Jump to content

bet365 the world has gone mad


ronnieronalde

Recommended Posts

Interesting.

However, gambling is a life choice. You either want to do it or you don't.

I choose not to.

Yes the amount she has been paid is a lot and probably way over the top in some eyes. But if we start capping people then there would be no invention and entrepreneurs and other with a drive to do things would just move abroad where they can get the rewards for their hard work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Interesting.

However, gambling is a life choice. You either want to do it or you don't.

I choose not to.

Yes the amount she has been paid is a lot and probably way over the top in some eyes. But if we start capping people then there would be no invention and entrepreneurs and other with a drive to do things would just move abroad where they can get the rewards for their hard work. 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/problem-gamblers-uk-gambling-commission-report

2m either addicted or at risk in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Ronnie on this.

No I wouldn't demand she should give herself a pay cut.  It's her money!

No, I wouldn't demand she gave lots away to whatever charities she desired.  It's her money!

No, I wouldn't demand she paid herself less, whilst boosting the income of her staff and minions.  It's her money!

 

But as a man on the street, I have to admit I do find her earnings obscene... Not that I'll lose any sleep over it, and not that I would have started a thread/rant on the subject.  I don't feel "that" strongly about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

o we all stop driving because some get killed or injured? 

What are we 66m or so in the UK. When does the individual take responsibility?

 

If 2 million of us were killed or injured on the roads every year I'm damn sure it wouldn't be allowed to carry on.

blimey some of the counter points are getting silly.

I've made all the points I can make. I'm not going to change anyone's mind either side of the fence.

I'm comfortable with my own views on it and others are comfortable with theirs, no worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronnieronalde said:

I'm not asking them to pay out more at all. I agree fully with you that would be dangerous.

I'm asking for their profits/salaries to be capped or taxed heavily and put back to good use. An anti social tax put into a pot to be used to fix some of the issues the industry causes. (homelessness, alcoholism, abuse, break down of marriages, addiction) at the moment at least from what I can find, officially the industry spends around 10 million a year helping addicts.

How much does it cost for other bodies to clean up their mess.

Remember when the sports industry banned cigarette and alcohol advertising? Surely it's time to consider the same for gambling.

 

On re-reading, it looked like my post was attacking you. It wasn't. It just sparked the debate in my head that I then mentioned.

I agree completely on advertising and sponsorship. I hate that most footy teams are sponsored by betting firms and TV advertising is dominated by it.

Come up with the catchy line: "When the fun stops, stop" and then it's fine to bombard you with betting ads on SKY and bingo ads on most other daytime TV channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

I take full responsibility for my actions. Same I ask of any campaigners stomping their feet and blaming the industry..... does anyone make us place a bet? Does a machine? Does a person make me?

The industry can do more, and a lot are in process of trying to do more..... what I don’t buy is that they are not evil..... I’m not anti, I talk to industry..... challenge not chastise.....

Personal responsibility is key..... if you’re going to blame everyone but yourself, then you’re never gonna get out the spiral.

We can have as many barriers in place to prevent ourselves from gambling, however if someone is desperate to, they will. It has to come from the person no matter what the industry or others can do to help. No one can tell someone to not do something, I can’t..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronnieronalde said:

Really? is that what I asked her to do?

Yes, the moment you and others (and primarily the media) chose to focus on her salary as a jumping off point for this discussion. Gambling is dangerous and I've got plenty of time for people who want to discuss ways we can help to mitigate the problems it can cause, but this woman's salary isn't relevant to that discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anon said:

Yes, the moment you and others (and primarily the media) chose to focus on her salary as a jumping off point for this discussion. Gambling is dangerous and I've got plenty of time for people who want to discuss ways we can help to mitigate the problems it can cause, but this woman's salary isn't relevant to that discussion.

Quite correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anon said:

Yes, the moment you and others (and primarily the media) chose to focus on her salary as a jumping off point for this discussion. Gambling is dangerous and I've got plenty of time for people who want to discuss ways we can help to mitigate the problems it can cause, but this woman's salary isn't relevant to that discussion.

Of course it's relevant. 265 million quid has gone out of the industry.

