https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52901
It didn't sound like it had anything to do with that - purely commercial reasons and financial difficulties of LoveBet rather than a matter of principle of the new owners.
Fair enough, but can’t see how we can cancel a 3 year contract, or change sponsor mid-season, if they’ve paid up front. Might just be early planning for season after next? I assume these deals take a while to negotiate?
Think that’s the exact problem we face. If we want to remain competitive and buy players/offer market rate contracts, we have to work with these countries.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:54 amClubs like Burnley are low hanging fruit for Betting companies to sponsor - I can’t think of another type of industry who would pay what the betting companies do.
Sorry, thought you meant for 3 new players.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:09 amThey’ve already been bought.... in the same way that Covid caused the cut to the squad last year, a reduction in sponsorship will Have to be filled from somewhere, or the squad will have to be cut.
Can you point to a code of conduct in Porn?jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:17 amYes, this is the very response I expected. It’s the response I’m opposed to but get nine times out of ten. You’ve offered a response on an issue (porn) that I think can be damaging, just like gambling, but would be good if you could explain why? Yes, a strange example to use, but would appreciate you trying to make the comparison....
Or "OnlyFans"ZizkovClaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:16 amI'd rather see pornhub on the front of our shrts than a gambling sponsor
You’ll be hard pressed to find a big industry that doesn’t exploit. Fast food, fashion, technology...jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:19 amIn that case, why does the betting industry deliberately exploit those who are vulnerable? And please don’t say they don’t. I’ve had it from the horses mouth. Massive respect for you Dan, and you’re right on the above points, but you simply cannot say that exploitation isn’t happening. There’s a very dark side to the industry.
Simple fact is they don’t. That may be an opinion piece, but in my opinion they don’t do it. I’ve observed and read of the tens of millions of pounds spent to develop ever improving tools to spot quickly problem gambling behaviour, and drive decisive action on it. I’ve also seen gamblers, from when I was a fresh faced 18 (well, as fresh faced as I ever was) year old going into the bookies, who had problems and fought against every control put on them to get around it. Standing outside asking people to go in and put bets on for them, or sitting in the pub contributing to pool bets, or even getting a taxi to another town where they weren’t known in shops. These people need help, there’s also a stage that they have to help themselves too.jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:19 amIn that case, why does the betting industry deliberately exploit those who are vulnerable? And please don’t say they don’t. I’ve had it from the horses mouth. Massive respect for you Dan, and you’re right on the above points, but you simply cannot say that exploitation isn’t happening. There’s a very dark side to the industry.
Only because they have to. It irks me a bit that they embrace this ‘When the Fun Stops, Stop’ campaign to make them look good. If they didn’t have to do it, they wouldn’t.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:32 amI’ve observed and read of the tens of millions of pounds spent to develop ever improving tools to spot quickly problem gambling behaviour, and drive decisive action on it. I’ve also seen gamblers, from when I was a fresh faced 18 (well, as fresh faced as I ever was) year old going into the bookies, who had problems and fought against every control put on them to get around it.
They had to do as a duty of care, not because of a legal ruling. They were doing it before the creation of the remote gambling act in 2014, which is where the licensing requirements were brought more in line with modern ways of betting. Both the gambling commission and the companies have continued to develop tools and regulations to try and increase the bar on this, using AI capabilities, and working with universities to identify wider markers of risk of gambling harm - so not just how much you stake and deposit, but when are you on site, what's your age, how are you interacting with a screen whilst your bet is on - and many more. Technology continues to evolve in this space, and the gambling commission continue to amend regulations to require licencees to achieve those standards.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:40 amOnly because they have to. It irks me a bit that they embrace this ‘When the Fun Stops, Stop’ campaign to make them look good. If they didn’t have to do it, they wouldn’t.
I’m not in that betting word though, it’s never appealed. They could advertise every gambling company in the world, there odds and so on and it’ll mean nothing to me.
Again, not my point. There weren’t 21 different pieces adverts going around the ground in a one minute period; there weren’t adverts on our club’s official Twitter telling us we’d be a sucker for not scoffing on pies during mental health awareness days; there weren’t members of staff running along the concourse putting their hands on people and saying ‘you’ll be having a pie today, won’t you?’Venkys4eva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:50 amMakes me laugh whrn people moan about betting companies being on football shirts. Nobody moaned when Hollands Pies were our sponsor.. I wonder how many football supporters have died from heart related issues caused by all the trans fats and other rubbish stuffed into those.
