Leo Vegas......now dafabet

[SwindonCanary 455]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Does anyone know if it's possible to either remove the logo from the shirt or cover it up with a yellow transfer?

I've the old Norwich shirt from 1992-94 (you know the old scrambled egg shirt) My wife washed it too hot and the logo came off !

Now it's not got a sponsor on it. 

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

I've the old Norwich shirt from 1992-94 (you know the old scrambled egg shirt) My wife washed it too hot and the logo came off !

Now it's not got a sponsor on it. 

Certainly no lack of excitement in your house

[king canary 7,558]

11 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

You're right, of course. I'm just tired of all the bleeding hearts responding like this is something new and despicable. Football and gambling have been inexorably linked for many, many years - clearly the demographic that attends football matches or watches on tv is one the gambling companies target;  but I suspect any shirt sponsor from any industry would still attract people who didn't feel "comfortable".

Yes but it is hard to argue the link has gotten greater and greater over the years. A majority of shirt sponsorship seem to be gambling, you'll barely see a non gambling advert during a live match and you certainly didn't used to get live odds read out mid commentary on the radio as you do now.

I'm sure most people wouldn't object to going back to how things were only 10 or so years ago when the advertising wasn't quite so constant and pernicious, especially as now the ease of placing a bet has gotten so much greater.

[Bill 1,788]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes but it is hard to argue the link has gotten greater and greater over the years. A majority of shirt sponsorship seem to be gambling, you'll barely see a non gambling advert during a live match and you certainly didn't used to get live odds read out mid commentary on the radio as you do now.

I'm sure most people wouldn't object to going back to how things were only 10 or so years ago when the advertising wasn't quite so constant and pernicious, especially as now the ease of placing a bet has gotten so much greater.

and the days when each teams just ran to one end of the pitch rather than lining up, then shaking hands

[JF 694]

I wonder if any of the ones that are offended by this sponsor have a flutter on the grand national? Imagine horse racing or greyhound racing if you took away the gambling, there would literally be no point in it!

[All the Germans 1,073]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

 

Would your enjoyment of gambling be damaged if you didn't see 20 adverts per game for betting companies? I'm taking a stab at no.

No, it wouldn't but it would also not improve it by removing them. I don't think it would make any difference, as if it wasn't gambling adverts, it would be some other useless rubbish being advertised, which, I would ignore equally as vigorously as I do now.

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

I dont think I've seen anyone tell anyone on here to get some willpower.

I kind of did and I stand by it. Nobody is forcing people to bet.

[JF 694]

If the ads were stopped  I’d quite miss Ray Winston. I get a lot of amusement on how he pronounces ‘company’

[Daz Sparks 1,140]

I have no problem with our shirt bearing the name of a betting company, why should we lose out financially to make a moral stand.

BUT, I believe online gambling is in no way regulated enough, in fact it should be regulated to within an inch of it's life, the pervasive and insidious way the industry promotes itself is causing harm to a whole gamut of people. The wild west style "prospecting" that is currently allowed to happen in the form of the almost unrestricted advertising is sickening. Time to call a halt to the rampant profiteering of (some) human nature.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

8 hours ago, jaberry2 said:

It makes financial sense, so no need for pant wetting.

So does indentured labour, child labour, zero hours contracts and heroin dealing. Doesn't make any of them right though. I'm with LDC on this one.

[Daz Sparks 1,140]

7 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Firstly, can someone mature - probably a four- or five-year-old - take Fenway Frank aside and try to wean him off his obsession with these misnamed "glamour" pictures that keep getting posted.

Pretty sure FF is not alone, but I entirely agree with the sentiment Purple.

As a good friend of mine always said.  "It's only a hungry man that talks about food"

[king canary 7,558]

27 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

No, it wouldn't but it would also not improve it by removing them. I don't think it would make any difference, as if it wasn't gambling adverts, it would be some other useless rubbish being advertised, which, I would ignore equally as vigorously as I do now.

Yes but again it isn't just about you.

You've just said there is zero impact on you if there are less gambling adverts so why on earth would you object to the idea of it being properly regulated?

[kirku 1,332]

26 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

So does indentured labour, child labour, zero hours contracts and heroin dealing. Doesn't make any of them right though. I'm with LDC on this one.

Zero hour contacts are not in the same category as slavery, child labour and hard drug dealing.

As for the moral stand against betting companies, I get the viewpoint but its not one I particularly subscribe to. A vast majority of companies abuse people, the environment, or both at varying levels.

