Leo Vegas......now dafabet

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, Hoola Han Solo said:

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

I like that this is a community club and wouldn't change it for the world. But I don't see community as something that can be measured by how it affects me or whether it disadvantages itself to fit in with my morals.

What do you see as a community Hoola?

Kingo, the paragraph beginning I know this is radical...

 

[king canary 7,578]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I like that this is a community club and wouldn't change it for the world. But I don't see community as something that can be measured by how it affects me or whether it disadvantages itself to fit in with my morals.

What do you see as a community Hoola?

Kingo, the paragraph beginning I know this is radical...

 

I gave an opinion of what I'd personally like to see.

By that measure everybody commenting on this thread is demanding the club be run according to their morals. Funny you only bothered with me...

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I like that this is a community club and wouldn't change it for the world. But I don't see community as something that can be measured by how it affects me or whether it disadvantages itself to fit in with my morals.

What do you see as a community Hoola?

Kingo, the paragraph beginning I know this is radical...

 

I think the membership schemes were poorly devised and aren't putting the fans first. I believe a more sensible pricing plan would have made it fairer. It has upset a lot of loyal and long-term fans. 

As for the gambling sponsor, I personally don't have an issue with it. I have had a couple of periods of gambling addiction. Thankfully they didn't affect my life insomuch that it just reduced my savings. A betting company logo isn't going to get me rushing to gambling sites, but everybody is different and I can understand the other side of the argument.

In my opinion we have a good community club ethic, but at the end of the day the self-funding model means we have to get the best deal possible sometimes, in ways that could be seen as going against the 'community' mindset. I am comfortable with this; I was just curious as to your thoughts on these two recent issues.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

I gave an opinion of what I'd personally like to see.

By that measure everybody commenting on this thread is demanding the club be run according to their morals. Funny you only bothered with me...

Exactly Kingo. You'd personally like to see the club run according to your morals🙃👍

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Exactly Kingo. You'd personally like to see the club run according to your morals🙃👍

I don't think he's actually saying that. I believe the gambling company is going against the idea of a community oriented club, as do others. However, I accept it's the way we sometimes have to do business.

[king canary 7,578]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Exactly Kingo. You'd personally like to see the club run according to your morals🙃👍

Well I'm glad we went on this journey to find out...I have a preference how the club is run, just like everyone.

Must do it again sometime...

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Just now, Hoola Han Solo said:

I think the membership schemes were poorly devised and aren't putting the fans first. I believe a more sensible pricing plan would have made it fairer. It has upset a lot of loyal and long-term fans. 

As for the gambling sponsor, I personally don't have an issue with it. I have had a couple of periods of gambling addiction. Thankfully they didn't affect my life insomuch that it just reduced my savings. A betting company logo isn't going to get me rushing to gambling sites, but everybody is different and I can understand the other side of the argument.

In my opinion we have a good community club ethic, but at the end of the day the self-funding model means we have to get the best deal possible sometimes, in ways that could be seen as going against the 'community' mindset. I am comfortable with this; I was just curious as to your thoughts on these two recent issues.

I don't see the clubs that aren't self funding making decisions based on personal morals either. Whilst I don't like where we are right now with gambling that's where we are. Morals are all very well but they are also individual. Who decides for everyone if something is morally wrong?

In my view the membership is not well thought out especially as it penalises families. I haven't brought one and won't.

It may be easier to get an acceptable scheme if we all approach it as a community rather than demanding whatever suits us personally.

[king canary 7,578]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

 

It may be easier to get an acceptable scheme if we all approach it as a community rather than demanding whatever suits us personally.

 

I feel a bit like you're projecting a bit with that to be honest.

The membership scheme in some ways suits me better than the points system- I can pay £50 and have a better chance of getting an away ticket than I would have had under the old scheme. I also don't have kids so the high cost of junior memberships don't affect me negatively Yet I'm anti the new membership scheme because I don't think it is especially fair.

People aren't all just self interested and demanding what suits them best.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I feel a bit like you're projecting a bit with that to be honest.

The membership scheme in some ways suits me better than the points system- I can pay £50 and have a better chance of getting an away ticket than I would have had under the old scheme. I also don't have kids so the high cost of junior memberships don't affect me negatively Yet I'm anti the new membership scheme because I don't think it is especially fair.