Didn't Burnley develop an I Pie app in the past, or am I imagining that?jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:59 amAgain, not my point. There weren’t 21 different pieces adverts going around the ground in a one minute period; there weren’t adverts on our club’s official Twitter telling us we’d be a sucker for not scoffing on pies during mental health awareness days; there weren’t members of staff running along the concourse putting their hands on people and saying ‘you’ll be having a pie today, won’t you?’
I’m all for people having a choice; I’m absolutely against over zealous marketing.
There wasdandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:01 pmDidn't Burnley develop an I Pie app in the past, or am I imagining that?
I used it - it was baked in.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:01 pmDidn't Burnley develop an I Pie app in the past, or am I imagining that?
I don't think so but they did have 'stan the van man' who would join bertie bee with the kids at half time and promote pie eating to them. I know quite alot about it I even dressed as the dreaded stan at one point and know full well what he was there to promote.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:01 pmDidn't Burnley develop an I Pie app in the past, or am I imagining that?
Over Zealous Marketing is a relative new Phenomenon in football grounds.....or the pie would have been up there...jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:59 amAgain, not my point. There weren’t 21 different pieces adverts going around the ground in a one minute period; there weren’t adverts on our club’s official Twitter telling us we’d be a sucker for not scoffing on pies during mental health awareness days; there weren’t members of staff running along the concourse putting their hands on people and saying ‘you’ll be having a pie today, won’t you?’
I’m all for people having a choice; I’m absolutely against over zealous marketing.
Did we not also have a pork pie mascot at one point?dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:01 pmDidn't Burnley develop an I Pie app in the past, or am I imagining that?
dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:32 amSimple fact is they don’t. That may be an opinion piece, but in my opinion they don’t do it. I’ve observed and read of the tens of millions of pounds spent to develop ever improving tools to spot quickly problem gambling behaviour, and drive decisive action on it. I’ve also seen gamblers, from when I was a fresh faced 18 (well, as fresh faced as I ever was) year old going into the bookies, who had problems and fought against every control put on them to get around it. Standing outside asking people to go in and put bets on for them, or sitting in the pub contributing to pool bets, or even getting a taxi to another town where they weren’t known in shops. These people need help, there’s also a stage that they have to help themselves too.
Gambling, for many, many people is a leisure activity, that is enjoyed in a controlled way, both by themselves and the tools the companies continue to develop. It’s more controlled than the first goal sweep, or last man standing competitions that you yourself participate in o here. That’s low risk leisure gambling too, just without the checks to see if people are 18, have relevant source of wealth to afford it, and aren’t part of the national gambling exclusion scheme (GAMSTOP if you want to read more on it). Because the funds go to somewhere you approve of, does not change the mechanic if it being gambling.
Not from my stance it wouldn’t. Far from it.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:44 amI also think it’s a snobbery around the sponsorship, a betting company association is seen as cheap - especially if there’s Chinese in the logo.
If we had William Hill or Ladbrokes, it’ll be different.
Do you wear designer Labels on your clobber?
Exactly this. Addiction is addiction no matter what the vice.jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:19 amIn that case, why does the betting industry deliberately exploit those who are vulnerable? And please don’t say they don’t. I’ve had it from the horses mouth. Massive respect for you Dan, and you’re right on the above points, but you simply cannot say that exploitation isn’t happening. There’s a very dark side to the industry.
Maybe they won't get the choice to make that decision, as it may be banned as part of the Gambling Review this year.Danieljwaterhouse wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:01 pmExactly this. Addiction is addiction no matter what the vice.
The government have curbed alcohol, and cigarette advertising in recent years. Betting flooded into that space with buckets of cash so blind eyes were abundant at boardroom, and governance levels.
Look at the NHS addiction projections for the next 30-50 years, absolutely frightening.
Addiction isn’t as simple as giving it up, there’s a whole biochemical and social science behind it. This, obesity and mental health are three pandemics all ready sweeping society.
I will stand fully behind the chairman, the club and the fans when we choose a different path.
You mean this one
Or we can cultivate ethical revenue streams, expand our national and international profile, and develop a sustainable practice model that will serve the need of the business.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:16 pmMaybe they won't get the choice to make that decision, as it may be banned as part of the Gambling Review this year.
