Leo Vegas......now dafabet

[ricardo 7,339]

1 minute 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.

And how do you propose to do that? Have an anti gambling squad raid bookmakers shops. You cant stop people gambling, drinking, smoking or taking drugs. They will do it despite any proscritive legislation you attempt to pass.

Like most people I have indulged in some vices during my lifetime. I cant honestly say that advertising encouraged me in any of this. Bookmakers are certainly more comfortable places than they used to be. I can remember when they werent even allowed to have chairs and you had to lean on a shelf for comfort. I was probably more damaged by the smokey atmosphere than anything else.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

41 minutes ago, ricardo said:

They even print on fag packet labels that this product can kill you yet people are still buying it.

A fantastic comparison, I’m glad you brought it up.

Smoking has been declining in the uk for 30+ years and most dramatically within the last 10. There’s no doubt the efforts the country has gone to to reduce smoking has helped many to quit and prevented many growing up in this country from starting in the first place. Of course it’s not all down to regulations but the change in advertising, the constant information on the health issues and the fact they’re simply not on show have all been highly significant in reducing the amount of people smoking.

A great comparison is with Poland. Being born there means you are much more likely to smoke (around 25% do compared to about 15% in the uk). Their regulations are nowhere near as strict as here and the culture is different because of it. My wife and family are all Polish and moved over here 15 years ago. They were all smokers. Less than 10 years later, with more pressure on the seriousness of the effects of smoking, less places to smoke at work/socially and the fact fewer people smoke because of the regulations in place, I’m delighted they are now all smoke free and feeling the effects of cleaner lungs (and more money!)

Everyone will always have a choice, that is their right. However we should always be looking at how we can help those vulnerable to some of the nastier aspects of life. Gambling, like smoking can ruin lives. It now needs to be treated as much of a problem as smoking and have the same sanctions put in place to help those growing up from destroying their lives.

[ricardo 7,339]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

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.

There are thousands of items advertised on TV 99 percent of which I have never bought.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

15 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.

Of course adverts make people gamble, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

There are thousands of items advertised on TV 99 percent of which I have never bought.

Good for you. Unfortunately the worlds not full of Ricardos

[ricardo 7,339]

2 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

A fantastic comparison, I’m glad you brought it up.

Smoking has been declining in the uk for 30+ years and most dramatically within the last 10. There’s no doubt the efforts the country has gone to to reduce smoking has helped many to quit and prevented many growing up in this country from starting in the first place. Of course it’s not all down to regulations but the change in advertising, the constant information on the health issues and the fact they’re simply not on show have all been highly significant in reducing the amount of people smoking.

A great comparison is with Poland. Being born there means you are much more likely to smoke (around 25% do compared to about 15% in the uk). Their regulations are nowhere near as strict as here and the culture is different because of it. My wife and family are all Polish and moved over here 15 years ago. They were all smokers. Less than 10 years later, with more pressure on the seriousness of the effects of smoking, less places to smoke at work/socially and the fact fewer people smoke because of the regulations in place, I’m delighted they are now all smoke free and feeling the effects of cleaner lungs (and more money!)

Everyone will always have a choice, that is their right. However we should always be looking at how we can help those vulnerable to some of the nastier aspects of life. Gambling, like smoking can ruin lives. It now needs to be treated as much of a problem as smoking and have the same sanctions put in place to help those growing up from destroying their lives.

So what would those sanctions be?

Bearing in mind that making stuff illegal doesn't seem to work.

[ricardo 7,339]

7 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

Of course adverts make people gamble, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

If people didnt gamble there wouldn't be any adverts.

[ricardo 7,339]

7 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

Good for you. Unfortunately the worlds not full of Ricardos

It would be a bit boring though.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

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. 

 

I don't know what membership was. I'm guessing £30 and £20 for juniors. Is that right? So that's a massive increase if you take your kids to football. And having an away membership is an even bigger increase for season ticket holders who go because they  now appear to have had that £30 taken away. Season ticket holders also have the added "incentive" of seeing casual tickets being brought in line to what they pay per match. 

I didn't think it the old system was fair as it was and I don't see why season ticket holders should get any away points at all. membership was included in the cost of a season ticket so once they have that I don't think they should get anymore advantage over a member.

I think there should be just one membership for both home and away. Having two penalises fans for who have to travel long distances to both home and away games.

When I was an away season ticket holder for a few seasons it used to cost me £20. If I hadn't been a home season ticket holder I'm guessing it would have cost me £50. (£20 + £30). And for that I had to make a commitment not to send back anymore than 2 tickets. (I think it was 2). That was 15 years ago. So taking that all into account I guess £50 and £30 Junior would be fair for priority membership with standard membership at £35 and £20?

