Talksport

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:55 pm

Big news on Joey. Then cuts to an advert for Paddy Power and getting all the odds for arsenal leicester.
Hypocrites.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:56 pm

I'm not sure how that's hypocritical to be honest.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:57 pm

Why are they hypocrites?

They aren't directly involved with football.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm

Ironic.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:20 pm

Talksport is the ideal channel to discuss it all!

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:09 pm

Hypocrites because they are slagging Barton off. Criticising his gambling issues and then promoting them same businesses because they fund the station.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:18 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Hypocrites because they are slagging Barton off. Criticising his gambling issues and then promoting them same businesses because they fund the station.

Agree. "Joseph Barton, you are in the wrong for betting on football." "Listeners (viewers) please support our sponsors in placing your bets on football."

It would be a bit like alcoholics anonymous having a fund raising party in a brewery.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:32 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Agree. "Joseph Barton, you are in the wrong for betting on football." "Listeners (viewers) please support our sponsors in placing your bets on football."

It would be a bit like alcoholics anonymous having a fund raising party in a brewery.

The difference being that radio listening members of the public are allowed to bet on football, Joey Barton, as a professional footballer isn't.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:39 pm

Rileybobs wrote:The difference being that radio listening members of the public are allowed to bet on football, Joey Barton, as a professional footballer isn't.

I agree. However, some ads include a statement that says "this might not be suitable for some people" (phrased appropriately for the product) and some TV programmes end with "if you have been effected by the issues raised..."

But, the football betting ads don't say "it is illegal for professional footballers to place bets on football...." And, I imagine there are a large number of prof footballers watching most of these football programmes.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:42 pm

Professional footballers already know the rules though, their PFA reps alone should make them aware of such things, plus the clubs.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:48 pm

Paul Waine wrote:I agree. However, some ads include a statement that says "this might not be suitable for some people" (phrased appropriately for the product) and some TV programmes end with "if you have been effected by the issues raised..."

But, the football betting ads don't say "it is illegal for professional footballers to place bets on football...." And, I imagine there are a large number of prof footballers watching most of these football programmes.

Professional footballers make up a tiny percentage of the radio listening/tv viewing population. Surely you wouldn't expect betting adverts to have a disclaimer reminding footballers, and other sporting professionals that they aren't allowed to gamble.

You mentioned city traders earlier, I'm pretty sure on adverts for trading websites/apps that there isn't a disclaimer that those working in certain areas of the financial sector aren't allowed to use their services - and that's a legal matter rather than a breach of professional code.

I have a code of conduct in my profession, I don't need disclaimers or regular reminders as to what I am and am not allowed to do.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:49 pm

Rules or not its not right in my eyes.

Smoking advertising was banned years ago and gambling should follow suit.

I myself bet most weeks. Mainly for enjoyment. And never more than I can afford. But its absolutely become a bigger issue for want of a better word alongside the increase in advertising and online gambling. Im definitely down over the course of the year too.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:51 pm

I've read Joey's statement and can see his point of view re addiction and competitiveness to some extent.

But surely he had to recognise the boundaries; there are so many sports/ markets available yo bet on - he could have gambled away to his heart's content without placing a single bet on football.

Not sure how good an analogy this is, but if you told an alcoholic he could drink anything bar brandy, he could happily drink as much as he needed to of other drinks.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:58 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Rules or not its not right in my eyes.

Smoking advertising was banned years ago and gambling should follow suit.

I myself bet most weeks. Mainly for enjoyment. And never more than I can afford. But its absolutely become a bigger issue for want of a better word alongside the increase in advertising and online gambling. Im definitely down over the course of the year too.

I don't disagree. I imagine that gambling advertising will become a thing of the past. But I don't see how it's in anyway hypocritical for a radio presenter to condemn Barton's gambling and then cut to a gambling advert.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:39 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:I've read Joey's statement and can see his point of view re addiction and competitiveness to some extent.

But surely he had to recognise the boundaries; there are so many sports/ markets available yo bet on - he could have gambled away to his heart's content without placing a single bet on football.

Not sure how good an analogy this is, but if you told an alcoholic he could drink anything bar brandy, he could happily drink as much as he needed to of other drinks.

Because as an addict he will think he had a better chance on something he had inside or expert knowledge on. And as a gambler wouldve thought the chances of getting caught were less than not.

I bet often. But rarely on anything other than football. If its on something else its on so called expert inside info.

