Sure Thing
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Sure Thing
https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2021/septem ... ing-links/
Club has announced no more gambling partnerships, and no more on site kiosks.
What do we reckon?
I'm definitely for no more sponsorships etc. Not sure about the kiosks. Not sure that's really the problem. But hey ho.
Club has announced no more gambling partnerships, and no more on site kiosks.
What do we reckon?
I'm definitely for no more sponsorships etc. Not sure about the kiosks. Not sure that's really the problem. But hey ho.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32416
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Sure Thing
Does anyone still use bookies/kiosks? Thought they'd onlined it all, so not sure that's a biggie. I'm good with seeking sponsorships outside of betting companies, but doesn't bother me one way or t'other...
Re: Sure Thing
I find it a bit odd to be honest. We’re happy to take money from car and junk food companies, but are making a big song and dance about disassociating with betting firms. Which of those industries do you think is most detrimental to society?
Re: Sure Thing
I suspect that the availability online has meant that the setup inside stadiums isn't as attractive a proposition and therefore we've had lower offerings for positioning within the ground. Given the value of the proposition is less and the chance to make some steps towards addressing addictions is available I think its probably a reasonable step.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43246
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Sure Thing
My View. Poor Bookies are as rare as chocolate teapots.Mar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:52 am
I suspect that the availability online has meant that the setup inside stadiums isn't as attractive a proposition and therefore we've had lower offerings for positioning within the ground. Given the value of the proposition is less and the chance to make some steps towards addressing addictions is available I think its probably a reasonable step.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Sure Thing
You know what I find odd - this view right here.
If I have £100 to donate to charity - I might pick say - feeding hungry kids. But then you'd say 'what about cancer, what about kids abroad, what about child cruelty, what about old people dying of cold etc etc'. So is the response to that to keep my £100 in my pocket and say 'I'm doing nowt'?
The club is taking a stand on betting because presumably it can and it matters to those involved. I've never had a gambling addiction and don't bet on football (or anything else) so to me its absolutely no difference. When the club was financially in peril I don't think we had the luxury of deciding against sponsors but now if FV feel we can be selective then why wouldn't they?
As for most damaging to society - they all are - but football is more intimately tied to gambling than it is to cars or junk food so it makes sense it would be something they'd maybe look at if they were that way inclined.
When people do a good thing why is the response always that they are doing a good thing but not a million good things? That just makes no sense at all.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43246
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Sure Thing
A good thing/deed,however small, is one more than when you didn't do it. The sizeable amounts raised by events like the recent football one and Save the Children prove people care and give. Every one is important.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:40 am
When people do a good thing why is the response always that they are doing a good thing but not a million good things? That just makes no sense at all.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: Sure Thing
Good luck gambling online from the Reebok!Mar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:52 amI suspect that the availability online has meant that the setup inside stadiums isn't as attractive a proposition and therefore we've had lower offerings for positioning within the ground. Given the value of the proposition is less and the chance to make some steps towards addressing addictions is available I think its probably a reasonable step.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9109
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: Sure Thing
Am i still ok to carry on with golden gamble, golden goal,lifeline and goldline?
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
Re: Sure Thing
The success of your analogy is entirely predicated on the belief that cutting ties with gambling firms is a 'good' thing, which is in turn presumably based on the notion that betting is a 'bad' thing. I fundamentally do not believe this to be the case, and as the vast majority of punters bet safely and responsibly, betting is likely to be at worst neutral, but far more likely a net benefit for society.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:40 amYou know what I find odd - this view right here.
If I have £100 to donate to charity - I might pick say - feeding hungry kids. But then you'd say 'what about cancer, what about kids abroad, what about child cruelty, what about old people dying of cold etc etc'. So is the response to that to keep my £100 in my pocket and say 'I'm doing nowt'?
The club is taking a stand on betting because presumably it can and it matters to those involved. I've never had a gambling addiction and don't bet on football (or anything else) so to me its absolutely no difference. When the club was financially in peril I don't think we had the luxury of deciding against sponsors but now if FV feel we can be selective then why wouldn't they?
As for most damaging to society - they all are - but football is more intimately tied to gambling than it is to cars or junk food so it makes sense it would be something they'd maybe look at if they were that way inclined.
When people do a good thing why is the response always that they are doing a good thing but not a million good things? That just makes no sense at all.
Of course, those who have a problem with gambling should be helped, and I'm certain that there's more to be done in that area. However, the framing of betting as some kind of nasty vice which needs to be stamped out is lazy, puritanical, and indicative of a slippery slope we seem to find ourselves on, heading towards over-zealous regulation/prohibition.
Anyway, I don't doubt that the club have done this with good intentions, but I personally believe the underlying sentiment to be misguided.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43246
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Sure Thing
Since my chances of winning anything on Lifeline are a million to one, I don't regard it as gambling..more small donations..Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:59 amAm i still ok to carry on with golden gamble, golden goal,lifeline and goldline?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32416
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Sure Thing
I'm offering 100/30 that this thread will go off at a tangent....b'dum tish.
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9109
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: Sure Thing
TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:13 pmSince my chances of winning anything on Lifeline are a million to one, I don't regard it as gambling..more small donations..Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:59 amAm i still ok to carry on with golden gamble, golden goal,lifeline and goldline?
I won £250 on Goldline about a month after i joined it and won a decent prize on golden gamble once. I've been hooked ever since!
I'm sure the club is coming from a good place in taking this stance but it's a little hypocritical no?