3m is a massive sum of money to magnanimously turn away. Our costs go up massively in the PL. It would put us at a heck of a disadvantage.

Anyway, this is all off topic and I still don't see what this has to do with being a community club. Or even a community orientated club.

BTW Kingo as an aside, Woodfordes gave away thousands of bottles of beer at the Blackburn game. However poor old Duncan missed out.....

 

 

[JF 694]

The comparison of gambling to smoking is an inappropriate comparison. Smoking literally damages the health of everyone that does it and also those around that breath it in. Gambling does ruin some lives but there are also many successful gamblers/traders that make a lot of money from it. Far from ruining my life, it’s given me a healthy second income. Also I’d go so far as to say I enjoy it. Each to their own

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

2 minutes ago, JF said:

Also I’d go so far as to say I enjoy it

Many smokers will say the same thing.

As I’ve said it is about choice and the option of smoking/gambling will always be there. I’m talking about helping those that for whatever reason can’t control themselves and ruin their lives because of it. 

With less availability and more awareness, people have chosen not to smoke. With the same sanctions, those with gambling addictions may find it easier to not gamble.

[JF 694]

1 minute ago, Fiery Zac said:

Many smokers will say the same thing.

As I’ve said it is about choice and the option of smoking/gambling will always be there. I’m talking about helping those that for whatever reason can’t control themselves and ruin their lives because of it. 

With less availability and more awareness, people have chosen not to smoke. With the same sanctions, those with gambling addictions may find it easier to not gamble.

The point I was trying to make is that the two are simply not comparable. No one has ever benefited from smoking a fag. Yet done correctly and with self control there is a lot of financial benefits to be had gambling. People die from eating fast food, I enjoy it very occasionally. Just because some are addicted to fast food and it’s ruined their lives does that mean it should be less available to the likes of me?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, JF said:

The comparison of gambling to smoking is an inappropriate comparison. Smoking literally damages the health of everyone that does it and also those around that breath it in. Gambling does ruin some lives but there are also many successful gamblers/traders that make a lot of money from it. Far from ruining my life, it’s given me a healthy second income. Also I’d go so far as to say I enjoy it. Each to their own

Yes it's a poor comparison. At the same time as smoking was being regulated gambling was being deregulated. As far back as you can trace human history you will also find gambling. So when gambling was regulated it was done in the clear knowledge of the pitfalls and the need to do so. Where we are now is probably worse than anytime in history because people can more easily do their gambling in a secret life between them and their phone. Even if the companies self-regulate they have no idea what other companies are involved.

[Indy 3,283]

12 minutes ago, JF said:

The comparison of gambling to smoking is an inappropriate comparison. Smoking literally damages the health of everyone that does it and also those around that breath it in. Gambling does ruin some lives but there are also many successful gamblers/traders that make a lot of money from it. Far from ruining my life, it’s given me a healthy second income. Also I’d go so far as to say I enjoy it. Each to their own

You’re a bookie!😂

[JF 694]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

You’re a bookie!😂

Wanna bet!?

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

How is it a poor comparison??

Theyre both addictions. They’re both done for pleasure (other than for making money for bookies). They have both ruined lives. No comparison is perfect but as addictions go, they bear a lot of similarities.

The main point of my post was to show the impact of regulation. Whilst never eradicating these issues completely, there’s clear evidence that a lot of help can be given to reduce those that are and will become affected.

[ricardo 7,339]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes it's a poor comparison. At the same time as smoking was being regulated gambling was being deregulated. As far back as you can trace human history you will also find gambling. So when gambling was regulated it was done in the clear knowledge of the pitfalls and the need to do so. Where we are now is probably worse than anytime in history because people can more easily do their gambling in a secret life between them and their phone. Even if the companies self-regulate they have no idea what other companies are involved.

I can see where this is a problem. In the USA many states still don' t allow gambling but I doubt it ever stopped anyone getting a bet on. It just increased the profits for gangsters.

[JF 694]

1 minute ago, Fiery Zac said:

How is it a poor comparison??

Theyre both addictions. They’re both done for pleasure (other than for making money for bookies). They have both ruined lives. No comparison is perfect but as addictions go, they bear a lot of similarities.

The main point of my post was to show the impact of regulation. Whilst never eradicating these issues completely, there’s clear evidence that a lot of help can be given to reduce those that are and will become affected.

Because no one has ever suffered a slow and painful death gambling. No one has suffered with a incurable disease through someone else’s gambling. No one has ever made a success of themselves smoking. No one is disputing gambling ruins some lives but the majority of people that have a bet and lose just move on with their lives, and some are very successful. You’re focusing on a tiny minority of people where smoking effects anyone’s health that starts

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

I can see where this is a problem. In the USA many states still don' t allow gambling but I doubt it ever stopped anyone getting a bet on. It just increased the profits for gangsters.

