Gambling sponsorship ban?

So hes making a living from it yet contributing nothing in income tax?
I don't think we need to worry about those "jobs" .
 
Jimstewart said:
Ok If I use matched betting, like thousands do, to make an income and do not have a job what do I do once affordability checks come in? I’d be snookered wouldn’t I because my turnover is massively restricted which makes it impossible to operate.

What If I use trading software to trade exchange sports markets to make my income and don’t have a traditional “job” and what do I do? I’m snookered again aren’t I because once one the the many trades made on a single market loses according to the proposed restrictions I won’t be allowed another one for a month.

What if I use software provided by the matched betting companies to exploit the mathematical loopholes in the bookmakers place terms on extra place and each way markets to make my income but don’t have a traditional job? I’m snookered again because the natural market variance which the likes of Carolyn Harris will never of heard of will ensure I will be not be able to operate.

What if I have a low to middle income job like thousands of others will one of the large bookmaking outfits who will be certain to commit to redundancies once their online turnover inevitably falls through the floor? I’m snookered aren’t I because there’s a global pandemic which has laid waste to the economy and the jobless totals are going through the roof. My family will undoubtably suffer and will be forced on to benefits. If I could I might look at matched betting as a simple way to make an income but hang on I haven’t got a job now and can’t prove my income.

What if I’m one of the many employed in the racing industry working in the small yards around the country or have one of the many small businesses that supply the industry and employ people? I’m snookered aren’t I because a reduction in bookmaker turnover means a reduction in levy and betting duty which means a reduction in prize money which then means a reduction in owners which then means that trainers pay staff off and don’t need to be supplied by the thousands of poor buggers who’s livelihoods go out of the window.

So when you are trying to protect the small minority of vulnerable punters (that already have self exclusion and deposit limits in place to try and keep them on the straight and narrow) have a think about the people that are about hit the buffers in all of the above ways.
For the many not the few eh? Bollckks.
Click to expand...
If you’re making a salary from gambling, you should be able to prove that income with deposits to your bank account. Of course the gambling companies won’t like that, but we know they’re crooks anyway. These kinds of measures wouldn’t be necessary otherwise.

I guarantee you there are more problem gamblers than successful ones. As I said before, if you make £1, someone has to lose more than that to make up for it. If you think this will cause more problems than it fixes because you and people you know will be affected, you need to look at the wider picture and see the scale of the problem. It’s massive.

Since gambling went online and then became easy to do through a smartphone, it’s become far worse and is showing no signs of slowing down. I’ve worked in banking and have friends who worked for betting companies. Trust me, they won’t change unless they are required to by law. There is too much competition and too much profit to be made. Self exclusion doesn’t work when there are so many companies to switch to and relies on the person admitting they have a serious problem.

Of course there will be some negatives, but in my opinion and many others, they’re far outweighed by the benefits.
 
SilentProf said:
If you’re making a salary from gambling, you should be able to prove that income with deposits to your bank account. Of course the gambling companies won’t like that, but we know they’re crooks anyway. These kinds of measures wouldn’t be necessary otherwise.

I guarantee you there are more problem gamblers than successful ones. As I said before, if you make £1, someone has to lose more than that to make up for it. If you think this will cause more problems than it fixes because you and people you know will be affected, you need to look at the wider picture and see the scale of the problem. It’s massive.

Since gambling went online and then became easy to do through a smartphone, it’s become far worse and is showing no signs of slowing down. I’ve worked in banking and have friends who worked for betting companies. Trust me, they won’t change unless they are required to by law. There is too much competition and too much profit to be made. Self exclusion doesn’t work when there are so many companies to switch to and relies on the person admitting they have a serious problem.

Of course there will be some negatives, but in my opinion and many others, they’re far outweighed by the benefits.
Click to expand...
A quick google tells me in 2018 there were 33.6 million active online accounts with licensed operators in the UK. If the figures of 280,000 quoted in this thread are problem gamblers that’s less than one percent. That’s a google search and if it’s wrong I stand to be corrected.
Please explain how someone earning a salary from punting can prove income from bank deposits when they suggested requirements are tax returns and P60s. Since gambling winnings are not subject to income tax this isn’t possible is it?
As for someone having to lose more than £1 so I can win £1 please explain how this applies to matched betting which exploits bookmaker sign up, reload and extra place offers? You can’t can you because it isn’t correct. And that isn’t how the sports books make their profits either. They do that by making a field book on any event and adding their margin (the over round) to the price of each participant. These margins are significantly less online and therefore more beneficial to the punter than say betting shops were the high st overheads mean tighter margins and a worse deal for the punter. Typically a uk horse race has a margin of 1.5 to 2 percent per runner. That’s how they have always made their money not by taking one pound of you and giving me a little bit more.

And this is the very crux of the issue we have people saying this should be banned and that should be limited when they have no real grasp of the industry and the many different sides to it.
If you extend this out to other walks of life expect limits on your drinking because there are problem drinkers. Expect limits on your fat and sugar intake because people have eating disorders. Help those that need help and throw as much cash as you like at it I’ve no problem with that but don’t punish the rest of us that enjoy it safely and even make it pay. And don’t punish decent people with the loss of their jobs either.
 