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Sure Thing
The problem is that the gambling industry have increasingly relied on targeting those with addictive personalities - there is research showing that the money you can make from 'rational gamblers' is a lot lot less than that from 'irrational gamblers' and simply doesn't sustain the betting market in the UK. So they've gone out of their way to court repeat bets from small numbers of customers the majority of whom are 'addicts'.The_Gun wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:00 pmThe success of your analogy is entirely predicated on the belief that cutting ties with gambling firms is a 'good' thing, which is in turn presumably based on the notion that betting is a 'bad' thing. I fundamentally do not believe this to be the case, and as the vast majority of punters bet safely and responsibly, betting is likely to be at worst neutral, but far more likely a net benefit for society.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:40 amYou know what I find odd - this view right here.
If I have £100 to donate to charity - I might pick say - feeding hungry kids. But then you'd say 'what about cancer, what about kids abroad, what about child cruelty, what about old people dying of cold etc etc'. So is the response to that to keep my £100 in my pocket and say 'I'm doing nowt'?
The club is taking a stand on betting because presumably it can and it matters to those involved. I've never had a gambling addiction and don't bet on football (or anything else) so to me its absolutely no difference. When the club was financially in peril I don't think we had the luxury of deciding against sponsors but now if FV feel we can be selective then why wouldn't they?
As for most damaging to society - they all are - but football is more intimately tied to gambling than it is to cars or junk food so it makes sense it would be something they'd maybe look at if they were that way inclined.
When people do a good thing why is the response always that they are doing a good thing but not a million good things? That just makes no sense at all.
Of course, those who have a problem with gambling should be helped, and I'm certain that there's more to be done in that area. However, the framing of betting as some kind of nasty vice which needs to be stamped out is lazy, puritanical, and indicative of a slippery slope we seem to find ourselves on, heading towards over-zealous regulation/prohibition.
Anyway, I don't doubt that the club have done this with good intentions, but I personally believe the underlying sentiment to be misguided.
Now whilst drink is inherently bad for people if consumed without moderation the drinks industry has been heavily regulated regarding advertising and sale and pricing in some cases. They're not 'clean' by any means as an industry but I also think they are far far less reliant on 'addicts' than the betting industry is.
That's the distinction. We know that in effect the betting market today wouldn't exist were it not for relatively small numbers of gamblers betting incredibly frequently and likely because they are out of control. That would suggest there is a problem that the industry has courted rather than the other way round.
So I think this is the distinction. Nobody has an issue with gambling in moderation or drinking in moderation BUT the industry itself has created the problem and I'm unconvinced that without action and regulation they will ever address it because in this case they are absolutely reliant on those addicts.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2377
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:23 pm
Re: Sure Thing
I don't think it's about the activities themselves but the promotion (or particularly in the case of sports betting, the over promotion) of them.
There are no shirt sponsorships or advertisements for alcolohlic drinks or tobacco companies in footbal anymore either.
There are no shirt sponsorships or advertisements for alcolohlic drinks or tobacco companies in footbal anymore either.
Re: Sure Thing
I'm not in favour of their anti-betting stance, but feel that Lifeline etc is a fixed price thing and more like a community charity raffle.Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:24 pmTANGODANCER wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:13 pmSince my chances of winning anything on Lifeline are a million to one, I don't regard it as gambling..more small donations..Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:59 amAm i still ok to carry on with golden gamble, golden goal,lifeline and goldline?
I won £250 on Goldline about a month after i joined it and won a decent prize on golden gamble once. I've been hooked ever since!
I'm sure the club is coming from a good place in taking this stance but it's a little hypocritical no?
Which I've won. Repeatedly. So I like it.
...
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3734
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:14 pm
- Location: Bury
Re: Sure Thing
LeverEnd wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:24 pmI'm not in favour of their anti-betting stance, but feel that Lifeline etc is a fixed price thing and more like a community charity raffle.Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:24 pmTANGODANCER wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:13 pmSince my chances of winning anything on Lifeline are a million to one, I don't regard it as gambling..more small donations..Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:59 amAm i still ok to carry on with golden gamble, golden goal,lifeline and goldline?
I won £250 on Goldline about a month after i joined it and won a decent prize on golden gamble once. I've been hooked ever since!
I'm sure the club is coming from a good place in taking this stance but it's a little hypocritical no?
Which I've won. Repeatedly. So I like it.
Alison Bell referred to it as a ‘fund raiser’ rather than gambling on FB, when someone accused the club of hypocrisy.
Re: Sure Thing
It's chalk and cheese. You can't run up £1000s off debts on lifeline. Any comparison is just daft
...
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32416
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Sure Thing
They're all fund raisers. Just that most of it funds bookies.Burnden Paddock wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:26 pmLeverEnd wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:24 pmI'm not in favour of their anti-betting stance, but feel that Lifeline etc is a fixed price thing and more like a community charity raffle.Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:24 pmTANGODANCER wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:13 pmSince my chances of winning anything on Lifeline are a million to one, I don't regard it as gambling..more small donations..Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:59 amAm i still ok to carry on with golden gamble, golden goal,lifeline and goldline?
I won £250 on Goldline about a month after i joined it and won a decent prize on golden gamble once. I've been hooked ever since!
I'm sure the club is coming from a good place in taking this stance but it's a little hypocritical no?
Which I've won. Repeatedly. So I like it.
Alison Bell referred to it as a ‘fund raiser’ rather than gambling on FB, when someone accused the club of hypocrisy.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2377
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:23 pm
Re: Sure Thing
Who's Alison Bell?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests