of these companies does is encourage younger people or people who have never gambled before an easy route to make their first bet, which in turn starts a cycle of addiction for many people who without seeing the advertising would not of considered gambling. My view is if people want to gamble make them do the leg work and stop advertising and handing it on a plate for them. 

[SpartyBlue]

2 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Whilst I agree with you, to play devils advocate again, can people be trusted with that responsibilty given what we see in society? 

What is more acceptable, restricting some of the majority of peoples rights to make their own choices or trying to protect the health of a minority? 

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. 

[SpartyBlue]

Just now, Palfy said:

Stake.com’s advertising is not going to make any difference to people who are or have already been involved with gambling whether in a controlled or out of controlled way, and that would apply to all companies who advertise and promote gambling, what the advertising of these companies does is encourage younger people or people who have never gambled before an easy route to make their first bet, which in turn starts a cycle of addiction for many people who without seeing the advertising would not of considered gambling. My view is if people want to gamble make them do the leg work and stop advertising and handing it on a plate for them. 

 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. 

[Palfy]

17 minutes ago, Matt said:

Everything in moderation (which is relative to the thing in question) is the key. Even smoking a couple here and there isn't any worse than a couple of beers here and there. The issue is the moderation part, which is the crux of the matter. People can  and do live with a heroin habit. It's all about moderation.

Whether you or I find this difficult to comprehend a big percentage of gambling addicts became addicted straight after their first bet, unfortunately that is a fact and I find it hard to comprehend because nothing like that has ever happened to me. This is why gambling shouldn’t be advertised we shouldn’t make it easy for companies to encourage first time gamblers to make their first bet, all first time gamblers have the potential to be the addicts of the future, so let’s do everything to stop the promotion of gambling. 

[SpartyBlue]

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Whether you or I find this difficult to comprehend a big percentage of gambling addicts became addicted straight after their first bet, unfortunately that is a fact and I find it hard to comprehend because nothing like that has ever happened to me. This is why gambling shouldn’t be advertised we shouldn’t make it easy for companies to encourage first time gamblers to make their first bet, all first time gamblers have the potential to be the addicts of the future, so let’s do everything to stop the promotion of gambling. 

The overwhelming majority of people that gamble or drink are not addicts.  I’m not sure where your statistics come from that a big % of addicts become addicted after their first bet but let’s assume that’s true. By your logic you would have to ban other things that can potentially lead to addiction. No drinking because many people become addicts soon after. No cigarettes for the same reason. No pornography of course because people can easily become addicted and it can ruin lives. You end up with quite a restrictive society. Personally, I don’t like my government that intrusive. If you’re going to have a free society there has to be a certain amount of allowing people to make bad decisions if they want to. 

[Matt]

55 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

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.  

You can argue that, and you're right. My point was you can't say that alcohol and gambling isn't the same. 

A few beers turned into a couple of bottles of wine for me as I looked for an escape from my issues. Eventually turned into a bottle of wine and a bottle of bourbon a day. 

Addiction is a very slippery slope and gambling is no different. That's what I meant in my initial reply, I just don't think you get it. 

[Cornish Steve]

I agree with all the comments about gambling as an addiction, etc., but there's an equally important point here: For gambling companies, sponsoring football teams is a conflict of interest. They have a huge financial stake in certain outcomes. Sponsorship buys them leverage, and it's only a matter of time before someone crosses the line and uses that leverage to affect the outcome of games.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, SpartyBlue said:

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. 

They do this on a nearly daily basis

 

[Palfy]

21 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

The overwhelming majority of people that gamble or drink are not addicts.  I’m not sure where your statistics come from that a big % of addicts become addicted after their first bet but let’s assume that’s true. By your logic you would have to ban other things that can potentially lead to addiction. No drinking because many people become addicts soon after. No cigarettes for the same reason. No pornography of course because people can easily become addicted and it can ruin lives. You end up with quite a restrictive society. Personally, I don’t like my government that intrusive. If you’re going to have a free society there has to be a certain amount of allowing people to make bad decisions if they want to. 

I’m not saying ban gambling, drinking, smoking, or complicit over the correct age pornography but I would say ban all advertising that promotes these activities, for me that wouldn’t be restricting society, but banning advertising could help protect some of the vulnerable members of society. And those who want to participate still have the option to do so, but instead of them looking to hook you you have to look for them. Is that such a bad ideal or would you rather we become inundated with gambling companies advertising and trying to hook first time punters who could turn into the next addict, and without that encouragement from the advertising possibly may of not made that first bet that spiralled into an addiction. 