Some of the responses on this thread trying to defend gambling demonstrate exactly why it should be legislated, controlled, and advertising banned (personally speaking gambling itself banned, but I accept that isn't going to happen)
 
Malaguena said:
Some of the responses on this thread trying to defend gambling demonstrate exactly why it should be legislated, controlled, and advertising banned (personally speaking gambling itself banned, but I accept that isn't going to happen)
Click to expand...
Alcohol? Fast food? Porn? Breathing?
 
Malaguena said:
Some of the responses on this thread trying to defend gambling demonstrate exactly why it should be legislated, controlled, and advertising banned (personally speaking gambling itself banned, but I accept that isn't going to happen)
Click to expand...
It already is legislated and controlled by the gambling act of 2005 and has a commission that oversees it. It’s called the gambling commission and it’s currently under review by Ms Harris and her chums to see if she can have a little bit more control over it .
 
Jimstewart said:
A quick google tells me in 2018 there were 33.6 million active online accounts with licensed operators in the UK. If the figures of 280,000 quoted in this thread are problem gamblers that’s less than one percent.
Click to expand...
Everyone is sat at home because we are in the middle of a pandemic with an estimated mortality rate of less than one percent.
 
Jimstewart said:
Alcohol? Fast food? Porn? Breathing?
Click to expand...
Don't be so bl00dy ridiculous

Look, I get it, you like gambling and you're in denial about the impact ..... or don't care about the impact. Just because "you" are OK doesn't mean it's right. The more you push this the more it's evident there's a problem

As usual with the addicted, you're going to defend your point of view forever, and as I have no desire to get into a pointless argument, I'll leave it there
 
newusername said:
Everyone is sat at home because we are in the middle of a pandemic with an estimated mortality rate of less than one percent.
Click to expand...
Yes? It’s a global pandemic. Please let’s not equate that to having a bet too far. Over and out this place has lost its marbles.
 
Jimstewart said:
Alcohol? Fast food? Porn? Breathing?
Click to expand...
The thread is about gambling though not those issues.
Jimstewart said:
It already is legislated and controlled by the gambling act of 2005 and has a commission that oversees it. It’s called the gambling commission and it’s currently under review by Ms Harris and her chums to see if she can have a little bit more control over it .
Click to expand...
Good on her because it seems more control is needed judging by this thread.
 
Jimstewart said:
A quick google tells me in 2018 there were 33.6 million active online accounts with licensed operators in the UK. If the figures of 280,000 quoted in this thread are problem gamblers that’s less than one percent. That’s a google search and if it’s wrong I stand to be corrected.
Please explain how someone earning a salary from punting can prove income from bank deposits when they suggested requirements are tax returns and P60s. Since gambling winnings are not subject to income tax this isn’t possible is it?
As for someone having to lose more than £1 so I can win £1 please explain how this applies to matched betting which exploits bookmaker sign up, reload and extra place offers? You can’t can you because it isn’t correct. And that isn’t how the sports books make their profits either. They do that by making a field book on any event and adding their margin (the over round) to the price of each participant. These margins are significantly less online and therefore more beneficial to the punter than say betting shops were the high st overheads mean tighter margins and a worse deal for the punter. Typically a uk horse race has a margin of 1.5 to 2 percent per runner. That’s how they have always made their money not by taking one pound of you and giving me a little bit more.

And this is the very crux of the issue we have people saying this should be banned and that should be limited when they have no real grasp of the industry and the many different sides to it.
If you extend this out to other walks of life expect limits on your drinking because there are problem drinkers. Expect limits on your fat and sugar intake because people have eating disorders. Help those that need help and throw as much cash as you like at it I’ve no problem with that but don’t punish the rest of us that enjoy it safely and even make it pay. And don’t punish decent people with the loss of their jobs either.
Click to expand...
If your earning a salary you should be paying taxes and contributing to the services you use
 
Malaguena said:
Don't be so bl00dy ridiculous

Look, I get it, you like gambling and you're in denial about the impact ..... or don't care about the impact. Just because "you" are OK doesn't mean it's right. The more you push this the more it's evident there's a problem

As usual with the addicted, you're going to defend your point of view forever, and as I have no desire to get into a pointless argument, I'll leave it ther
Click to expand...
jam69 said:
If your earning a salary you should be paying taxes and contributing to the services you use
Click to expand...
Betting tax was abolished in the late 80s by the Labour government.
 
Jimstewart said:
Why stop at gambling though ? Would you welcome limits on your ability to purchase alcohol or certain foods that a harmful?
Click to expand...
Possibly if the harm was detrimental enough. You can't just have a free for all without controls because you just end up with something like this.

"Fewer than 3% of problem gamblers are receiving treatment, according to figures that lay bare the devastating effects on their finances, relationships and careers."

