New Shirt Sponsor

[MikeO]

32 minutes ago, Matt said:

Dunno mate. Tobacco was definitely a government thing across the country but dunno about booze. 

On the run at the moment hence my short replies. Connection is sketchy. 

Alcohol shirt sponsorship isn't actually banned, it's just disappeared in recent years. From a 2018 article...

"The Premier League itself was sponsored by Carling from its second season until 2001, known as the FA Carling Premiership.

Companies selling alcoholic drinks peaked relatively early in its history, but have been almost ever-present, with only last season and this one having no club sponsored by a drinks company. In total there have been 62 seasons of alcohol sponsorship.

The season with the largest number of alcohol sponsorship deals was 1994-95 with six: McEwans at Blackburn, Coors at Chelsea, Carlsberg, which sponsored Liverpool for the first 18 years of the Premier League, Newcastle Brown at Newcastle, Labatt's at Nottingham Forest and Holsten at Spurs.

Alcohol sponsorship went out of fashion in recent years, with Chang Beer's 13-year deal with Everton being the league's only one after 2010.

The Portman Group, which represents drinks producers, has a code of practice for alcohol companies wanting to get involved in sports sponsorship."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45440347

[Zoo 2.0]

5 hours ago, Matt said:

Both destroy lives, profit off peoples misery and misguided notions. Sure, the majority of clients are sensible people but there's a growing minority that cause suffering.

Not too dissimilar. 

So does Burger King, but I believe that people wouldn't be up in arms about a fast food chain sponsoring the club.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, Zoo 2.0 said:

So does Burger King, but I believe that people wouldn't be up in arms about a fast food chain sponsoring the club.

There are conditions for fast food advertising already, stricter restrictions coming next year too. 

[SpartyBlue]

58 minutes ago, Matt said:

There are conditions for fast food advertising already, stricter restrictions coming next year too. 

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. 

[London Blue]

56 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

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. 

Sports in general and Everton in particular (thanks to the ethos as the peoples club and the work of EITC) have a reputation of helping society, being basically good. Sponsorship by most firms is fine, but when their products that company is selling a product or service that can harm society then the club in my opinion has the responsibility not to take sponsorship from them.

Gambling, alcohol, fast food, all to one degree or another harm some people, therefore we should not have them as sponsors. The fitness test the Premier league has for owners is far too weak but it is a step in the right direction, and yes you can argue that its hypocritical of us to turn our noses up at sponsorship from a gambling company and have taken money from Usmanov, but two wrongs dont make a right, otherwise where do you draw the line?

[Shukes]

15 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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

Control. People get into serious trouble gambling with money they don’t have. Family’s are split, children left without parents, the list goes in mate. 
 

We all like to think that as an adult we are educated enough to make correct decisions, but the reality is we are human. We as a species make mistakes time and time again. 
I know full well as I’m one of the worth for it haha.

Your right, there is a thin line between how deep to go. But I see it as wearing a seat belt in a car. In no way will it save you in a head on crash…. But it will give you an extra few percentage chance of survival. 
There are so many things wrong in this world, but if we can cut out one small thing at a time…. Then I feel we are obliged to do so.

Bet you £100 sanctions are put in place over the next two years against it!

[Matt]

12 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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. 

The reason isn't getting less and less, its getting more evidence to justify the bans and restrictions. 

I was never comfortable with the USM connection, I wasn't comfortable with Moshiris approach. 

Think we've already done this dance though. I don't agree with putting things in people's faces when a growing minority will potentially start or worse relapse. Its that simple for me.  

[Zoo 2.0]

6 hours ago, Shukes said:

Bet you £100 sanctions are put in place over the next two years against it!

The new sponsor already having an effect - get rid!

[SpartyBlue]

7 hours ago, Shukes said:

Control. People get into serious trouble gambling with money they don’t have. Family’s are split, children left without parents, the list goes in mate. 
 

We all like to think that as an adult we are educated enough to make correct decisions, but the reality is we are human. We as a species make mistakes time and time again. 
I know full well as I’m one of the worth for it haha.

Your right, there is a thin line between how deep to go. But I see it as wearing a seat belt in a car. In no way will it save you in a head on crash…. But it will give you an extra few percentage chance of survival. 
There are so many things wrong in this world, but if we can cut out one small thing at a time…. Then I feel we are obliged to do so.

Bet you £100 sanctions are put in place over the next two years against it!

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..). 

[SpartyBlue]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

The reason isn't getting less and less, its getting more evidence to justify the bans and restrictions. 

I was never comfortable with the USM connection, I wasn't comfortable with Moshiris approach. 