[SpartyBlue]

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

I’m not saying ban gambling, drinking, smoking, or complicit over the correct age pornography but I would say ban all advertising that promotes these activities, for me that wouldn’t be restricting society, but banning advertising could help protect some of the vulnerable members of society. And those who want to participate still have the option to do so, but instead of them looking to hook you you have to look for them. Is that such a bad ideal or would you rather we become inundated with gambling companies advertising and trying to hook first time punters who could turn into the next addict, and without that encouragement from the advertising possibly may of not made that first bet that spiralled into an addiction. 

I’m not sure how it works in the UK but I would imagine you’d lose in court pretty handily where I am trying to do that It’s a hard road to ban a company selling a legal product from promoting its businesses. You’d be doing billions of dollars of damage to major industries. Without getting into whether that would be good or bad for society, I think it’s unrealistic. Gambling in particular is deeply tied to the English game. The majority of the best 50 or so teams in the country have gambling sponsors, you can bet in stadiums, people play fantasy football etc.. It would also open the door for other things. Nike has had a problematic history with some of its practices for instance. What about owners from Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. with connections to problematic regimes. I’m not sure how much you can ban alcohol or gambling companies without opening up that can of worms.

[Palfy]

3 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

I’m not sure how it works in the UK but I would imagine you’d lose in court pretty handily where I am trying to do that It’s a hard road to ban a company selling a legal product from promoting its businesses. You’d be doing billions of dollars of damage to major industries. Without getting into whether that would be good or bad for society, I think it’s unrealistic. Gambling in particular is deeply tied to the English game. The majority of the best 50 or so teams in the country have gambling sponsors, you can bet in stadiums, people play fantasy football etc.. It would also open the door for other things. Nike has had a problematic history with some of its practices for instance. What about owners from Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. with connections to problematic regimes. I’m not sure how much you can ban alcohol or gambling companies without opening up that can of worms.

We have done it to tobacco companies wholesale in this country, even to the extent that we accept no tobacco advertising from other countries to be shown in this country. Gambling is what keeps our horse racing going without gambling it wouldn’t be what it is right now the gambling companies have bank rolled it for years because most wouldn’t exist without it. But as in Formula 1 Snooker and other sports who were bankrolled by the tobacco industry they had to find other streams of revenue support even though they said it would be the end of their sport if tobacco advertising was banned, it wasn’t, and that would be the same for sports and teams sponsored by gambling companies. 

[StevO]

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

I agree with all the comments about gambling as an addiction, etc., but there's an equally important point here: For gambling companies, sponsoring football teams is a conflict of interest. They have a huge financial stake in certain outcomes. Sponsorship buys them leverage, and it's only a matter of time before someone crosses the line and uses that leverage to affect the outcome of games.

I’d like to see gambling companies not being allowed to run bets on teams and players they are directly affiliated with. Would make it really interesting for Sky Bet.

[StevO]

53 minutes ago, Palfy said:

We have done it to tobacco companies wholesale in this country, even to the extent that we accept no tobacco advertising from other countries to be shown in this country. Gambling is what keeps our horse racing going without gambling it wouldn’t be what it is right now the gambling companies have bank rolled it for years because most wouldn’t exist without it. But as in Formula 1 Snooker and other sports who were bankrolled by the tobacco industry they had to find other streams of revenue support even though they said it would be the end of their sport if tobacco advertising was banned, it wasn’t, and that would be the same for sports and teams sponsored by gambling companies. 

Even as far as tabaco companies can’t even put their own logo on their own packaging. Just a basic black block with plain white text and a photo of someone with rotten teeth or whatever it is. 
 @SpartyBlue how would that go down over the pond?

[London Blue]

See Jeremy Bentham.

[MikeO]

30 minutes ago, StevO said:

Even as far as tabaco companies can’t even put their own logo on their own packaging. Just a basic black block with plain white text and a photo of someone with rotten teeth or whatever it is. 
 @SpartyBlue how would that go down over the pond?

And all tobacco products need to be in closed cabinets, so you can't even see them.

Plus a government-commissioned review a few days back recommended raising the minimum age to buy by one year every year, effectively making it illegal for anyone currently (or when/if it happens) under eighteen to ever buy them.

