Potentially could extend it to other Championship forums, to get more fans involved?
not wishing to get into an argument with anyone either way on this, but there are lots of people who also like a gamble and gamble responsibly. It has been said there is no benefit of having these gambling sponsors, but I'm sure the sponsorship money we get in from them is higher than what we would get from a estate agents or solicitors. I know it's not purely about the money, but over the last few years it has helped. I would vote to curb things if for instance you could have the choice of the name or not on your replica shirt, but again I can't see that happening
People that like to gamble and do it responsibly (myself included) don't need advertisements, by nature of responsibility they will bet on what they want to not what an advertisement tells them to. I'm not against a bookmaker on a shirt personally its more if they are then allowed to start targeting adds towards supporters, i think boyle sports started doing this via our official twitter straght after we partnered with them (though ive not saw that in a while). When you mix that with normal emotions of supporting a club and drinking at a game etc I can be dangerous for people.not wishing to get into an argument with anyone either way on this, but there are lots of people who also like a gamble and gamble responsibly. It has been said there is no benefit of having these gambling sponsors, but I'm sure the sponsorship money we get in from them is higher than what we would get from a estate agents or solicitors. I know it's not purely about the money, but over the last few years it has helped. I would vote to curb things if for instance you could have the choice of the name or not on your replica shirt, but again I can't see that happening
Thanks for this. Many people know someone with a gambling addiction, and it can easily destroy lives. It's about time they were removed from shirts, there's no benefit and having children walking around advertising gambling companies is grotesque.
Children’s shirts don’t have the sponsor on.
I think the issue is people like you and me that might have the occasional flutter are not the target of those ads. We are just casual betters that don't provide the biggest return for the companies.not wishing to get into an argument with anyone either way on this, but there are lots of people who also like a gamble and gamble responsibly. It has been said there is no benefit of having these gambling sponsors, but I'm sure the sponsorship money we get in from them is higher than what we would get from a estate agents or solicitors. I know it's not purely about the money, but over the last few years it has helped. I would vote to curb things if for instance you could have the choice of the name or not on your replica shirt, but again I can't see that happening
Agree with you both, I'm not a twitter user or anything like that so only see gambling ads if I want to (i.e. going on a betting site) a blanket ban could make it work, but as you say that needs to come from the top, anything that levels the sponsorship debate gets my vote, saying that let's not go back to the days of Granada BingoI think the issue is people like you and me that might have the occasional flutter are not the target of those ads. We are just casual betters that don't provide the biggest return for the companies.
What they are doing is overloading people watching football with ads to attract those that have a problem with gambling to move from their competitor with better odds.
Gambling isn't going away and I don't think it should but they need to stop them shoving it down the throats of people that genuinely suffer from it. They managed to do it with booze and fags fine, gambling is next.
With regards to the financial competitive element, that's why it should be a blanket ban. Teams are obviously going to chase the biggest sponsor possible, if we all lose gambling sponsorships at the same time then nobody is at any disadvantage.
I'd get rid of crypto sponsorship while I'm at it too.
But if you watch football on TV you have betting ads before the game and then both teams wearing betting companies on their shirts with betting advertising going around the outside of the pitch.Agree with you both, I'm not a twitter user or anything like that so only see gambling ads if I want to (i.e. going on a betting site) a blanket ban could make it work, but as you say that needs to come from the top, anything that levels the sponsorship debate gets my vote, saying that let's not go back to the days of Granada Bingo
When the fun stops, stop. Try stopping when you've blown £500 on Blackjack on your phone at 10Pm whilst you couldn't sleep, and just stopping knowing you've spunked £500 away out of boredom.The companies thought nothing of exploiting me in my early 20s when I had a real problem with it and lost thousands upon thousands. Even now I still get what you could only describe as predatory emails and texts to try and get me back in. The TV and football advertising puts it in your face almost constantly and they know what they’re doing-most of their profit comes from problem gamblers or addicts.
Disappoints me we jumped straight onto it upon promotion and I don’t wear the shirt. If it’s really about fun they’d cap the wagers like they have at FOBTs.
But if you watch football on TV you have betting ads before the game and then both teams wearing betting companies on their shirts with betting advertising going around the outside of the pitch.
I can't imagine how difficult that is for people that struggle with gambling addictions and it needs to be legislated.
I think that the very targetted TV ads are much much worse than a logo on a shirt.
Anyways having said that, seeing BoyleSports on our shirt hasnt made me get a Boylesports account. If anything they've stopped doing stuff for us when in the first season they would send Cov fans £10.00 free bets and stuff (I think)
As has been mentioned though that logo on the shirt also means they target advertisements to fans on twitter and I'm sure other places. Not as in your face as the tv ads no but certainly more than a logo.I think that the very targetted TV ads are much much worse than a logo on a shirt.
The money for that logo ultimately comes from people with a problem. That’s the issue I have
Not always the case. I use bet365, I am far from having a problem.
I think you could look into a lot of sponsors to see if people have issues. (Credit cards etc)
They need to start with the targetted ads on TV first, you watch a game on Sky and you have them shouting at you to bet now on the next scorer etc etc with the odds. The issue is going to be that Sky also have Sky Bet (which sponsor the football league and have their logo on every team's sleeve anyway).
I think you could look into a lot of sponsors to see if people have issues. (Credit cards etc)
Are you equating gambling to having a credit card?
Are you saying people don't have problems with credit cards, payday loans and other types of debt?
Are you saying people don't have problems with credit cards, payday loans and other types of debt?
Which teams are sponsored by those companies at the moment? I know Blackpool used to but can’t think of others.
Sometimes it's better to do some research on a subject, rather than just make comments. There's plenty of well made documentaries out their now that are worth a watch, the BBC has one on iPlayer called Gambling: A Game of Life and Death. Discussions are pretty meaningless if there's a lack of understanding on the issues.
Not as many as betting now, granted. Same with Newcastle not using Wonga.
It was the same in the past with alcohol companies, but gambling now is surely the most common. I have no problem at all with drink but for someone who does the advertising and footy sponsorship may have been a real problem.
The companies know exactly what they’re doing and who to target, and it needs reining in. If you agree with that there’s no real debate to be had
That's the thing, every club in the Football League has Sky Bet on it's shirt already. All over the programmes etc just by sponsoring the Leagues.
They aren't going to say "You can't have Boyle Sports" while still plastering Sky Bet everywhere.
Then there's the issue of telling Sky they can't advertise Sky Bet (and others) while live football is on.
I thought Sky Bet was an unrelated company? Either way it should go too. Coca Cola were the first sponsors of the new set up and they were hardly a healthy choice either
Then there's the issue of telling Sky they can't advertise Sky Bet (and others) while live football is on.
Fair few on debt suicides too.
I can't remember saying who owned them?Sky Bet aren't owned by Sky, they are owned by the company that own Betfair and Paddy Power. See above, what I said about discussions being pointless without an understanding of the facts.
I don't think anyone is saying that debt isn't a problem, in fact many suicides from gambling could probably be attributed to debt - they are linked. This is a thread about gambling though, and I don't think there are any winners in an argument about what causes the most suicides.
oh noSky would lose a fortune also.
I don't care. I'm saying why it's not as easy as made out and a much bigger picture.oh no
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?