Yes I know. And it is difficult to regulate. And we are a hullava way down the rud now bor..

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes I know. And it is difficult to regulate. And we are a hullava way down the rud now bor..

 

And just to add there are people suggesting that deregulating drugs would be in peoples interest. Until it ruined too many lives I guess. Don't we always want the way we don't have it...

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

2 minutes ago, JF said:

Because no one has ever suffered a slow and painful death gambling. No one has suffered with a incurable disease through someone else’s gambling. No one has ever made a success of themselves smoking. No one is disputing gambling ruins some lives but the majority of people that have a bet and lose just move on with their lives, and some are very successful. You’re focusing on a tiny minority of people where smoking effects anyone’s health that starts

So nothing should be done because ruining people’s lives financially isnt important? Having seen the effects of both, gambling is in some ways scarier as there is more denial involved and help harder to be given and accepted. I am not talking about health issues as a consequence of smoking but purely the addiction. Smokers are well aware of what can happen, gamblers are all too often oblivious to what is happening to them.

[ricardo 7,339]

9 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

Smokers are well aware of what can happen, gamblers are all too often oblivious to what is happening to them.

An empty wallet is usually a sign.

[Van wink 2,994]

If we profess to being a community club imo some social responsibility comes with that, for me that should extend as far as ensuring our kids don’t wear replica shirts advertising gambling companies.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Just now, ricardo said:

An empty wallet is usually a sign.

I assume you’ve had no experience of it then.

[king canary 7,577]

23 minutes ago, JF said:

Because no one has ever suffered a slow and painful death gambling. No one has suffered with a incurable disease through someone else’s gambling. No one has ever made a success of themselves smoking. No one is disputing gambling ruins some lives but the majority of people that have a bet and lose just move on with their lives, and some are very successful. You’re focusing on a tiny minority of people where smoking effects anyone’s health that starts

But, and this is the question nobody has supplied a real answer to, how does regulating gambling advertising affect the happy, non problem gamblers? Is their experience negatively affected by not seeing wall to wall gambling adverts or by Premier League teams not wearing the name of some random Chinese casino company? 

[ricardo 7,339]

10 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

I assume you’ve had no experience of it then.

Unfortunately the reverse is true. 

It taught me a valuable lesson.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

But, and this is the question nobody has supplied a real answer to, how does regulating gambling advertising affect the happy, non problem gamblers? Is their experience negatively affected by not seeing wall to wall gambling adverts or by Premier League teams not wearing the name of some random Chinese casino company? 

It makes no difference to me. I'd like to see it. But that doesn't mean I want our football club to suffer unilaterally while it's all legal and above board.

[king canary 7,577]

56 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't know what membership was. I'm guessing £30 and £20 for juniors. Is that right? So that's a massive increase if you take your kids to football. And having an away membership is an even bigger increase for season ticket holders who go because they  now appear to have had that £30 taken away. Season ticket holders also have the added "incentive" of seeing casual tickets being brought in line to what they pay per match. 

I didn't think it the old system was fair as it was and I don't see why season ticket holders should get any away points at all. membership was included in the cost of a season ticket so once they have that I don't think they should get anymore advantage over a member.

I think there should be just one membership for both home and away. Having two penalises fans for who have to travel long distances to both home and away games.

When I was an away season ticket holder for a few seasons it used to cost me £20. If I hadn't been a home season ticket holder I'm guessing it would have cost me £50. (£20 + £30). And for that I had to make a commitment not to send back anymore than 2 tickets. (I think it was 2). That was 15 years ago. So taking that all into account I guess £50 and £30 Junior would be fair for priority membership with standard membership at £35 and £20?

3m is a massive sum of money to magnanimously turn away. Our costs go up massively in the PL. It would put us at a heck of a disadvantage.

Anyway, this is all off topic and I still don't see what this has to do with being a community club. Or even a community orientated club.

BTW Kingo as an aside, Woodfordes gave away thousands of bottles of beer at the Blackburn game. However poor old Duncan missed out.....

 

 

I think we basically agree on membership to be honest. 

For me a community club is one that puts it's fans and local community at its core. The new membership scheme was something the suggested we were seen more as ecconomic units to be bled for as much money as possible.

[hogesar 9,615]

1 hour ago, Fiery Zac said:

Of course adverts make people gamble, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

They might make a casual like me have a flutter. Do they make problem gamblers gamble more or are they already gambling?

[ricardo 7,339]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

But, and this is the question nobody has supplied a real answer to, how does regulating gambling advertising affect the happy, non problem gamblers? Is their experience negatively affected by not seeing wall to wall gambling adverts or by Premier League teams not wearing the name of some random Chinese casino company? 

It doesn't but if it makes you feel better campaign against it and don't buy a shirt.