Leo Vegas

[canarydan23 4,060]

"Since when has it been compulsory to play the lottery?"

Have a read up on nudge theory.

And as for he National Lottery, it is a cynical device to enable the government to reduce spending to facilitate tax reductions. As the majority of tax reductions since the 1990s have been focused on high earners, it is essentially a vehicle for shifting the burden of public spending from wealthy individuals and on to the demographic who purchase Lottery tickets. Sadly, 90% + of this demographic are poor individuals and a considerable percentage are the less educated who fall more readily for the "It Could be You" psychological traps.

I suspect few on here have a great deal of experience living among this demographic but there are millions of people in the UK who have genuinely been hoodwinked into believing that their most likely and plausible route out of relative poverty is through lottery tickets and scratch cards. What does that say about our society? Take a walk through any alleyway or route that connect council estates to a shopping area in the city (Plumstead Road shopping area into the Plumstead Estate, the footpaths and roads around Sandy Lane Premier are two examples I''ve traversed in the past fortnight) and you will see dozens and dozens and scratchcards; dozens and dozens of dreams dashed for another day, every day.

And all so the rich can pay a little less tax.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

My old Nan loves a couple of quid on the leo Vegas slots. It adds a bit of excitement to her day. She reckons, like with the lottery, it''s not compulsory. So she can''t understand what all the fuss is about.....

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Canarydan23 👍👍

[GPs Beard 0]

A fabulous initiative under the CSF programme - Street Life Soccer is funded by the "Big Lottery Reaching Community Communities" fund - which is entirely supported by the UK National Lottery.

[Van wink 2,994]

Indeed GP, as many other local charities have benefitted.

Trying to draw a parallel between a pretty shoddy organisation like

Leo Vagus and a national lottery, that makes a massive difference to the lives of so many people by providing grants to charitable organisations, is a bit weird, but there you go.

[GPs Beard 0]

I''m not getting involved in the argument chaps - but two other points .

The Vulnerable are far more likely (and many have) to lose thousands of pounds on Gambling online and otherwise , than buying lottery tickets .

And if we are going to talk about Taxation - perhaps we could discuss why LeoVagas (and many other Online Gambling Companies) are based in Malta.

[canarydan23 4,060]

I''m making no comparison between the National Lottery and Leo Vegas; the National Lottery was bought up and I''ve merely set out my opinion on why the whole thing is a con and a clever piece of Tory politics.

We''re the 5th largest economy in the world. We don''t really need to rely on the poorest members of our society being hoodwinked into believing they need to do the Lottery or scratchcards as without them, they do not believe there is any way to escape a life of relative poverty.

Lottery grants are maintaining our public parks, keeping museums afloat, sustaining charities on which people fundamentally rely, funding an elite athlete program that has provided Olympic success. The 5th largest economy in the world could fund this out of taxation from companies and individuals with the deepest pockets but the Major government did not like the sound of that. They wanted all those things but they didn''t want to create a tax environment that bought in the necessary funds; they certainly did not want to ask society''s wealthiest to pay for it.

No, what they needed was a device that could extract more money from the have-nots, but tax rises wouldn''t be palatable at all. There must be a device where we could willingly extract the funds from them; why not a lottery? Let them believe it could be them, sell it as a potential route out of a poverty that they need not be in.

I''ll give you some numerical context. In the 2016-2017 tax year, £1.6 billion was given the charitable projects.

In the 2014 tax year, Amazon UK paid only £11.9 million in tax on profits of £34.4 million on the back of £679 million turnover. In the same tax year it generated £5.3 billion in UK sales, but these were washed through Amazon Luxembourg to get around paying UK tax. By the same ratio as the UK figures, this would have amounted to a £93 million tax bill for HM Treasury. So 6% of the funding from the National Lottery could have been acquired if Amazon was taxed in the same way an SME in the UK pays its taxes. 6%. From one company.

In the tax year before last, Google allegedly hit £4.92 billion in UK revenues, but reduced their tax bill not much more than Amazon. So they would have probably accounted for around 5% of the total annual Lotto funding.

So, just by taxing Amazon and Google in the same way an independent British company pays its taxes, we''d have brought in over 10% of the National Lottery''s charitable fund, and the money would have been coming from people with deep, deep pockets, rather than people who are spending a significant percentage of their disposable income on something they feel that must participate in order to have aspirations for their future.

There are so, so many ways the government could raise £1.6 billion a year to continue funding all the Lotto projects if they so wished; however, they choose to do it in such a way that burdens the poor rather than targeting wealthy individuals and corporations. I think we all know the reasons why.

