Leo Vegas......now dafabet

[king canary 7,562]

3 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

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. 

I don't know how many times I can say this but...

Nobody wants to ban gambling. 

It is about how it is advertised in football.

You don't turn on the football and see wall to wall adverts for booze, with offers for free booze if you put X amount in a Weatherspoons account and offers for 'live in play beer prices' while the players run around in shirts emblazoned with beer companies and the club twitter account promotes special offers for free pints due to the partnership with a beer company.

 

[ricardo 7,328]

Virtue signalling getting out of hand on this thread.

If people are concerned with the moral issue then don't buy a shirt. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,216]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

I don't know how many times I can say this but...

Nobody wants to ban gambling. 

It is about how it is advertised in football.

You don't turn on the football and see wall to wall adverts for booze, with offers for free booze if you put X amount in a Weatherspoons account and offers for 'live in play beer prices' while the players run around in shirts emblazoned with beer companies and the club twitter account promotes special offers for free pints due to the partnership with a beer company.

 

But when the players run out on the pitch you don’t see those offers either? So is it the TV advertising you’ve got a particular issue with? I thought that was being regulated from this season? 

[king canary 7,562]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

But when the players run out on the pitch you don’t see those offers either? So is it the TV advertising you’ve got a particular issue with? I thought that was being regulated from this season? 

My issue is with the sheer level of it on all mediums. It is genuinely impossible to avoid gambling adverts in football no matter how you watch it. Live? It is on the shirts, all over the advertising hoardings etc. On TV? Wall to wall adverts (although this is finally changing). On the radio? Talksport give live odds as commentary progresses. 

I know it is radical but if we're really going to go with this self financed model and be upfront about not being able to compete financially and do things differently then lets go the whole hog. 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Let's go the whole job and fit in with your morals Kingo? Or mine? Or Duncs?

[Duncan Edwards 2,216]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

My issue is with the sheer level of it on all mediums. It is genuinely impossible to avoid gambling adverts in football no matter how you watch it. Live? It is on the shirts, all over the advertising hoardings etc. On TV? Wall to wall adverts (although this is finally changing). On the radio? Talksport give live odds as commentary progresses. 

I know it is radical but if we're really going to go with this self financed model and be upfront about not being able to compete financially and do things differently then lets go the whole hog. 

But, surely, the least intrusive of those is the shirt sponsor?

[king canary 7,562]

17 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Let's go the whole job and fit in with your morals Kingo? Or mine? Or Duncs?

That isn't what I'm saying and you know it.

As a society we a few years ago agreed that cigarette advertising needed greater regulation as the product was harmful and it was important to change the way it was advertised for the protection of future generations. I'm sure back then there were people making the same arguments against it as you are now. I'm confident in a few years time gambling advertised will be viewed similarly and won't be because they decided to fit in with my morals.

 

[Canary Jedi 573]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

We live in a democracy...

OT But these days I really question if we have a real democracy with a poor choice of incompetent politicians, plus the fact we are about to have a complete clown (assuming Boris gets elected) as our prime minister without the opportunity to have a say in this!

 I predict that one of our future shirt sponsors will be a major US pharmaceutical company once Brexit goes through and the large corporates get their way on the trade front. 

Slippery slope. 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

On 01/07/2019 at 13:31, 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.

As to betting companies, I am torn on this, because part of me thinks that if punters get in too deep that is entirely their fault. Whatever happened to willpower? But then there are reports that some betting companies deliberately encourage punters who are obviously losing money to carry on, with special offers and the like.

I would be interested to know if Dafabet has safeguards in place that actively prevent such punters, who lack the willpower to stop when they are behind, from carrying on throwing away money.

I may have missed it but I haven't seen an answer to this question. It would help shape my view on the subject.

[Indy 3,283]

I must ask if there are so many with a negative view, would you buy the shirt if they sold it without any sponsorship as an option?

[Petriix 2,834]

41 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Virtue signalling getting out of hand on this thread.

If people are concerned with the moral issue then don't buy a shirt. 

'Virtue signaling' is a phrase for those devoid of conscience and compassion to belittle people who genuinely care. See also 'snowflake'.

[king canary 7,562]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I may have missed it but I haven't seen an answer to this question. It would help shape my view on the subject.

A swift google suggests they pulled out of the UK online casino business it part due to new regulations and taxes.

Regarding safeguards, this from their website suggests all the measures they have are about self regulation.

At least they haven't had big fines as our previous sponsor did.

[king canary 7,562]

1 minute ago, Petriix said:

'Virtue signaling' is a phrase for those devoid of conscience and compassion to belittle people who genuinely care. See also 'snowflake'.

Exactly. 'Virtue signalling' just seems to apply to anyone who doesn't apply the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude to everything in their life.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Where are our shirts made? Are they produced in morally and legally acceptable factories? Our trainers? 

As soon as you bring any moral issue into sport in particular (remember the 74 Lions being issued with all kinds of governmental punishment for touring SA, and then welcomed back with open arms by the same government because they created a record winning series), you are asking people to make judgments and decisions they would rather not viz a viz those who would buy a shirt but will not because of the shirt sponsor.

The whip is withdrawn on this issue but the solution is so simple.

[Mutley 72]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

I must ask if there are so many with a negative view, would you buy the shirt if they sold it without any sponsorship as an option?

I for one Indy would certainly buy one. Why cannot the club give the supporters this option? I would be willing to pay a bit extra - the club could then make a great PR stunt by saying that they will donate the extra money raised by these shirt sales to an organisation educating people about the dangers of gambling and supporting those that are in recovery from it.  