People aren't all just self interested and demanding what suits them best.

Yes but if you look at some of the statements made since you will see what I mean.

I haven't brought one but I also get why people have. Would have been better if everyone had brought standard membership but I guess that was never going to happen.

But surely we can't measure the community values of our club by the price we pay for memberships / tickets? Or do people really see community measured by what it costs them for these things?

 

[ricardo 7,341]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

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

Grow up.

[king canary 7,578]

9 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Grow up.

Says the guy who uses 'virtue signalling.'

[JF 694]

I’m struggling to think of a possible shirt sponsor that could afford to have its name on a PL shirt that wouldn’t offend someone, somewhere’s morals? Their money is as good as any to take. As pointed out by another poster on here, it wasn’t that far back we were sponsored by Fosters, were there these opinions back then? 

[king canary 7,578]

10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes but if you look at some of the statements made since you will see what I mean.

I haven't brought one but I also get why people have. Would have been better if everyone had brought standard membership but I guess that was never going to happen.

But surely we can't measure the community values of our club by the price we pay for memberships / tickets? Or do people really see community measured by what it costs them for these things?

 

Personally I don't think the new membership scheme squares well with the previous comments from our majority shareholders about how badly they feel fans are treated.

Community club is a bit of a nebulous term- it can mean different things to different people. Personally I would have liked to have seen the talk of valuing fans and wanting to see them treated better backed up with actions.

 

[ricardo 7,341]

Just now, king canary said:

Says the guy who uses 'virtue signalling.'

Plenty of it on this thread. Like I say nobody forces you to buy a shirt. If you object to the clubs attitude you are free to protest. You can even withdraw your support altogether. There are plenty of warnings about the dangers of gambling, drinking, drugs and smoking. They even print on fag packet labels that this product can kill you yet people are still buying it.

In a free society all you can do is give people the information. If they dont take it then its entirely their own lookout.

[ricardo 7,341]

8 minutes ago, JF said:

I’m struggling to think of a possible shirt sponsor that could afford to have its name on a PL shirt that wouldn’t offend someone, somewhere’s morals? Their money is as good as any to take. As pointed out by another poster on here, it wasn’t that far back we were sponsored by Fosters, were there these opinions back then? 

Disgraceful, should have been Peroni.

[kirku 1,332]

Generally speaking, the clubs that could afford to take a moral stand with their shirt sponsor are also those whose wealth typically comes from extremely unsavoury sources.

Given that Delia's money comes from savoury sauces, and the financial limits the club operates on, I don't think that refusing a record breaking sponsorship deal with a gambling firm to be in the club's best interests.

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by kirku

[Duncan Edwards 2,218]

If the £3m figure mooted on here is accurate it would only cost each season ticket holder £140 each and then we could sponsor our own shirts, leave them blank, print “Fresh Air” on them or whatever and the club wouldn’t miss out on the revenue. Everyone up for it? 

[ricardo 7,341]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

If the £3m figure mooted on here is accurate it would only cost each season ticket holder £140 each and then we could sponsor our own shirts, leave them blank, print “Fresh Air” on them or whatever and the club wouldn’t miss out on the revenue. Everyone up for it? 

Or we could just paint the players yellow and green every Saturday. Cheaper and cuts down on all that exploited child labour in the far east.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

20 minutes ago, king canary said:

Personally I don't think the new membership scheme squares well with the previous comments from our majority shareholders about how badly they feel fans are treated.

Community club is a bit of a nebulous term- it can mean different things to different people. Personally I would have liked to have seen the talk of valuing fans and wanting to see them treated better backed up with actions.

 

What would you have liked to have seen Kingo?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

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.

That site seems restricted, but thanks.

[kirku 1,332]

9 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Or we could just paint the players yellow and green every Saturday. Cheaper and cuts down on all that exploited child labour in the far east.

Ethically-sourced biodegradable paint

[Petriix 2,834]

33 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Grow up.

Careful there. It's below your usual standards to resort to this kind of thing. The world changes for the better because people question and challenge things they disagree with. Norwich is actually a highly progressive place (although notably less so amongst the football supporters). There is nothing wrong with raising concerns about the club's choice of sponsor. Trying to reduce those concerns to a throwaway phrase is, at best, ignorant. Maybe you could attempt to understand where those people are coming from.