[greenTshirt 2]

3 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Presumably all of you who are so bothered about gambling companies being our shirt sponsors are busy cancelling your Sky and BT subscriptions in protest at all the gambling adverts they carry?

Thought not.

 

No need. It's been decided that no betting adverts will be shown during live sport coverage before 9pm in the UK - the new rules apply from this month I think. 

I think the club had a chance to make a stand on this and show that we were a bit different but alas they did not. I like a bet and always have done and always will do but the way betting has proliferated over the last thirty years with a corresponding increase in problem gambling, particularly among the Under 18s, is a real issue. Over 18s can take responsibility for themselves but the club has to take some responsibility for promoting gambling to the U18s even if it might be in a non-direct way. Perhaps a sizeable donation to charities helping youngsters with gambling problems might be a start, not least to help clear their conscience.

 

 

[Mr Angry 1,542]

For some this is a moral dilemma, for others it’s not-all opinions are valid. 

For those who have a problem with our club aligning themselves to a betting company-not that it’s the first one-how far would you go in showing your objections? Not buying the shirt deprives the club of income, a protest campaign against Dafabet would probably not achieve anything, a protest campaign brought to the club’s attention might make them think again but I presume that the contract is already signed and would be subject to penalties if we cancelled.

[Petriix 2,834]

9 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

I can order ridiculous amounts of food online as well for that matter, and nobody is going to tell KFC that they need to be more responsible in providing endless chicken to customers.

I really wish someone would tell them to be more responsible and definitely tell McDonalds to stop serving beef. Industrial scale meat farming is absolutely unsustainable and a massive contributory factor in climate change. I’d like there to be a habitable planet left for my children to at least have the chance to become addicted to alcohol or gambling in.

[Capt. Pants 4,194]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

So does indentured labour, child labour, zero hours contracts and heroin dealing. Doesn't make any of them right though. I'm with LDC on this one.

Me to. I don't have anything against gambling but I would have liked to have seen the club go in a different direction. Betting companies sponsoring football clubs is old hat and we seem to be scraping the barrel with this one. Dafttobet? Never heard of them.

At least we'll get shot of that horrible turd brown Leo Vegas logo.

[king canary 7,558]

2 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

For some this is a moral dilemma, for others it’s not-all opinions are valid. 

For those who have a problem with our club aligning themselves to a betting company-not that it’s the first one-how far would you go in showing your objections? Not buying the shirt deprives the club of income, a protest campaign against Dafabet would probably not achieve anything, a protest campaign brought to the club’s attention might make them think again but I presume that the contract is already signed and would be subject to penalties if we cancelled.

For me I just don't buy the shirt and don't partake in any of the 'offers' given out to fans via our various gambling partners. Not sure what else I could really do.

[Canary Jedi 573]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

I would have liked to have seen the club go in a different direction. 

Yes! Moral leadership not chasing the money (even though I understand it’s a business).

Imagine if the club wore the logo of a chartable organisation? (puts on rose coloured spectacles...)

Didn’t Barcelona or some big club do that with UNICEF?

[Indy_Bones 441]

8 minutes ago, Canary Jedi said:

Yes! Moral leadership not chasing the money (even though I understand it’s a business).

Imagine if the club wore the logo of a chartable organisation? (puts on rose coloured spectacles...)

Didn’t Barcelona or some big club do that with UNICEF?

1

Yes, and maybe if we had Barca's money we'd be in a position to turn down the best deal for the club in terms of sponsor in favour of this, but we're not and it makes no financial sense to do so.

[Canary Jedi 573]

10 minutes ago, Indy_Bones said:

Yes, and maybe if we had Barca's money we'd be in a position to turn down the best deal for the club in terms of sponsor in favour of this, but we're not and it makes no financial sense to do so.

Hence the rose coloured spectacles...

[kirku 1,332]

22 minutes ago, Canary Jedi said:

Yes! Moral leadership not chasing the money (even though I understand it’s a business).

Imagine if the club wore the logo of a chartable organisation? (puts on rose coloured spectacles...)

Didn’t Barcelona or some big club do that with UNICEF?

Which they then followed up with taking Qatari money, you know, the ones responsible for thousands of migrant worker deaths, barbaric anti-homosexual laws and legal slavery. 

But the UNICEF thing was nice, wasn't it? 

[NCFCInnit 52]

Disappointed I won't be wearing a Norwich shirt again this season. I won't be a walking billboard for gambling. "Family" club?

[Van wink 2,994]

Same arguments as when Leo Vagus popped up on our shirts.