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/uk-tobacco-control-review-recommends-raising-age-sale-each-year-2022-06-09/

I gave up in 2001 after many smoking years, frankly I don't know how anyone can still afford the bloody things nowadays.

[Zoo 2.0]

10 minutes ago, MikeO said:

frankly I don't know how anyone can still afford the bloody things nowadays.

My first job was working in the Co-Operative and it was crazy how much cigarettes cost back then, especially when you'd have regular people buying them each day (sometimes more) so spending an absolute fortune.

That was perhaps 2011/2012, so I can only imagine how much they cost now with inflation.

[Palfy]

14 minutes ago, MikeO said:

And all tobacco products need to be in closed cabinets, so you can't even see them.

Plus a government-commissioned review a few days back recommended raising the minimum age to buy by one year every year, effectively making it illegal for anyone currently (or when/if it happens) under eighteen to ever buy them.

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/uk-tobacco-control-review-recommends-raising-age-sale-each-year-2022-06-09/

I gave up in 2001 after many smoking years, frankly I don't know how anyone can still afford the bloody things nowadays.

I gave up in 2006 use to smoke 30-40 a day Marlboro lights started at 15 so damage more than likely done, I honestly wouldn’t have a clue what 20 Marlboro would cost now, probably not enough to if people are still buying them. 

[MikeO]

16 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I gave up in 2006 use to smoke 30-40 a day Marlboro lights started at 15 so damage more than likely done, I honestly wouldn’t have a clue what 20 Marlboro would cost now, probably not enough to if people are still buying them. 

I started at around thirteen, could buy 10 No.6 for twenty pence in vending machines (10p-ish sized coins from my dad's foreign coin collection worked as well), then I went Marlboro and Rothmans. Stopped, with my wife, on Josh's 5th birthday when docs though he had asthma (he didn't as it turned out).

Around a year later wife started again and despite promising multiple times to give up, she never did.

"Funny" (looking back at it, wasn't funny at the time) story; June 2009 I did a tobacco run to Madrid for her, one night in a hotel, tour of Bernabau, 60x50g Golden Virginia pouches legally bought for way less than half it'd have cost at home. She then announces she's thinking about giving up again so, as an incentive, I tell her that if she gives up we'll sell it and she can spend the procedes on whatever she likes. Deal done, we sell it for probably around £600, don't remember the exact numbers but that's ball park; she then spend it on "house" stuff like blinds, curtains (which require work from me obviously) and other suchlike soft furnishings.

Week later she's smoking again

[SpartyBlue]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

You can argue that, and you're right. My point was you can't say that alcohol and gambling isn't the same. 

A few beers turned into a couple of bottles of wine for me as I looked for an escape from my issues. Eventually turned into a bottle of wine and a bottle of bourbon a day. 

Addiction is a very slippery slope and gambling is no different. That's what I meant in my initial reply, I just don't think you get it. 

But again you’re going from a few beers to an abusive level. For an addict of course any alcohol at all is an issue and can lead to some very bad outcomes. Most people aren’t addicts though. They have their few beers and stop and are no worse for it. That’s what distinguishes alcohol from nicotine or heroin. Those things, even in small doses, are poison. With alcohol you need to get to an abusive level before it’s starts to be physically damaging. 
 

This is not to say alcohol isn’t a dangerous and destructive force in society. It certainly is. It just isn’t inherently so. In the same way a sleeping pill isn’t inherently bad but 7 sleeping pills are potentially deadly. 
 

I tend to error on the side of personal responsibility and choice. I’m all for programs that warn people about the potential dangers involved with alcohol, gambling, fatty foods etc.. I’m all for programs that serve to help people who develop an addiction to those things. I simply think it’s a person’s choice whether they want to have a drink or place a bet and aside from age restrictions and the like they should be allowed to do so. I believe the implications  of protecting adults from themselves in matters like these is worse than allowing them to make a bad decision. 

[Matt]

9 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

But again you’re going from a few beers to an abusive level. For an addict of course any alcohol at all is an issue and can lead to some very bad outcomes. Most people aren’t addicts though. They have their few beers and stop and are no worse for it. That’s what distinguishes alcohol from nicotine or heroin. Those things, even in small doses, are poison. With alcohol you need to get to an abusive level before it’s starts to be physically damaging. 
 

