r00fie1
Well-known member
After a few beers theres some who do have all those things on their shirts!be much better with YK Chow, upex pies, jeff the chef parmos or lowcocks lemonade on our shirts
Government Considers Banning Betting Companies from Clubs Sponsorship
- Thread starter Zoophonic
- Start date
FatCat
Well-known member
It does look like there is a full review, hopefully it goes far enough and is not just a token effort so they can be seen to be doing something about the gambling issue this country has.
Under-18s banned from lottery scratchcards in crackdown
The ban from next October is part of "a major review" of laws to protect children and vulnerable people.
www.bbc.co.uk
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
They're raising the age for gambling to 18 by the sound of it.
Caesium137
Well-known member
I'm really torn on this, I agree with everything everyone is saying but............
If it is legal and people can engage in it (and the Government generate a healthy income from it) I'm not comfortable with it being 'banned'.
I hate the two faced nonsense of it, if smoking is horrific for health and ruinous to the NHS ban it. If cigarettes were a COSHH item that was used in the workplace the HSE would be all over it. Same with alcohol. And gambling seems to be similar, I also expect fast food and confectionary will get this treatment at some point.
But if they are legal and the Government are happy to take the tax..............
Does anyone really think oh, McLaren are doing well I'll start up on the Marlborough Reds next week?
Same with gambling, if no teams have their logos are people really going to forget about it, or become less addicted to it if they do start gambling?
It ties in to stuff in the lockdown as well I think, we seem to have an element in society that has a zero fuchs given mentality, gambling, drinking, causing chaos, on Saturday night at closing time, littering, fly tipping. We seem to be self serving and destructive in equal measure. Maybe if we had a better society we could have things advertised that were bad for us and not over indulge to the point of harm or even destruction?
I'm sure if tobacco and gambling were removed the black market would just take over anyway.
It is a tricky balancing act.
Except payday loans praying on the desperate at hundreds or even thousands % interest, that should be illegal from tomorrow morning.
If it is legal and people can engage in it (and the Government generate a healthy income from it) I'm not comfortable with it being 'banned'.
I hate the two faced nonsense of it, if smoking is horrific for health and ruinous to the NHS ban it. If cigarettes were a COSHH item that was used in the workplace the HSE would be all over it. Same with alcohol. And gambling seems to be similar, I also expect fast food and confectionary will get this treatment at some point.
But if they are legal and the Government are happy to take the tax..............
Does anyone really think oh, McLaren are doing well I'll start up on the Marlborough Reds next week?
Same with gambling, if no teams have their logos are people really going to forget about it, or become less addicted to it if they do start gambling?
It ties in to stuff in the lockdown as well I think, we seem to have an element in society that has a zero fuchs given mentality, gambling, drinking, causing chaos, on Saturday night at closing time, littering, fly tipping. We seem to be self serving and destructive in equal measure. Maybe if we had a better society we could have things advertised that were bad for us and not over indulge to the point of harm or even destruction?
I'm sure if tobacco and gambling were removed the black market would just take over anyway.
It is a tricky balancing act.
Except payday loans praying on the desperate at hundreds or even thousands % interest, that should be illegal from tomorrow morning.
JM14
Well-known member
For anyone trying to quit gambling football must be tough, I dont think we realise how much it is pushed in our face. Adverts on the TV, presenters giving odds, all over pre match radio, advertising around the ground/all over social media and even on the players shirts. It really is a bit much considering the damage gambling can cause to some people.
Caesium137
Well-known member
It is the 'some people' though. I have no idea of the numbers. If it is hundreds upon hundreds of thousands that are addicted and bankrupting themselves and their families then obviously action needs to be taken. If it is say 5000 people a year, does that equate to enough damage to remove the revenue from football clubs and the loss of possible revenue to the gambling firm itself (which tops up our taxes).
I don't know. As a species we seem to have a fairly addictive nature, for things that are good or bad for us. Some people hammer the gym, or run. Some hammer ice creams and McDonalds, most drink, some smoke. We then expect our government to act as arbitrary guardians of what level is acceptable and put up rules and boundaries around these activities that are deemed most harmful to prevent us abusing them excessively.
They could try taxing gambling like they do with cigarettes, if there was 50% special duty on winnings maybe most would think it wasn't worth it? Would probably decimate the National Lottery though!
Where as a society or as a government do you draw a line and have to step in to protect the population, or ultimately people from themselves?
Heroin use and drink driving are obviously bad, Bet365 on a shirt because people can't control themselves, I'm not so sure.
I can see the Jeff Stelling angle being unhelpful, you've got Sky Sports News on, rather than talking about injuries or form they're telling you West Ham are 10-1, I can see that leading to temptations.
But I'm speaking from a non sports gambling perspective.
Anyone had issues with sports betting where they impacted their financial well being?
Would seeing BetFred or 888 on a shirt be a forcible reminder and make you think about gambling on the game?
JM14
Well-known member
I think its more widespread than we all think, but yes I agree with your post though. I think the most beneficial thing to this would be to properly fund the services that deal with addiction issues so help is available to those that need it. Not like we can just remove all traces of gambling from our society.
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
i would love them to ban all betting advertisement on tv as well from ray winston to the happy lala world of bingo ads its absolutely insidious
Muttley
Well-known member
It used to be taxed but unfortunately due to the internet most gambling firms are now "offshore" and the tax was removed because UK based firms were having to compete with offshore businesses who didn't pay tax.
Well, yes. The same argument was used to justify tobacco advertising that it didn't convert new addicts but merely encouraged users to swap brands. It was a lie. They don't spend money on advertising just for giggles, they do it to entice people into gambling. Putting the logo on a football shirt glamorises the industry, associates it with the sport that you love and encourages you to "enjoy it more" by putting some money on it. It costs them a lot of mooney to buy prime time advert slots and to put their logo on a shirt. They are not a charity.
Laughing
Well-known member
If you look at the logo When the fun stops, stop, what do you see? The word FUN much bigger than the rest of the messsage. The legislation is a joke around gambling. Not sure what revenue it generates, but I would think a lot.
I like a bet, but it shouldn't be rammed down peoples throats and encourage people. The same is true of alcohol, lottery and smoking.
Attachments
I think we have form for banning the advertisement of things deemed to be detrimental to health. Albeit later than we should.
Haven’t they just done something about advertising junk food on tv, or did I make that up?
Ban it all, I say. The advertising that is. Then let people make their own mind up as to whether they want to partake in harmful activities or not.
Also, it is naive in the extreme to suggest advertisements don’t influence behaviour.
Haven’t they just done something about advertising junk food on tv, or did I make that up?
Ban it all, I say. The advertising that is. Then let people make their own mind up as to whether they want to partake in harmful activities or not.
Also, it is naive in the extreme to suggest advertisements don’t influence behaviour.
Caesium137
Well-known member
Think it was fast food between end of school and 1900 or something wasn't it? Or during kids programming?
Caesium137
Well-known member
Of some people surely?
Otherwise we'd all be sports betting if watch a lot of football on TV, and I don't.
So if it has a detrimental impact on say 15% of those watching do we ban it completely for everyone?
Laughing
Well-known member
It's more likely to effect younger viewers. Also gambling is typically a pastime of the poorer people in society. To rich people bet but not to the same extent as poor people.
Caesium137
Well-known member
Because it could bankrupt a couple of clubs? Do we ban everything that people can't control the use of?
Do you think banning betting companies from sponsoring sports that people who have addictive problems with gambling will just knock it on the head?
I'd say the suggestion earlier is the best one, regulate it so the adverts don't focus on winning / happiness. Enforce some sort of financial contribution to services that aid those struggling.
I don't know where the 'I think that's detrimental lets ban advertising it' argument ends? Fast food? Sugar? Alcohol? High polluting cars?
I say again, if something is 100% legal and companies are entitled to run that business, I don't think banning them from advertising is the right way to go. You can add warnings and stuff and regulate them from outright lying. Again, I don't know the numbers if there are a few hundred thousand people who regularly watch football on their knees financially because they are addicted to gambling then they need help. Taking Bet365 off a stadium name or shirt doesn't really help them overcome a gambling addiction for me.
Most people seem to be against gambling adverts and betting companies but there are many threads on here about horses and betting, and it was rife on the old board.
It seems like a sound bite or a gesture to look like they are attempting to tackle it, whilst doing almost nothing to actually tackle it.
Dunno, just my two penneth.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Good observation.
But betting by its mere notion is an invasive and and subversive act. As it does have a dog in the fight it does have skin in the game so it’s not a neutral so how it can sponsor the one thing it’s business is based.
The conflict of interest is incredible.
Hence me pointing out the calciopoli scandal.
Caesium137
Well-known member
That's my feeling too. It is a hard line to walk.