A drug addict may be addicted to cannabis and not cocaine. Or heroin and not amphetamines. Etc

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:41 pm

Rileybobs wrote:I don't disagree. I imagine that gambling advertising will become a thing of the past. But I don't see how it's in anyway hypocritical for a radio presenter to condemn Barton's gambling and then cut to a gambling advert.

I guess its the holier than thou / moral highground taken and tjen cutting to paddy for all the latest form amd odds.

Hypocritical? Maybe that should be referred to The FA for allowing (and exposing) Barton to don a bookies emblazoned ahort all season. But immoral, ironic, tasteless, controversial at the very least?

SammyBoy · Post by **SammyBoy** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:01 am

I don't participate in sports betting, nor do I have friends that gamble either so the only thing that makes me aware of how popular it is with the public is the astonishing number of adverts for it online, on TV and on the radio. Surely the invention of smartphones and betting apps is a game changer and needs more discussion about its impact and effects. Back 20 years ago when you actually had to enter a bookies to place a bet I'd imagine it was something you had to plan, and could even talk yourself out of (or the wife could talk you out of). Nowadays I can see it being very easy for people prone to gambling issues to blow a couple of hundred quid within the space of an hour or two from the comfort of their living rooms. I can't think of any obvious solutions on how to provide a safety net for these kinds of people but I'm so glad I've never had problems in this area myself.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:22 am

SammyBoy wrote:I don't participate in sports betting, nor do I have friends that gamble either so the only thing that makes me aware of how popular it is with the public is the astonishing number of adverts for it online, on TV and on the radio. Surely the invention of smartphones and betting apps is a game changer and needs more discussion about its impact and effects. Back 20 years ago when you actually had to enter a bookies to place a bet I'd imagine it was something you had to plan, and could even talk yourself out of (or the wife could talk you out of). Nowadays I can see it being very easy for people prone to gambling issues to blow a couple of hundred quid within the space of an hour or two from the comfort of their living rooms. I can't think of any obvious solutions on how to provide a safety net for these kinds of people but I'm so glad I've never had problems in this area myself.

Absolutely agree. You can literally gamble from anywhere. Its impossible to get away from. And its discreet. No stigma as nobody needs to know. Its really bad and I feel for people addicted in a bad way.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:27 am

CC, you're 100% correct and as a member of #TeamKRBFC I will back you on this.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:36 am

Oooooo danny ajeeeee!

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:58 am

I totally despise bookies, and the whole gambling thing. Anyone who had a serious look at what gambling does wouldn't go near it.
I hate the fact that bookies are running sport. Kick them out!

Sutton-Claret · Post by **Sutton-Claret** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:42 am

boatshed bill wrote:I totally despise bookies, and the whole gambling thing. Anyone who had a serious look at what gambling does wouldn't go near it.
I hate the fact that bookies are running sport. Kick them out!

Agreed - Gambling and Payday loans should not be running sport

ThinLizzy · Post by **ThinLizzy** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:25 am

I can see the OP's point. I can also see the others viewpoint.
That said. I just don't understand how people can get addicted to gambling in the first place. Right or wrong as to why people do it. I can get being addicted to a substance as you get some immediate return. Be it a buzz off the drug, or a fuzzy feeling off booze etc. I just don't get where the buzz comes from putting a tenner on something and losing which could be better spent elsewhere.
My mate does it quite often. He won £700 one weekend and put the lot on another bet and lost the lot. I can't fathom why he didn't bank the money.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:36 am

Before the whole Joey Barton saga I cannot remember seeing anyone on here concerned about football being heavily sponsored by gambling. Infact the biggest gripe on here seemed to be that some people was upset for us to be sponsored by a gambling company because it meant they couldnt buy their son/daughter a Burnley shirt with the sponsor on and nothing to do with the morality of it all.

The only hypocrites on this board are the ones who have been absolutely ambivalent to gambling sponsorship and football until suddenly one of our players suffers and suddenly their is a complete U-turn in opinion.

I feel sorry for the site editor as i can only assume he has been receiving complaint after complaint for all the posts that discuss betting on the footy results

SammyBoy · Post by **SammyBoy** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:58 am

ThinLizzy wrote:I can see the OP's point. I can also see the others viewpoint.
That said. I just don't understand how people can get addicted to gambling in the first place. Right or wrong as to why people do it. I can get being addicted to a substance as you get some immediate return. Be it a buzz off the drug, or a fuzzy feeling off booze etc. I just don't get where the buzz comes from putting a tenner on something and losing which could be better spent elsewhere.
My mate does it quite often. He won £700 one weekend and put the lot on another bet and lost the lot. I can't fathom why he didn't bank the money.

