Sportspesa

[DanB90]

My main issue with this sponsorship is their logo looks proper crap.

 

[twoblue]

I've mentioned it before in other similar threads but in my view there's only so much you can do to help an addict of anything.

And so while I absolutely agree there should be tighter constraints, it ultimately boils down to the people getting addicted in the first place if they're gonna stop.

Betting company advertising is what needs to be banned. Kids are inundated with it.

 

[SpongeBob brown shoes]

My main issue with this sponsorship is their logo looks proper crap.

TBF it looks better than the other gambling logos

 

[ForeverBlue92]

What do you mean by nanny state? Would you take away smoking and drinking ages? And driving licenses? Gun laws? Let 12 year olds gamble?

We have gambling restriction age mate which im fine with.

My point was the gambling machine stake restriction came around on the idea that people should only be aloud to stake a certain amount because some people were addicted spending harmful amounts-

My question is imagine if pubs/bars/clubs started putting maximum sales per night because some people drink too much and cause bother people would be in uproar.

Personally I think ganbling firms do enough to promote responsible gambling and have no problem with a betting firm sponsering us.

 

[TheSecondComing]

I was completely against the FOBT restrictions and on any attempt to restrict personal freedom of choice.

Just because some people have gambling problems doesn't mean everyone should suffer/clubs cant be sponsered by betting firms.

Nanny state strikes again iirc.

Agree with this but they do need to assist more with identifying gamblers with addictions and stepping in.

Freedom of choice in this country is slowly being diminished.

 

[blulouie]

My main issue with this sponsorship is their logo looks proper crap.

Oh we've had much much worse mate.

Hafnia and Danka......blimey.

 

[ashwuk76]

We have gambling restriction age mate which im fine with.

My point was the gambling machine stake restriction came around on the idea that people should only be aloud to stake a certain amount because some people were addicted spending harmful amounts-

My question is imagine if pubs/bars/clubs started putting maximum sales per night because some people drink too much and cause bother people would be in uproar.

Personally I think ganbling firms do enough to promote responsible gambling and have no problem with a betting firm sponsering us.

As a compulsive gambler myself that has been going to GA for 7 years and been clean for 3 years I can tell you they do nothing at all really to actually help problem gamblers. Those FTOB machines are the worst thing around, with the old levels you could literally lose tens of thousands of pounds in an hour.

Those machines are not there for the casual gambler they are specifically targeted at addicted people. If someone smashes it up they just replace it, dont call the police and let the person who smashed it up carry on. That's how much money they made from them.

I get the argument with drink, I dont have an issue with drink, but I can imagine someone who does having the same problem.

I don't like the fact we are sponsored by a betting firm, but it's all around us now and I hate that. Yes I am talking from a personal perspective but gambling is so widespread now I think it needs rolling back a bit in my personal opinion.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

As a compulsive gambler myself that has been going to GA for 7 years and been clean for 3 years I can tell you they do nothing at all really to actually help problem gamblers. Those FTOB machines are the worst thing around, with the old levels you could literally lose tens of thousands of pounds in an hour.

Those machines are not there for the casual gambler they are specifically targeted at addicted people. If someone smashes it up they just replace it, dont call the police and let the person who smashed it up carry on. That's how much money they made from them.

I get the argument with drink, I dont have an issue with drink, but I can imagine someone who does having the same problem.

I don't like the fact we are sponsored by a betting firm, but it's all around us now and I hate that. Yes I am talking from a personal perspective but gambling is so widespread now I think it needs rolling back a bit in my personal opinion.

You can tell how important those things are to their business model by how many shops the big chains started closing down when the maximum stake was capped. Those things are pure evil.

 

[ashwuk76]

You can tell how important those things are to their business model by how many shops the big chains started closing down when the maximum stake was capped. Those things are pure evil.

Exactly mate and it's why betting shops had multiple sites in areas, usually poorer areas, to target as many people as they could. It used to be the same with cheap booze stores, the poorer the area the more cheap booze places there is. Cynical targeting by these companies.

 

[Lord Buckethead]

It would be interesting to know if any compulsive gamblers have suddenly switched to Sportspesa as a result of their name being on a shirt?
My guess would be no.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

I have no problem with it personally. It's good to promote the club in an area of the world untapped and ignored by many of the bigger clubs. But it's a growing economy and one that the club will be able to make more money from in the mid-long term, which will naturally have a positive effect on the coffers and (we all hope) consequently the quality of the playing squad / facilities.