I don’t like it and for me, as a community club, I would like to see a bit more social conscience.

[SwindonCanary 455]

If I like the new shirt when it's released on Saturday, I'll get it, no matter what the sponsor is, if I'm not keen, I'll go back to retro.

[Midlands Yellow 3,914]

If class A drugs ever became legal I’d imagine Premiere league clubs would justify going with big time dealers for the right money. 

Everyone has a choice but the betting companies want the next generation of addicts signed up ASAP . 

[splendidrush 698]

When I was a kid there were no sponsors on any shirt, I don't think we'll ever go back but for me the important thing is the badge. No sponsor will ever take that away.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

 

?

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Graham Paddons Beard
Deleted the post as lost will to live.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

We live in a democracy and over the years democratic governments have deregulated the gambling industry to where it is today. So whilst I understand people taking a personal stand because of their own morals it's wrong to expect others or our club to do so. The people who make these decisions at our club are charged with competing with others within the boundaries of what's legal in our democratic country. 

Some of the stuff I've read on social media questioning if we area community club because of this seems plain daft to me. There's a lot goes on in the world that is legal and against my morals but all I can do is make a personal stand or lobby politicians to make changes to the law.

[All the Germans 1,073]

16 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes but again it isn't just about you.

You've just said there is zero impact on you if there are less gambling adverts so why on earth would you object to the idea of it being properly regulated?

I agree it is not just about me, however, it was hard to answer your question, which, was directly aimed at me, asking about my enjoyment, without it sounding somewhat about me. Please see below for reference.

I have no problem with it being properly regulated and would obviously like to see that. However, the use of the word "properly" is the problem here as it is subject to interpretation. What you may consider properly, I may not. I do not see any problem with it's current levels of regulation. For the record, I have an account with virtually all of the betting companies (although most of them have closed / stake restricted them and I only really have 2 or 3 left).

23 hours ago, king canary said:

That is great for you. But advertising clearly works on some people otherwise these companies wouldn't spend so much money on it. Would your enjoyment of gambling be damaged if you didn't see 20 adverts per game for betting companies? I'm taking a stab at no.

 

15 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

We live in a democracy and over the years democratic governments have deregulated the gambling industry to where it is today. So whilst I understand people taking a personal stand because of their own morals it's wrong to expect others or our club to do so. The people who make these decisions at our club are charged with competing with others within the boundaries of what's legal in our democratic country. 

Some of the stuff I've read on social media questioning if we area community club because of this seems plain daft to me. There's a lot goes on in the world that is legal and against my morals but all I can do is make a personal stand or lobby politicians to make changes to the law.

This. Exactly this. I have no problem with people being outraged by it or not liking it, I simply do not understand it, as I do not feel the same way.

[Duncan Edwards 2,216]

Quite.

 

I keep reading how gambling ruins lives and undoubtedly it does and will continue to do so. The regulation is tightening though which will make it more difficult for people to get in so deep.

 

All kinds of things connected to big business ruins lives though and to which degree do we take our moral obligation as a football club?

 

The petrol engine has been bad for the environment, pollution has increased the number of young asthma sufferers and can be a life limiting illness. We should perhaps get rid of the car park. Especially as ease of access to motorised transport means children exercise less as they don’t walk anywhere, this in turn contributes to obesity and subsequently heart disease, diabetes...ruining lives. 

 

Large sports manufacturers have appalling history of sweatshop use and of children working for a pittance to produce their goods. Undoubtedly, that ruins lives. We should ensure thorough background checks on all players boots, match balls etc

 

Junk food ruins lives. We should stop selling pies, sausage rolls, chips, hot dogs etc

 

As for alcohol. Well, we know. Best knock that on the head too. 

 

Yes, I know I’m being flippant but as Nutty points out, none of it is illegal and in each case we’re doing as others do to maximise revenue. We’ll sell car park permits, crap food and sweets, booze, mass produced replica sportswear and have a gambling company as a sponsor. 

 

In fact, I’d be VERY surprised if there was a company out there that would be willing or able to offer us a sponsorship deal on this level that somebody, somewhere wouldn’t find morally reprehensible. Whether that be through the product itself, the industry, tax avoidance, labour or any multitude of other reasons. 

 

All we we can do is act as we see fit and be responsible for our own moral compass. If you feel that strongly about Dafabet; don’t buy a shirt and most definitely don’t have a bet. 

 

Personally, it simply doesn’t bother me in the slightest. 🤷‍♂️