But if they do ban it, and therefore sponsorship revenue falls, then all you'll need to do to stand square behind it with the fans, is fill the gap. Say 25% reduction? Just the additional £100 - £125 for every man, woman and child going to the game per season should do it.
It;'s important to have morals, but it's also important to understand at times they need paying for.
Gambling is perfectly ethical, as a legal pass time for many.Danieljwaterhouse wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:33 pmOr we can cultivate ethical revenue streams, expand our national and international profile, and develop a sustainable practice model that will serve the need of the business.
Your utilitarianism is wasted.
What is more or less certain is that when fans return the club will be looking to significantly raise the level of matchday spend by those attending games - it is one of the things that clearly differentiates America and Europe. I expect the use of technology to be key to that, as it drives and profits from the data the club will hold on fans, that data will be used for individual focused marketing offers and also be used to help grow other commercial sponsorship opportunities at the club. It is already in operation at a few clubs but there is a long way for the Premier League to go before it comes close to what is going on in the US. This is yet another thing I have been tracking on the MMT thread.dandeclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:16 pmMaybe they won't get the choice to make that decision, as it may be banned as part of the Gambling Review this year.
But if they do ban it, and therefore sponsorship revenue falls, then all you'll need to do to stand square behind it with the fans, is fill the gap. Say 25% reduction? Just the additional £100 - £125 for every man, woman and child going to the game per season should do it.
It;'s important to have morals, but it's also important to understand at times they need paying for.
Never understood why people pay to use sections of that site..tarkys_ears wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:39 pm
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... ed-4535745
Could be us!
- with you that I do not understandI just caught 25 minutes of Talksport whilst running into Solihull to pick up some click and collect stuff. 20 minutes of that was spent listening to Paddy Power talking about all the different odds available for each of today's PL matches interspersed with adverts for the Betfair gambling market and less than 5 minutes telling listeners which games were postponed because of waterlogged pitches. I reckon Talksport would go out of business if they didn't have betting segments and adverts!arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 1:13 pmSorry I’ve been offline but people have made all the points I would have and more.
Dan covers it well, gambling is as regulated as any industry there is and if you tried to avoid exploitation of all kinds sadly you’d not be able to do very much in life.
As it happens I do believe that ultimately gambling sponsorship will be banned from football shirts as there seems to be enough people shouting about it that the authorities will decide it’s the right thing to do.
And the man of the match sponsored by Benedictine is fine?jdrobbo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:59 amI would never see anyone losing their job as “good news”. I just want us to do better as a club and people refuse to see that gambling is so heavily associated with mental health. What happened to banning in-game betting adverts? Have you noticed that they’ve started to creep back in? This because betting firms completely prey on the vulnerable. I know five people who are associated with the betting industry. Two have left the profession and don’t agree with the harm it’s causing; one doesn’t agree with me and two remain in the profession but don’t like the way things are heading. The stories they’ve told about luring in gamblers with incentives, even though they’ve capped their fronting or put time-outs on their account, are frightening.
It’s a good debate to have but sadly, there’s a core of fans that cannot make the connection between the over-saturation taking place and mental health.
I have challenged each of these people with the following when discussing Burnley’s relationship with gambling (I have also challenged two current employees of the club; one of who insists there’s ‘no harm in it’):
If a huge porn website offered a few £8 million per season, as opposed to our current £7.5 million shirt sponsorship, would you happily support the club in accepting the sponsorship and would you buy the shirt?
Betting and porn.... both can be ‘enjoyed’ by 18s and over, legally.
Neither should be ‘enjoyed’ by under 18s.
Both can lead to addiction and possibly (money loss).
Both can be damaging to relationships.
Both can be damaging to mental health.
The response, nine times out of ten is ‘absolutely not, they’re two totally different things (there’s ‘shame’ associated with porn) etc...’
People just don’t see it!!!
People used to have to go into town to place a bet; now they’re being almost forced to (see Ladbrokes officials on the upper Longside last season, literally pulling people on the shoulder, during conversations, telling people ‘You’re gonna have s bet today, aren’t you?’
It’s just not good enough. It needs to stop and we need to become a better and more ethical club for our future fans. I’m not saying people can’t have a bet, of course they can, but place it outside the ground....or if we have to go down this road, just rely on one sponsor.... (see the 21 different endorsements counted inside the ground last season during a single one minute period).
Remove the saturation; be better; it’s achievable.
