Petition to Derby to remove our relationship to gambling companies

[Day]

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

It's not about banning gambling or alcohol. It's about making it less socially acceptable. 

I hate the link between gambling and making sports more exciting.

Do you think by removing a logo from the front of a football shirt would make gambling less socially acceptable?

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, David said:

Do you think by removing a logo from the front of a football shirt would make gambling less socially acceptable?

#sportswashing

[Day]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

#sportswashing

That doesn't really answer my question, sports washing is something completely different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswashing

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, David said:

That doesn't really answer my question, sports washing is something completely different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswashing

It's the same reasoning behind it, similar to #greenwashing etc.

So you tell me why do all these betting companies through their money around at football shirts?

[Day]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

It's the same reasoning behind it, similar to #greenwashing etc.

So you tell me why do all these betting companies through their money around at football shirts?

No it's not even remotely the same.

You cannot compare the atrocities from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Russia with betting companies. That's just a wild wild wild path to even send this down.

I will politely decline to answer your question as you still refuse to answer my simple question that was made in response to your initial post, would removing a gambling logo from the front of a football shirt, make gambling less socially acceptable. 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, SirBrian said:

for the betting companies are grooming the children from a young age with their logos on the shirts, the children wear, and the children grow up believing betting is a good and accepable practice.

Is there actually any evidence of this? Have any shirt sponsors had an impact on you? I was born in the 90s, so I'll start there...

Puma - I'd favour Puma sports footwear over other brands, but I'm buying some footwear anyway.
EDS - still not sure who/what they are/do. I haven't even been tempted to look.
Pedigree - Has no influence on what I choose to drink.
The Derbyshire - No influence on the building society I use.
Bombardier - Raised my awareness of them. May make me slightly more likely to want to work for them than if they didn't sponsor us.
BuyMobiles.net - Raised awareness of them so i would check how much a new phone with them would cost compared to rivals. Did not make me want to buy a new phone though.
JustEat - Raised awareness of the brand when they were relatively new. Convenience means I have a takeaway more often than I would have done if they didn't exist. But, I'd be showing the same behaviour if they hadn't sponsored us.
32Red - Never bet with them, although I stopped gambling a few years before they started to sponsor us.

From my experience, the advertising is all about grabbing a bigger piece of the market, rather than 'grooming children'.

[Ram-Alf]

I watched a programme a couple of weeks back concerning "gambling addiction" not nice, Neither is alcohol abuse, Food disorder, Tabaco addiction, Medication addiction, There's more and more addicts seeking help for one addiction or another, Unfortunately the sporting world is driven by money, Reported today Tiger Woods turned down $700/$800 million to join LIV golf, There is some honesty out there, But if you already have 100s of millions $s why would you want more.

Sorry to read the OPs loss...but just say no!, And yes I'm aware of why those who get into all this...£s   

[AutoWindscreens]

40 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

It's terribly sad to hear when people have problems, but for me it's wrong to use that to stop the vast majority who don't. And it is the vast majority. Derby are in the financial mire, have just come out of administration and need access to every penny we can get to make it back onto an even keel. The petitioning and banning culture isn't for me and people at the club should not be made to feel bad for doing deals with bookmakers. Every sympathy for the loss of the original poster, but no to the campaign.

Making a decision not to put gambling companies on shirts is not stopping the vast majority who don't have a problem from having a bet.

It's deciding not to be a part of a system designed to normalize gambling, which adds more and more young people to the list of those who do have problems and helps the gambling companies hoover up more cash.

I'm all for the petition, help turn off the ducking hoover (and I speak as a regular and reasonably happy gambler).

As for those who say we'll do it when we can afford it: if you only have principles when they are not uncomfortable then you don't have principles. And I don't believe that gambling money is the difference between survival and liquidation.

[SirBrian]

22 minutes ago, David said:

Do you think by removing a logo from the front of a football shirt would make gambling less socially acceptable?

Law 18 to gamble, so why are children being exploited by gambling firms advertising their company on the shirt of a 4 year old, gambling companies will expect an high turnover of these kids to become future customers, and many before they are 18, there are ways to get bets on under age.

David take you have no children at the moment, one answer to the logo all under 18s have to have a plain shirt with no logo, try telling that to an 8 year old they will want the same shirt what the players play in with the logo, also doubt the gambling company would accept this in the sponsorship deal, they want the kids running round with the logo.

 

[AutoWindscreens]

16 minutes ago, David said:

I will politely decline to answer your question as you still refuse to answer my simple question that was made in response to your initial post, would removing a gambling logo from the front of a football shirt, make gambling less socially acceptable. 

Yes it would. The logos on the shirts are part of a system designed to make it seem normal and everyday.

Edited August 2, 2022 by AutoWindscreens
Edited so you can see the question I was answering

[RoyMac5]

15 minutes ago, David said:

I will politely decline to answer your question as you still refuse to answer my simple question that was made in response to your initial post, would removing a gambling logo from the front of a football shirt, make gambling less socially acceptable. 

Yes I thought you might. Okay I'm wrong it's not sports washing. Advertising makes items more acceptable by the very fact of normalising them.

Now why do you think that gambling companies invest large quantities of money into sport shirt advertising?

[SirBrian]

Denise Coates Bet 365 last years salary £300 million, that is only one employer in that betting company, gambling addiction is a major problem in this country.

[Day]

Just now, SirBrian said:

Law 18 to gamble, so why are children being exploited by gambling firms advertising their company on the shirt of a 4 year old, gambling companies will expect an high turnover of these kids to become future customers, and many before they are 18, there are ways to get bets on under age.

David take you have no children at the moment, one answer to the logo all under 18s have to have a plain shirt with no logo, try telling that to an 8 year old they will want the same shirt what the players play in with the logo, also doubt the gambling company would accept this in the sponsorship deal, they want the kids running round with the logo.