People get addicted to all manner of things which can have terrible consequences on their lives. Gambling, tobacco, alcohol and fast food being the main ones obviously, but even relatively benign things like gaming, sex, shopping, work, even Football - all can cause feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety. They are no different from each other in that respect.

All of these things are enjoyable in modesty and the companies / communities that profit from addicts 100% have an obligation to educate their users on the dangers associated with excessive use. We've seen tobacco promotions removed altogether and the prominent marketing campaigns from all betting and alcohol companies - "Enjoy responsibly"..... "When the fun stops, stop!") but in my opinion there's not a whole lot more that they can be responsible for. They could take the step of limiting accounts but due to the nature of an addict, it rarely stops the problems. I've known plenty of blokes banned from off-licenses and bookies who still manage to feed their addiction.

I'm a big believer in people taking personal responsibility and reflecting on their own individual accountability for their vices, irrespective of what vice that may be. Don't get me wrong, I don't lack empathy because I wish anyone with an addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling or anything else, the best of luck in overcoming it, but I disagree that their predicament is the fault of anyone but themselves. You see people trying to sue fast food companies because they are in ill health due to their food, I can't abide that mentality.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

As a compulsive gambler myself that has been going to GA for 7 years and been clean for 3 years I can tell you they do nothing at all really to actually help problem gamblers. Those FTOB machines are the worst thing around, with the old levels you could literally lose tens of thousands of pounds in an hour.

Those machines are not there for the casual gambler they are specifically targeted at addicted people. If someone smashes it up they just replace it, dont call the police and let the person who smashed it up carry on. That's how much money they made from them.

I get the argument with drink, I dont have an issue with drink, but I can imagine someone who does having the same problem.

I don't like the fact we are sponsored by a betting firm, but it's all around us now and I hate that. Yes I am talking from a personal perspective but gambling is so widespread now I think it needs rolling back a bit in my personal opinion.

But restricting gambling in the betting shop doesn't solve anything- it just drives people to gamble online which imo is far far worse as you dont see the money you are spending so its almost not real (thats what I've found compared to betting in a betting shop/actual casino).

Governments do stuff to look good without ever solving the root cause and just drive the problem elswhere - its a complex issue but I just never feel comfortable with restrictions placed on what you can do (to a reasonable extent) based on some people having difficulties handling that thing.

Like the sugar tax because of obese people

Or the soon to be porno ban because some young lads think porn is like real sex (back to fumbling around in the bushes looking for dirty mags like the old days!)

Off topic a bit but I just think where does it end?

 

[blueloon]

We have gambling restriction age mate which im fine with.

My point was the gambling machine stake restriction came around on the idea that people should only be aloud to stake a certain amount because some people were addicted spending harmful amounts-

My question is imagine if pubs/bars/clubs started putting maximum sales per night because some people drink too much and cause bother people would be in uproar.

Personally I think ganbling firms do enough to promote responsible gambling and have no problem with a betting firm sponsering us.

Eh? You are aware that it is illegal to serve someone who is drunk or to buy alcohol for someone whos drunk? So yes, there is a “maximum” sales on people who drink too much . Fact.
Your second point is an opinion so I can’t disprove it, but do a quick google on justhow much money gambling firms said they’d put into supporting gambling addiction and just how much they actually do.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Eh? You are aware that it is illegal to serve someone who is drunk or to buy alcohol for someone whos drunk? So yes, there is a “maximum” sales on people who drink too much . Fact.
Your second point is an opinion so I can’t disprove it, but do a quick google on justhow much money gambling firms said they’d put into supporting gambling addiction and just how much they actually do.

The FOBT restriction is a max stake i.e. £2 maxmium spin - thats like saying "right lads your aloud 3 pints then your not being served anymore"

Its nothing to do with being drunk- its a figure plucked out of nowhere in an attempt to solve a problem that doesnt really do anything to solve it - just drives problem gamblers elswhere whilst limiting the remaining 95% of people who might want to spin a £20 stake with their mates then head off to the pub like most people do.

 

[sharkey1001]

I want an ugly MEGAFON logo on the shirt!