[GPs Beard 0]

"We don''t really need to rely on the poorest members of our society being hoodwinked into believing they need to do the Lottery or scratchcards as without them, they do not believe there is any way to escape a life of relative poverty. "

A truly outstanding piece of patronising Clap Trap. Everyone buying a lottery ticket (myself included it would seem ) does so a la Charlie Bucket as this is the only way in which I can leave my hideously downtrodden life ? Am I , and the “poorest members of our society” really that stupid? And there was me thinking I did it happily as a bit of fun, and also fully aware of the redistribution of wealth to good causes.

And presumably even though the Labour Government didn’t abandon this heinous duping of the proletariat during the Blair and Brown years I assume Corbyn would relieve us all of the “clever piece of Tory politics” immediately he gets in ?

Ha ha . Absolutely priceless stuff Dan. Certainly made the lunchtime Gruel go down a little easier.

Oh and good luck with changing the Global Tax laws – if only it was so simple as to stop international companies being based offshore. I can see with these practical skills you will have your own golden ticket out of here quite soon.

Lend me a fiver can you? OTBC

[Van wink 2,994]

Canarydan

“Lottery grants are maintaining our public parks, keeping museums afloat, sustaining charities on which people fundamentally rely, funding an elite athlete program that has provided Olympic success. The 5th largest economy in the world could fund this out of taxation from companies and individuals with the deepest pockets but the Major government did not like the sound of that.”

Not sure why you’re criticising John Major CD, when the lottery was set up it was specifically done to fund charitable projects that would not be normally funded by the treasury, it was the Labour Government that changes the rules to broanden the type of projects it could fund and has lead to the situation you describe.

[Making Plans 936]

If the poor unfortunates of this world didn''t squander their money on the lottery, scratchcards, betting etc then they would soon find something else to chuck it at and it wouldn''t be food or heating.

[canarydan23 4,060]

"A truly outstanding piece of patronising Clap Trap. Everyone buying a lottery ticket (myself included it would seem ) does so a la Charlie Bucket as this is the only way in which I can leave my hideously downtrodden life ? Am I , and the “poorest members of our society” really that stupid?"

Do you mind if I use your diatribe and use it as an example on the "straw man" Wikipedia article?

The Lottery is a stealth tax used to fund things that society expects to be provided but the government don''t want to tax people for. It''s a fact that the majority of participants hail from low income households, so it is a stealth tax being paid by those with the lowest means.

As for the motivation for those less-wealthy participants, I can only speculate, but I''ll form my opinion based on the alleyways on council estates strewn with scratch card tickets and the anecdotes from my local area rather than angry missives from PinkUn contributors.

And as for why Labour didn''t abolish it, it''s because it wouldn''t be politically expedient to do so. As I''ve stated, for many the things they daydream about stem from winning the Lottery. We''ve all had that conversation, hundreds of times, "If I won the lottery I would...."

Pledging to take that away would be political suicide. The PR job has been very effective.

[daly 501]

Without these sponsors how are we expected to buy the likes of RVW, Naismith Mulumbu etc

[Van wink 2,994]

daly wrote the following post at 03/05/2018 7:34 PM:

Without these sponsors how are we expected to buy the likes of RVW, Naismith Mulumbu etc

That really is a differnt question.I think the point of the thread, which I agree with, is if we want to be seen as a Community focussed club, which we do and which I''m proud of, we shouldnt be promoting shyster Gambling Companies like Leo Vagus who have just been shown up for being unscrupulous.There are other sponsors who would fit more closely with the type of club we want to be seen as.Its amazing to me that some of our fans who regularly remind us of what a great community club we are seek to excuse our association with this lot.It just doesnt make any sense to me👍

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Van wink"]

daly wrote the following post at 03/05/2018 7:34 PM:

Without these sponsors how are we expected to buy the likes of RVW, Naismith Mulumbu etc

That really is a differnt question.I think the point of the thread, which I agree with, is if we want to be seen as a Community focussed club, which we do and which I''m proud of, we shouldnt be promoting shyster Gambling Companies like Leo Vagus who have just been shown up for being unscrupulous.There are other sponsors who would fit more closely with the type of club we want to be seen as.Its amazing to me that some of our fans who regularly remind us of what a great community club we are seek to excuse our association with this lot.It just doesnt make any sense to me👍[/quote]

I have never seen you champion us as a community club Winky? Where did that suddenly come from? Perhaps you could take this opportunity to tell us what sort of club you''d like us to be seen as?