[ricardo 7,341]

4 minutes ago, kirku said:

Ethically-sourced biodegradable paint

Certainly nothing from the Amazon or the Arctic.

[kirku 1,332]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Certainly nothing from the Amazon or the Arctic.

Amazon or Iceland would be fine though

[ricardo 7,341]

6 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Careful there. It's below your usual standards to resort to this kind of thing. The world changes for the better because people question and challenge things they disagree with. Norwich is actually a highly progressive place (although notably less so amongst the football supporters). There is nothing wrong with raising concerns about the club's choice of sponsor. Trying to reduce those concerns to a throwaway phrase is, at best, ignorant. Maybe you could attempt to understand where those people are coming 

3 minutes ago, kirku said:

Amazon or Iceland would be fine though

Their Magnums are cheap at the moment.

And Im not referring to a firearm in case anyones worried.👍

 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

31 minutes ago, ricardo said:

There are plenty of warnings about the dangers of gambling

You mean the throwaway comment at the bottom of each poster? The rushed through spoken line at the end of an advert? “When the fun stops, stop” is not even close to being effective at warning people of the dangers of gambling. 

Its the endless presence of gambling adverts and promotions that are the problem. No matter how many warnings accompany the adverts, the advert itself has already had its effect on those we should be trying to help.

You may not agree but I believe we (and obviously more so, the regulators) should be helping those that for whatever reason struggle the most with gambling, and at the same time be helping stop those vulnerable from going anywhere near it. It’s a slippery slope and stronger regulations and getting rid of the constant presence of these reminders of this horrible addiction would be a good start.

[king canary 7,578]

21 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

What would you have liked to have seen Kingo?

With the membership scheme?

Realistically I'd say keep it how it was apart from dropping the points held by season ticket holders for away trips down to about 500. I could see an argument for a slight raising of the price justified to offset some of lost income from the £30 home and away price cap. 

Idealistically, with us knowingly being unable to compete financially I'd like the club to try and innovate and see how certain amounts of the Premier League money can be used to benefit fans/the community. Whether that is a Premier League 'bonus' of £50 off season tickets (which by my fag packet accounting would have only cost the club just over £1m which is a small chunk of the Premier League cash) or turning down a £3m sponsorship deal (which again isn't a huge amount in the grand Premier League scheme) to put the Community Sports Foundation or similar on our shirts. 

 

[hogesar 9,616]

6 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

You mean the throwaway comment at the bottom of each poster? The rushed through spoken line at the end of an advert? “When the fun stops, stop” is not even close to being effective at warning people of the dangers of gambling. 

Its the endless presence of gambling adverts and promotions that are the problem. No matter how many warnings accompany the adverts, the advert itself has already had its effect on those we should be trying to help.

You may not agree but I believe we (and obviously more so, the regulators) should be helping those that for whatever reason struggle the most with gambling, and at the same time be helping stop those vulnerable from going anywhere near it. It’s a slippery slope and stronger regulations and getting rid of the constant presence of these reminders of this horrible addiction would be a good start.

 But what I dont get is ig someone struggles so badly with gambling then just the fact that sport exists for them to gamble on is a problem. I dont have or have had a gambling problem but if anyone on here has done, has an advert made you gamble more? Or were you already doing it?

Has a shirt sponsor ever encouraged you to use them as a service? I guess that shirt sponsors are a very poor conversion of new leads and are in fact more reinforcements of existing brands or targeting people who are already using or purchasing from that industry to use that particular company.

[kirku 1,332]

21 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Their Magnums are cheap at the moment.

 

Stop encouraging cheap drinking, you monster.

[king canary 7,578]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

 But what I dont get is ig someone struggles so badly with gambling then just the fact that sport exists for them to gamble on is a problem. I dont have or have had a gambling problem but if anyone on here has done, has an advert made you gamble more? Or were you already doing it?

Has a shirt sponsor ever encouraged you to use them as a service? I guess that shirt sponsors are a very poor conversion of new leads and are in fact more reinforcements of existing brands or targeting people who are already using or purchasing from that industry to use that particular company.

I'm going to assume the industry wouldn't be spending the amount of money they do on advertising if it doesn't make people gamble more.