I agree with this, but I think it helps that I can count the number of bets I've placed on one hand, and the number I've won on zero hands. I didn't get that initial exhilaration of winning 'easy' money, just the vaguely unsettling feeling that I'd donated a tenner to a betting company that had a massive edge on me.

ThinLizzy · Post by **ThinLizzy** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:05 am

SammyBoy wrote:I agree with this, but I think it helps that I can count the number of bets I've placed on one hand, and the number I've won on zero hands. I didn't get that initial exhilaration of winning 'easy' money, just the vaguely unsettling feeling that I'd donated a tenner to an betting company that had a massive edge on me.

Similar here Sammy. I can count the number of times I have been in a bookies can be counted on possibly two hands. I've never won. I did win £14 on the pools and won £50 on a scratchcard once but I didn't go spending that on more scratchcards/pools.
That was my luck and I'd just pushed it.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:07 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:Before the whole Joey Barton saga I cannot remember seeing anyone on here concerned about football being heavily sponsored by gambling. Infact the biggest gripe on here seemed to be that some people was upset for us to be sponsored by a gambling company because it meant they couldnt buy their son/daughter a Burnley shirt with the sponsor on and nothing to do with the morality of it all.

The only hypocrites on this board are the ones who have been absolutely ambivalent to gambling sponsorship and football until suddenly one of our players suffers and suddenly their is a complete U-turn in opinion.

I feel sorry for the site editor as i can only assume he has been receiving complaint after complaint for all the posts that discuss betting on the footy results

Because football, heavily funded by gambling and a heavy promoter of it has now banned a gambler and effectively ended his career, who wears a gambling brand on his shirt every week.

Who knows, to subsidise his loss of earnings he may now gamble even more !

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:11 am

They havent banned him because he is a gambler. They have banned him for breaking a specific rule about gambling that is there to protect the whole integrity of the game itself.

Can you not see the difference and why it is so important to stop football professionals from being involved in any type of football betting.

The Enclosure · Post by **The Enclosure** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:38 am

Guys on Talk sport just now have basically all agreed that the length of ban is ridiculous and the FA have gone to town on Joey because of who he is.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:48 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:They havent banned him because he is a gambler. They have banned him for breaking a specific rule about gambling that is there to protect the whole integrity of the game itself.

Can you not see the difference and why it is so important to stop football professionals from being involved in any type of football betting.

Yeah. I completely appreciate and understand that and why a player shouldnt be allowed to gamble on games that involve him be it his team or league, I get all that. I still find it all bad taste and hypocritical.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:01 pm

The most hypocritical stance in all this is by the FA themselves.

It is against their rules for a player to bet on games. Barton does they virtually end his career

It is against their rules for someone employed by them to advise 3rd parties how to make more money through transfer deals, when they found the national manager doing so, they paid him a 7 figure sum to quit his job.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:14 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Yeah. I completely appreciate and understand that and why a player shouldnt be allowed to gamble on games that involve him be it his team or league, I get all that. I still find it all bad taste and hypocritical.

So you say you get it then, in your very next sentence, you demonstrate that you don't. If you got it, you'd see that it isn't hypocritical in the slightest.

I can't believe that so many, including Joey Barton himself, are struggling with this concept. Although, to be fair to Barton, he's probably just trying to deflect the blame for his stupidity.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:15 pm

It gets worse

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:18 pm

Tall Paul wrote:So you say you get it then, in your very next sentence, you demonstrate that you don't. If you got it, you'd see that it isn't hypocritical in the slightest.

I can't believe that so many, including Joey Barton himself, are struggling with this concept. Although, to be fair to Barton, he's probably just trying to deflect the blame for his stupidity.

Nobody is passing blame. And nobody thinks Barton is an innocent victim in all this.

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:22 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:It gets worse

Hahahaha well done BFC

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:23 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Nobody is passing blame. And nobody thinks Barton is an innocent victim in all this.

I didn't say either of those things.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:31 pm

Tall Paul wrote:I didn't say either of those things.

Except you did!

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:34 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Except you did!

Where?

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:35 pm

Tall Paul wrote:. Although, to be fair to Barton, he's probably just trying to deflect the blame for his stupidity.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:41 pm

Semantics. Trying to deflect the blame isn't the same as passing the blame.

If you need me to clarify, I meant that Barton, in his statement, appears to be trying to connect the FA's apparent endorsement of gambling to his offences to make himself look less bad.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:41 pm

claretdom wrote:The most hypocritical stance in all this is by the FA themselves.