 

Children's shirts do not have gambling sponsors on them, even the U21's shirts Derby play in do not have them, it's been like that for years now.

If you want to see children being exploited, look at video games, mobile phone games where they encourage kids to open loot boxes, some of these games do not even have an age rating so kids as old as 6/7 are introduced to them. I would argue this and social media would expose more children to gambling than a sponsor on a football shirt ever would.

As for being a parent, no I'm not, but If I go to any seaside resort across the country these weekend, the amusements will be packed, parents handing kids pots of coins to place in machine hoping it pushes more out. Buying those plastic balls with a toy inside completely unaware of what they may get. Is this not teaching children gambling?

 

 

[Day]

7 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Yes it would. The logos on the shirts are part of a system designed to make it seem normal and everyday.

Sorry but it's not, gambling is normal, it is something millions in this country have enjoyed for many years without having problems.

Paddy Power are not beheading people in Ireland and looking to use football as a way to improve their reputation, hey look, we love sport, let us buy your club and sign lots of players so you can defend us.  

Many arguments can be made against gambling, taking it down the sports washing path is a terrible path to take this conversation down.

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, David said:

Sorry but it's not, gambling is normal, it is something millions in this country have enjoyed for many years without having problems.

Paddy Power are not beheading people in Ireland and looking to use football as a way to improve their reputation, hey look, we love sport, let us buy your club and sign lots of players so you can defend us.  

Many arguments can be made against gambling, taking it down the sports washing path is a terrible path to take this conversation down.

Come on then David, why do you think these companies are spending their cash putting their names on the front of our shirts?

[Day]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Now why do you think that gambling companies invest large quantities of money into sport shirt advertising?

Because football accounts for a large percentage of bets made.

The money they put in raises brand awareness, can be written off as a business expense which means paying less to the taxman.

It's targeted advertising, you see it on TV, between children TV shows all the latest toys.

However personally I'm the same as @Ghost of Clough, when you run through the list of shirt sponsors, how many have you been personally influenced by? For me 0. 

Even as a kid when we had Puma, I still preferred Nike and Adidas, still do. 

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, David said:

Because football accounts for a large percentage of bets made.

The money they put in raises brand awareness, can be written off as a business expense which means paying less to the taxman.

It's targeted advertising, you see it on TV, between children TV shows all the latest toys.

However personally I'm the same as @Ghost of Clough, when you run through the list of shirt sponsors, how many have you been personally influenced by? For me 0. 

Even as a kid when we had Puma, I still preferred Nike and Adidas, still do. 

I think it raises brand awareness as much as it establishes a link between sport and gambling. When I were a kid just about the only gambling I'd heard of was horse racing and the Pools. Gambling has expanded dramatically into sports and life in general. I had a problem with fruit machines when I was much younger. I gambled too much on them lost much more than I should, it wasn't even going to make me rich if I won. I consider myself fairly intelligent and somewhat resistant to 'marketing bs' but ... I gambled to win even when it wasn't going to solve any money problems I had - which I didn't really. I stopped before I lost an enormous (to me) amount. 

I don't want it to be normal to gamble in the way it currently is, I don't think it's a 'good thing'. In the same way I don't want alcohol over-use to be normalised. If everyone else was also not 'personally influenced' by 'shirt sponsors' as you then they would be very limited in the way of them advertised. Maybe just a brand logo - why do they do that? ?

I don't care that lots of other 'addictions' are seen as acceptable or normal, I don't want my Club to be joining in for the extra money.

 

 

[curb]

If a non gambling company is prepared to sponsor us for a similar amount then I would prefer it if we chose them over a betting company. It’s not stopping people from betting, if that’s what they want to do that’s up to them, but we would appear more empathetic towards the problem, which wouldn’t be a bad thing. 

[Day]

Final post on this as I'm off out, just wanted to make my position clear.

For me, if football wants to take the morale high ground by banning gambling advertising, I am totally fine with that, not a problem, let's do it.

However I believe we shouldn’t single gambling out, I feel it's unfair on the industry that let's not forget, creates thousands of jobs across the country and pays it's taxes.

Let's include anything that people suffer from additions with or services that destroy lives so alcohol, junk food, sugary drinks, credit cards, loans, video games that contain gambling etc.

The levels of obesity in this country for example are sickening and adds additional unnecessary strain on the NHS, I personally find this to be a more serious issue as supermarket shelves are littered with high in sugar and salt foods targeted to young kids. Take McDonald's for example, how could you even consider eating in that "restaurant" now the calories are shown with recommended daily allowances, they just don't add up to a healthy lifestyle.

I am so sorry for any lives that are cruelly lost through any addiction, having recently lost a family member to cancer was hard enough, to lose someone through something that was preventable must be devastating and I completely understand why this petition was created.

Myself personally again, I do not feel comfortable signing this petition that is targeted at Derby's new owner, we are a club that is losing millions each year just competing, even at this level. We have seen recently how much this club means to so many people and I want David Clowes to maximise revenue streams, not put our club at a disadvantage.

What I would like to see is more support for those that have addictions, nobody should ever feel the only way out from debt is by taking their own lives.

I do not have the answers on how to achieve that, but as a country we waste so much money, look at the Assembly Rooms as an example in Derby, why can't that money be used as government issued loans that can be used to clear debts at 0% interest whilst also banning that person from being able to gamble for a large number of years.

However to achieve that, we may have to explore the national identity card which I know has huge resistance over privacy concerns, plus it wouldn't line pockets....(look at the covid contracts).

 

[Gritstone Ram]

Best way to show them betting companies is don’t bet. 
I always maintain I work too hard to line a bookmakers pocket although I handsomely line a pub landlords.