This is not to say alcohol isn’t a dangerous and destructive force in society. It certainly is. It just isn’t inherently so. In the same way a sleeping pill isn’t inherently bad but 7 sleeping pills are potentially deadly. 
 

I tend to error on the side of personal responsibility and choice. I’m all for programs that warn people about the potential dangers involved with alcohol, gambling, fatty foods etc.. I’m all for programs that serve to help people who develop an addiction to those things. I simply think it’s a person’s choice whether they want to have a drink or place a bet and aside from age restrictions and the like they should be allowed to do so. I believe the implications  of protecting adults from themselves in matters like these is worse than allowing them to make a bad decision. 

I'll stop here, you really don't understand.

Edit: addictions don't start with abuse. They start at the harmless, social level, the occasional dabble/drink/smoke. But initial step starts a process in the brain. A lot of people can moderate, more than you think can't. 

[SpartyBlue]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

I'll stop here, you really don't understand.

Edit: addictions don't start with abuse. They start at the harmless, social level, the occasional dabble/drink/smoke. But initial step starts a process in the brain. A lot of people can moderate, more than you think can't. 

We aren’t disagreeing really. My point is that alcohol or gambling is not inherently dangerous in the same way some other things are. This is true even for an addict. One beer or one bet is not going to destroy your life. It is that addiction makes it nigh impossible to stop at one. It is the escalation and abuse of these things that is the issue.  In any case we’ve strayed a bit off topic so we can leave it there and move on to more important things like how big the script will be on our kits.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Several years ago, I was in a meeting with the then-CEO of Harrah's, a huge gambling chain in the US. The guy emphasized just how much they rely on statistics in their attempts to hook people as gamblers. For example, they offered free airfare to Las Vegas, free hotel, free meals, and about $1,000 in gambling credit for women between the age of 50 and 60 from the New York area. Why? Because, statistically, they would more than make their money back once that woman become hooked on a lifetime of gambling. No-one can tell me that gambling isn't addictive: It's part of the business case of these companies.

On a lighter note, he also mentioned the urinal effect on casino layout. If someone can see the doings of the person next to them, they won't sit at that slot machine - reducing utilization. So, they arranged their machines in circles so no-one could see what's going on at neighboring machines. Utilization (and profits) went up.

[Palfy]

The gambling industry spends 1,5 billion on advertising, in this country 60% of profits come directly from 5% of gamblers who are classed as problem gamblers basically addicts. Shockingly it is estimated that there are over 41,000 children between the ages 11 to 16 who have online accounts with gambling companies in the UK, this is due to highly visible advertising and the ease of how to open an online account. Gambling companies have been aware of this issue for years but have not changed their strategy because they are enjoying the higher profits this is creating. If there was ever a good enough reason to stop the advertising of gambling surely the protection of innocent children is more than a good enough reason, frankly I’m disgusted that Everton would go down this route for profits and in danger many youngsters with gambling issues before they’ve even enjoyed a care free childhood, not a good move from a club that calls it’s self the peoples club. I wonder how many children in Liverpool from the ages of 11-16 will have Stake.com accounts in the near future, and will well and truly on their way to becoming the next 5% of problem gamblers that the industry so desperately relies on. 

[Bailey]

9 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Several years ago, I was in a meeting with the then-CEO of Harrah's, a huge gambling chain in the US. The guy emphasized just how much they rely on statistics in their attempts to hook people as gamblers. For example, they offered free airfare to Las Vegas, free hotel, free meals, and about $1,000 in gambling credit for women between the age of 50 and 60 from the New York area. Why? Because, statistically, they would more than make their money back once that woman become hooked on a lifetime of gambling. No-one can tell me that gambling isn't addictive: It's part of the business case of these companies.

On a lighter note, he also mentioned the urinal effect on casino layout. If someone can see the doings of the person next to them, they won't sit at that slot machine - reducing utilization. So, they arranged their machines in circles so no-one could see what's going on at neighboring machines. Utilization (and profits) went up.

That isn't too different to supermarkets. They always put the essentials at the back of the store so that you have to walk passed everything else to get there in the hope that you will pick something else up as you go through. Its also why they put the sweets and chocolates and other things kids like by the tills, one because of the pulling power of a moaning child and two because us adults aren't much better either!

Ultimately whether its a brewery, a car showroom, a casino, a supermarket, or Sally that works the street corners they are all trying to get you to part with your cash. If they can find a way to do it they will do.