"There are around 280,000 problem gamblers in England alone, according to a 2018 study by NHS Digital, although a YouGov survey earlier this year found there could be 1.4 million across the UK."
 
jam69 said:
So hes making a living from it yet contributing nothing in income tax?
I don't think we need to worry about those "jobs" .
Click to expand...
Betting tax was abolished by the Blair government and replaced by a gross profits tax on bookmaker profits. So the taxes are collected from the layers before their expenses are deducted. These people employ thousands I assume you worry about their jobs?
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
Possibly if the harm was detrimental enough. You can't just have a free for all without controls because you just end up with something like this.

"Fewer than 3% of problem gamblers are receiving treatment, according to figures that lay bare the devastating effects on their finances, relationships and careers."

"There are around 280,000 problem gamblers in England alone, according to a 2018 study by NHS Digital, although a YouGov survey earlier this year found there could be 1.4 million across the UK."
Click to expand...
Yes from over 33 million active accounts. Why should the other 32 million be penalised? Help the people with problems but don’t drive them underground because you will make it ten times worse if the move into the unlicensed world.
 
Jimstewart said:
Yes from over 33 million active accounts. Why should the other 32 million be penalised? Help the people with problems but don’t drive them underground because you will make it ten times worse if the move into the unlicensed world.
Click to expand...
How are they being penalised just by having sensible controls in place that protect over a million people? The link I put up actually said 1.4 million people were problem gamblers and that was in 2018 - how many now? I'd guess it's 2m+ easily.

I wonder how many of those active accounts are duplicates, ie one person have an account with many different companies?
 
As a mortgage adviser I can absolutely tell you that gambling is become a bigger problem by the day. With any mortgage application we need to get a minimum of 3 months bank statements from clients sometimes more than that. Over the last few years I have seen numerous mortgage applications turned down becuase of the amount of spending on gambling outlets that appear on bank statements. This is a trend that is increasing in rate, not steady, not decreasing.

I had a couple who were trying to buy a house together recently who still had separate bank statements. Obviously I am unable to disclose information between them due to data protection and so when the application was declined by the lender, the guy asked me to lie to his partner as to why that had happened. I was unwilling to do so, but equally I couldn't divulge the specific reason to her. I had to make it clear that he needed to speak to her about the situation and make clear the reasons why the mortgage was declined, otherwise it would have looked pretty terrible if I had just told her 'its been declined and I can't divulge why other than you need to speak to your partner'. He fessed up, they split up and he got some help for his gambling addiction. Thankfully, they did get back together in the end but have a joint account where she can keep an eye on things.

These types of situations occur far more often than you think. I had another client that ended up in jail a couple of years back as he was a joint director of a Ltd Company. He ended up stealing money out of the business to pay for his gambling addiction, always chasing that one big win that would level everything up. Lovely guy, hadn't gambled all his life and had just happened in the 12 months or so before he stole the company money. A very sad situation for all involved, but a good example of how gambling is a very, very troubling addiction.
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
How are they being penalised just by having sensible controls in place that protect over a million people? The link I put up actually said 1.4 million people were problem gamblers and that was in 2018 - how many now? I'd guess it's 2m+ easily.

I wonder how many of those active accounts are duplicates, ie one person have an account with many different companies?
Click to expand...
Yes people have more than one account I’ll give you that. Like any other walk of life you wouldn’t limit your custom to one provider.

They will be penalised if they are limited to the proposed £100 per month maximum loss due to the fact that it will remove the necessary turnover needed to make a profit.

Bookmakers make around 15 percent gross on turnover from horse racing. A successful matched better of which there are many will need to turnover hundreds of transactions in order to get the required return on their stakes. Matched betting isn’t even gambling as it exploits bookmaker loopholes and offers yet these people making a legitimate income will be wiped out overnight if this comes to pass.
That’s how they are being penalised.
I’ve no problem with the deposit limits and self exclusion or even a reduction in advertising but proof of income requirements will massively reduce online turnover resulting in job losses in the industry and wiping out the extra income being legitimately made by thousands of people matched betting and trading .
And the very people that need help will take there addiction to unlicensed criminals where there will be zero controls in place. It’s completely counter productive.
 
Jimstewart said:
Yes people have more than one account I’ll give you that. Like any other walk of life you wouldn’t limit your custom to one provider.

They will be penalised if they are limited to the proposed £100 per month maximum loss due to the fact that it will remove the necessary turnover needed to make a profit.

Bookmakers make around 15 percent gross on turnover from horse racing. A successful matched better of which there are many will need to turnover hundreds of transactions in order to get the required return on their stakes. Matched betting isn’t even gambling as it exploits bookmaker loopholes and offers yet these people making a legitimate income will be wiped out overnight if this comes to pass.
That’s how they are being penalised.
I’ve no problem with the deposit limits and self exclusion or even a reduction in advertising but proof of income requirements will massively reduce online turnover resulting in job losses in the industry and wiping out the extra income being legitimately made by thousands of people matched betting and trading .
And the very people that need help will take there addiction to unlicensed criminals where there will be zero controls in place. It’s completely counter productive.
Click to expand...
As these people are making a living from matched bets but not contributing anything then forgive me if I don't see them as important in the grand scheme of things, good luck to them but iam more concerned about the destruction addiction can cause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top