Don''t you think SOME of that could be used in a way to make positive changes? For example, how about they use a couple of million quid to show ads highlighting the negative side of the effects (similar to the shock and awe lung cancer ads, the drink driving ads etc)

The second they stop making it look so attractive and possibly even make it less accessible is the second those numbers start to decrease. I'm no naiive enough to think it will eradicate the issue altogether but it cant do any harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gambling is an addiction, human nature has, by varing degrees, an addictive nature.  We all have a vice, we all have a craving that needs 'the hit', be that alcohol, nicotine, sugar or gambling.

Some addictive vices are legal, such as tobacco/sugar, because the rich and well connected owned the land, or just took it, and enslaved Africans to farm it. Online/off line gambling is just the same beast in different clothing, lures people in and uses mental stimulants to trap people in. 

It is no different to taking your money and burn it.  The system wins all the time, her wages prove that.

The ironic thing is you could not set this business up in the USA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Of course it's relevant. 265 million quid has gone out of the industry.

Don''t you think SOME of that could be used in a way to make positive changes? For example, how about they use a couple of million quid to show ads highlighting the negative side of the effects (similar to the shock and awe lung cancer ads, the drink driving ads etc)

The second they stop making it look so attractive and possibly even make it less accessible is the second those numbers start to decrease. I'm no naiive enough to think it will eradicate the issue altogether but it cant do any harm.

I know this will get a few angry comments.

What you are saying is for her to put money back in to stop and make people think about using her product in the first place?

So if the CEO of a car company (who gets his big bonus at the end of every year) was to look at the stats of how many people are killed each year by vehicles, would you expect him to put out a campaign to stop people buying his cars?

She just provides a service for those who want to use it. How people choose to use it is up to them.

I personally dislike gambling of this kind and as I have said I don't do it. Others have the same choice

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

I know this will get a few angry comments.

What you are saying is for her to put money back in to stop and make people think about using her product in the first place?

So if the CEO of a car company (who gets his big bonus at the end of every year) was to look at the stats of how many people are killed each year by vehicles, would you expect him to put out a campaign to stop people buying his cars?

She just provides a service for those who want to use it. How people choose to use it is up to them.

I personally dislike gambling of this kind and as I have said I don't do it. Others have the same choice

 

 

No, but if the figures of people getting killed each year kept going up, I'd expect him and the rest of his industry to look into how and why, if that needed to cost him a few quid out of his bonus then so be it. I'd expect the industry regulator to step in and demand changes. 

Here's a question for you and a few others, how did you feel about the financial crisis of 2008 and how much the bankers and stock market players were paying themselves in bonusses? The very people responsible for the crash.

Did you think it was ok? Did you think they deserved every penny?

What's the difference here?

I'm getting dragged all over the place, my main point is the amount. I just don't think it's justifiable in any way shape or form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our beloved owner & chairman got very rich with a business that made a lot of money on the back of producing addictive games.

I'm struggling to see much of a difference, to be honest. And by that I mean that both individuals have got very rich founding and building a successful business in a perfectly legal way in a competitive marketplace. Good luck to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronnieronalde said:

If 2 million of us were killed or injured on the roads every year I'm damn sure it wouldn't be allowed to carry on.

blimey some of the counter points are getting silly.

I've made all the points I can make. I'm not going to change anyone's mind either side of the fence.

I'm comfortable with my own views on it and others are comfortable with theirs, no worries.

How many does alcohol kill, how many does smoking kill. 

I am sure they would not be allowed to carry on. Hmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

How many does alcohol kill, how many does smoking kill. 

I am sure they would not be allowed to carry on. Hmmmm

How many CEO's of tobacco firms made 265 million in wages last year?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/259204/leading-10-tobacco-companies-worldwide-based-on-net-sales/

How many CEO's of alcohol companies paid themselves 265 million last year?

http://www.worldstopexports.com/major-export-companies-alcoholic-beverages/

 

hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Our beloved owner & chairman got very rich with a business that made a lot of money on the back of producing addictive games.

I'm struggling to see much of a difference, to be honest. And by that I mean that both individuals have got very rich founding and building a successful business in a perfectly legal way in a competitive marketplace. Good luck to them.

without being narky.

When was the last time someone lost their home cos they spent too much on angry birds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...