Think we've already done this dance though. I don't agree with putting things in people's faces when a growing minority will potentially start or worse relapse. Its that simple for me.  

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). 

[MikeO]

11 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

(smoking ads near a school, for instance)

Blanket ban on smoking advertising everywhere here, they're not even allowed to be on display in shops; have to be in closed cabinets.

[SpartyBlue]

16 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Blanket ban on smoking advertising everywhere here, they're not even allowed to be on display in shops; have to be in closed cabinets.

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. 

[Gwlad]

Supporting Everton should carry a health warning.

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Gwlad all over said:

Supporting Everton should carry a health warning.

I feel like we all should all get free funeral cover. 

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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. 

What about banning gambling advertising in this country to protect children between 11-16 who have opened accounts on line, we are estimated to be at 41,000 and rising. 

[SpartyBlue]

8 minutes ago, Palfy said:

What about banning gambling advertising in this country to protect children between 11-16 who have opened accounts on line, we are estimated to be at 41,000 and rising. 

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. 

[Shukes]

9 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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. 

Football shirts mate. Children idolise their favourite teams and players. 
The get upset when they can’t have the same sponsor on their top….. because that advertisement is literally there every time they see their club!

I know you don’t think it counts, but for me it does. I have children and they want exactly the same shirt. I have to explain to them why they can’t. 

[SpartyBlue]

8 hours ago, Shukes said:

Football shirts mate. Children idolise their favourite teams and players. 
The get upset when they can’t have the same sponsor on their top….. because that advertisement is literally there every time they see their club!

I know you don’t think it counts, but for me it does. I have children and they want exactly the same shirt. I have to explain to them why they can’t. 

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?

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

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?

Second one.

[SpartyBlue]

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

Second one.

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.

[Palfy]

19 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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. 

I don’t know the definitive answer for how they estimate the number of kids with betting accounts, but I will look into it and see if I can get some answers. Children do have bank accounts that come with charge cards, and maybe some open on line accounts illegally with banks as they obviously do with gambling sites by fabricating their age. The fact is children are being introduced to gambling sites by heavy advertising portraying gambling as fun, with most giving the warning when it stops becoming fun stop, which is really saying gambling is fun. If there was no gambling advertising do you still think that the figures reported would be as high as they are for children. The selling of tobacco is a legal business in this country but any form of advertising has a complete ban, and yes many children still start smoking but they haven’t been hooked by the advertising industry, they have started smoking because they see their peers doing it whether rock stars parents or sports stars, they are learning by being surrounded by people who smoke. If gambling sites weren’t allowed to advertise they would struggle to learn the existence of places that take bets which would protect them going down that route, and because they aren’t going to witness their peers participating in the act of placing a bet they aren’t going to be immersed in the gambling culture by others. 41,000 children in this country haven’t been introduced into gambling by their parents it’s been because of advertising. 

[Shukes]

3 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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 get that.

But I do have Everton kids haha, and for me…. I don’t want them seeing cigarettes, Gambling, alcohol or various other things advertised. I would much rather they have as little as possible exposure to them. 
 

Not saying my views are right or wrong, but they are mine and they clear for me. I respect yours also.

[Romey 1878]

Newcastle’s new sleeve sponsor (£7.5m) isn’t far off our record main sponsor  .

[SpartyBlue]

3 hours ago, Shukes said:

I get that.

But I do have Everton kids haha, and for me…. I don’t want them seeing cigarettes, Gambling, alcohol or various other things advertised. I would much rather they have as little as possible exposure to them. 
 

Not saying my views are right or wrong, but they are mine and they clear for me. I respect yours also.

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). 

[StevO]

2 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

But football is not really for kids, 

I think you’re confusing kids with girls!

[Matt]

5 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

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). 

It's an industry that relies on fans. Fans are introduced at an early age to the game as kids, kids that nag parents to play in the park or streets in the kit of their on-field idols, kids who will argue over who theyre "going to be" as they're setting up a makeshift pitch in what spec of  . Those kids grow up and the cycle continues. Kids are fundamental to the industry. 

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, StevO said:

I think you’re confusing kids with girls!

Now I think your confusing football with Yorkie’s “ there not for girls”

[SpartyBlue]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

It's an industry that relies on fans. Fans are introduced at an early age to the game as kids, kids that nag parents to play in the park or streets in the kit of their on-field idols, kids who will argue over who theyre "going to be" as they're setting up a makeshift pitch in what spec of  . Those kids grow up and the cycle continues. Kids are fundamental to the industry. 

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.

[Matt]

Then I don't know how to discuss this with you further

 

[MikeO]

Palfy asked me to post this link.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/effect-gambling-advertising-children-young-people-and-vulnerable-adults