If you were referring to me as seeking to excuse Leo Vegas sponsorship then you''re a long way off with your spoon. I don''t like it. I don''t much like any sponsorship in sport. I can''t see any difference between us being sponsored by Leo Vegas or many of the other shirt sponsors in the Championship. You attacking the club for it is just fine if you don''t mind how much sponsorship the shirts earn us. I don''t suppose we''d get much of a deal from a nice garden centre. Perhaps Mousehold Garden Centre wouldn''t offend you. Or Hellesdon Barns even. What about a taxi firm? Bestway are ok aren''t they? How about Pratts Butchers? That could be interesting for opposition fans... 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Making Plans"]If the poor unfortunates of this world didn''t squander their money on the lottery, scratchcards, betting etc then they would soon find something else to chuck it at and it wouldn''t be food or heating.[/quote]

Boom!

There you have it. 

Why aren''t they vulnerable customers like the ones chucking their money at LeoVegas?

[mastoola 183]

[quote user="canarydan23"]I''m making no comparison between the National Lottery and Leo Vegas; the National Lottery was bought up and I''ve merely set out my opinion on why the whole thing is a con and a clever piece of Tory politics.

We''re the 5th largest economy in the world. We don''t really need to rely on the poorest members of our society being hoodwinked into believing they need to do the Lottery or scratchcards as without them, they do not believe there is any way to escape a life of relative poverty.

Lottery grants are maintaining our public parks, keeping museums afloat, sustaining charities on which people fundamentally rely, funding an elite athlete program that has provided Olympic success. The 5th largest economy in the world could fund this out of taxation from companies and individuals with the deepest pockets but the Major government did not like the sound of that. They wanted all those things but they didn''t want to create a tax environment that bought in the necessary funds; they certainly did not want to ask society''s wealthiest to pay for it.

No, what they needed was a device that could extract more money from the have-nots, but tax rises wouldn''t be palatable at all. There must be a device where we could willingly extract the funds from them; why not a lottery? Let them believe it could be them, sell it as a potential route out of a poverty that they need not be in.

I''ll give you some numerical context. In the 2016-2017 tax year, £1.6 billion was given the charitable projects.

In the 2014 tax year, Amazon UK paid only £11.9 million in tax on profits of £34.4 million on the back of £679 million turnover. In the same tax year it generated £5.3 billion in UK sales, but these were washed through Amazon Luxembourg to get around paying UK tax. By the same ratio as the UK figures, this would have amounted to a £93 million tax bill for HM Treasury. So 6% of the funding from the National Lottery could have been acquired if Amazon was taxed in the same way an SME in the UK pays its taxes. 6%. From one company.

In the tax year before last, Google allegedly hit £4.92 billion in UK revenues, but reduced their tax bill not much more than Amazon. So they would have probably accounted for around 5% of the total annual Lotto funding.

So, just by taxing Amazon and Google in the same way an independent British company pays its taxes, we''d have brought in over 10% of the National Lottery''s charitable fund, and the money would have been coming from people with deep, deep pockets, rather than people who are spending a significant percentage of their disposable income on something they feel that must participate in order to have aspirations for their future.

There are so, so many ways the government could raise £1.6 billion a year to continue funding all the Lotto projects if they so wished; however, they choose to do it in such a way that burdens the poor rather than targeting wealthy individuals and corporations. I think we all know the reasons why.[/quote]

isn''t this the same as ncfc asking for 3.5 mil to fund an academy?

[canarydan23 4,060]

No. Not even a little bit.

[Guest]

I think club sponsorship is an area where it is easy to make moral judgments based on your own feelings and beliefs.

But it makes for good debate as long as it doesn''t get out of hand.

I personally don''t see any difference between Leo Vegas and Fosters. Gambling and drinking have always been a problem for those unable to afford either.

[Guest]

Earlier this year English Premier League club Arsenal became the first major football club to sign a deal to promote a crypto-currency. It reached an agreement with the gaming company CashBet to advertise its CashBet Coin - used for gambling - at Arsenal''s home league games.

I give up!

[Van wink 2,994]

“keelansgrandad wrote the following post at 04/05/2018 10:33 AM:

“I think club sponsorship is an area where it is easy to make moral judgments based on your own feelings and beliefs.”

That’s a very fair point KG, it’s a matter of personal opinion, no right or wrong. For my part I feel that with the image we project and the community focus of the club, which is something hopefully most of us are proud of, I would prefer the logo and name of a more ethical company emblazoned across our shirts.