[CDMullins 436]

59 minutes ago, king canary said:

I don't know how many times I can say this but...

Nobody wants to ban gambling. 

It is about how it is advertised in football.

You don't turn on the football and see wall to wall adverts for booze, with offers for free booze if you put X amount in a Weatherspoons account and offers for 'live in play beer prices' while the players run around in shirts emblazoned with beer companies and the club twitter account promotes special offers for free pints due to the partnership with a beer company.

 

But here it is one more time.

[king canary 7,562]

3 minutes ago, Mutley said:

I for one Indy would certainly buy one. Why cannot the club give the supporters this option? I would be willing to pay a bit extra - the club could then make a great PR stunt by saying that they will donate the extra money raised by these shirt sales to an organisation educating people about the dangers of gambling and supporting those that are in recovery from it.  

I'm assuming because the sponsor wouldn't be happy. They've paid to have the name on our shirts and will expect that to be the case. Give fans a sponsorless option and I reckon loads would take that up even without any moral objection.

[king canary 7,562]

Just now, CDMullins said:

But here it is one more time.

Well yes, if people keep ignoring it, I'll keep saying it.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

29 minutes ago, king canary said:

That isn't what I'm saying and you know it.

As a society we a few years ago agreed that cigarette advertising needed greater regulation as the product was harmful and it was important to change the way it was advertised for the protection of future generations. I'm sure back then there were people making the same arguments against it as you are now. I'm confident in a few years time gambling advertised will be viewed similarly and won't be because they decided to fit in with my morals.

 

But that was what you were saying. You also seem to be arguing that I'm in favour of the deregulation which has taken us here. I'm not. I liked how it used to be. Your comparison with cigarette advertising is not well thought out. Because as far as I know legislation was never changed to encourage people to smoke. But it  was changed to encourage people to gamble.

[Indy 3,283]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm assuming because the sponsor wouldn't be happy. They've paid to have the name on our shirts and will expect that to be the case. Give fans a sponsorless option and I reckon loads would take that up even without any moral objection.

But the sponsors are for the club and tv not really to be plastered all over the fans, though that’s a side which no doubt is attractive too.

Not sure what the sponsors contract states regarding supporters shirts.

[Orly 277]

Lots of absolutes in this thread.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  (bold for ironic emphasis).

'Virtue signalling' is often used by sunburnt people with union jack tattoos for deriding people showing legitimate compassion that they themselves don't feel.

It's also used by poseurs who in reality couldn't give a flying @rse about anyone or anything else other than their social media fortunes/appearance, so I see both sides of this uninteresting debate (pm thoughts and prayers)

In short, I don't care about the shirt sponsor.  There are laws against children betting already, and if any adult is sufficiently influenced to bet based on a shirt sponsor, and then subsequently becomes a gambling addict, I'm not willing to ignore the large swathe of personal responsibility that they themselves have abdicated in getting to that stage (that's not to say support shouldn't be provided after the fact, for all addicts).

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

Why not go the whole hog, and on the latest shirt's club crest, embroider 'CASINO CANARY' across the castle front, have the lion swigging a pint - and then adapt the canary standing on a bitcoin with its wing pulling the arm down on a one armed bandit.......Unique.....and so very, very, NOW!.....

 

......Oh and 'GAMBLING IS GREAT' stitched on the back of the new shirt collar..... 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

Oh and put a fag in the Canary beak......

[Indy 3,283]

It’s certainly a very emotive subject, given the fixing accusations in football, the gambling issues of former players, the restriction on players and staff of the clubs gambling yet they are a major sponsor in sport. Money is king!

[king canary 7,562]

26 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

But that was what you were saying. You also seem to be arguing that I'm in favour of the deregulation which has taken us here. I'm not. I liked how it used to be. Your comparison with cigarette advertising is not well thought out. Because as far as I know legislation was never changed to encourage people to smoke. But it  was changed to encourage people to gamble.

I have no idea what you're in favour of as you've not said- instead you've just wanted to tell me that you know what I'm saying more than I do...

[nutty nigel 7,506]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

I have no idea what you're in favour of as you've not said- instead you've just wanted to tell me that you know what I'm saying more than I do...

Only because you stated quite clearly that our club should run its business to suit your morals.

If you missed my opinion it's that it's our own choice whether we buy a shirt or not. I would like gambling and associated advertising to be regulated far more than it is but that's not an issue for our club. Not unless they comply with all the other morals of every Tom, Rick and Kingo.

Edited July 2, 2019 by nutty nigel

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

We're a community club up to the point the club can improve its financial standing. As a self-funding club you have to accept getting the most buck for our pound from our commercial opportunities is vital.

[king canary 7,562]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Only because you stated quite clearly that our club should run its business to suit your morals.

Where did I say that?

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

12 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Only because you stated quite clearly that our club should run its business to suit your morals.

If you missed my opinion it's that it's our own choice whether we buy a shirt or not. I would like gambling and associated advertising to be regulated far more than it is but that's not an issue for our club. Not unless they comply with all the other morals of every Tom, Rick and Kingo.

Do you agree with the new membership scheme and gambling sponsor, Nutty? Do you think it's befitting a 'community club'?

[KeiranShikari 1,403]

Sponsored Fulham to the tune of £3m last season, would imagine we've gotten a similar deal. Fraction of the overall TV money but it's still an extra few youth signings we might not have been able to make picking up a smaller deal.