It is against their rules for a player to bet on games. Barton does they virtually end his career

It is against their rules for someone employed by them to advise 3rd parties how to make more money through transfer deals, when they found the national manager doing so, they paid him a 7 figure sum to quit his job.

Sam Allardyce didnt break the rules he was just caught showing others how to break/get around his own employers rules which rightly left the FA with no option to get rid but they could not charge him with anything.

Thr irony of all this is that the FA have made the gambling rule/law as black and white as they can to stop crooks like Allardyce and his associates finding loopholes to get round but are we happy the FA are doing their best to stop the likes of Allardyce, no we are not because one of our players has fallen foul of the rule and is getting punished for it

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:51 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Semantics. Trying to deflect the blame isn't the same as passing the blame.

If you need me to clarify, I meant that Barton, in his statement, appears to be trying to connect the FA's apparent endorsement of gambling to his offences to make himself look less bad.

I give up with you. Youre a wum of the highest order i will give you that.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:06 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Sam Allardyce didnt break the rules he was just caught showing others how to break/get around his own employers rules which rightly left the FA with no option to get rid but they could not charge him with anything.

Thr irony of all this is that the FA have made the gambling rule/law as black and white as they can to stop crooks like Allardyce and his associates finding loopholes to get round but are we happy the FA are doing their best to stop the likes of Allardyce, no we are not because one of our players has fallen foul of the rule and is getting punished for it

Feel free to show any post I have made that says Barton shouldn't be punished.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:10 pm

claretdom wrote:Feel free to show any post I have made that says Barton shouldn't be punished.

Feel free to show any post I have made where I said you have

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:11 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:I give up with you. Youre a wum of the highest order i will give you that.

So because you can't explain or defend your arguments properly, you give up and call me a wum?

OK then.

scamander · Post by **scamander** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:50 pm

It was interesting listening to Durham trot out some poor arguments to leap between gambling = not good and Talksport having substantial bookie ads on there (as well as guests).

In short the ads on TV have normalised gambling a lot. That doesn't make it bad or good, just far more available. So if you are susceptible to developing a problem you are far more likely to be given a way in via Kammy or a floating head. Purely anecdotal but my missus lectures at a college. Over the past two years she's noticed the boys she teaches talk increasingly more about bets they've placed (normally accumulators). When I was 17 the only place you could bet was a bookies and that was often quite a glum place. I didn't know anyone else who bet and was my age.

Gambling is being normalised in an age group which weren't that bothered about it 5 years ago, how that works out is yet to be seen.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:53 pm

scamander wrote: Gambling is being normalised in an age group which weren't that bothered about it 5 years ago, how that works out is yet to be seen.

They'll end up broke and blame the bookies for it.

The boyfriend of my boys mum gambles a lot and naturally never tells anyone how much he loses, just what he wins and I've had to explain this to my 2 boys.

I also recall reading a story about the number of bookies in certain poorer areas around the uk compared to more well off areas.

Rodneyyouplonker · Post by **Rodneyyouplonker** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:19 pm

A load of dross, still find myself listening whenever out in car though.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:18 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Professional footballers make up a tiny percentage of the radio listening/tv viewing population. Surely you wouldn't expect betting adverts to have a disclaimer reminding footballers, and other sporting professionals that they aren't allowed to gamble.

You mentioned city traders earlier, I'm pretty sure on adverts for trading websites/apps that there isn't a disclaimer that those working in certain areas of the financial sector aren't allowed to use their services - and that's a legal matter rather than a breach of professional code.

I have a code of conduct in my profession, I don't need disclaimers or regular reminders as to what I am and am not allowed to do.

Hi Rileybobs,

I agree that prof footballers are a tiny percentage of radio listening/tv viewing population. But, it's possible that other ads that carry disclaimers are only addressing a "tiny percentage."

I feel trading websites/apps are one step removed. It's only insider trading that people are banned from, mainly city bankers/traders as they have potential access to inside knowledge.

It's possible to argue that there is a difference between city banker/trader (and other professions) and prof footballers; the former are most likely to have gained banker/trader/accountant/lawyer (and others) training and qualifications, and in many cases they are exposed daily to their compliance colleagues. Footballers are almost invariably younger, their education will, for the most part, have been on the football field - perhaps they do need a few more reminders.

Of course, bankers/traders have their own record of "breaking the rules."

Rodneyyouplonker · Post by **Rodneyyouplonker** » Fri May 05, 2017 4:06 pm

Ray Wilkins is nobody, made me laugh when I heard that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gHP9u9MSFHY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;