Petition to Derby to remove our relationship to gambling companies

[SirBrian]

41 minutes ago, David said:

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?

 

 

Learn something new everday, which is a good thing not having grand children yet, not looked into the kids shirts, but what you put is a positive,

[AutoWindscreens]

1 hour 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.

I'm not saying its sportswashing.

I'm saying that the normalization has gone way too far and entrapped too many people. Plenty of grownups enjoyed a bet before deregulation and that's fine by me. But the amount of money in gambling advertising now tells you how much more money is being hoovered up since deregulation. There is absolutely no question on the facts that deregulation has led to thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) more problem gamblers. It's their money that pays for the dividends and the shirt sponsorship (and let's not kid ourselves that the companies give a flying one about them).

[RodleyRam]

Interesting and relevant debate this. 

I'm not a gambler and have never particularly been interested in it, beyond a social flutter on the grand national or whatever. I always lose and have never seen the appeal.

However, through work, I have spoken to numerous people affected by gambling addiction and the tragic consequences outlined by the OP. 

As with many issues of this nature the situation will only change through regulation and a handful of clubs making a stand is unlikely to have much impact. That doesn't mean they shouldn't make that stand. Just because the money is there and we need it, doesn't mean that we should take it. 

Some have commented that gambling had been around for years, so why get Draconian now. The simple issue is that gambling online, with enticing free bets and in-play betting is so much more accessible and instantaneous. This drives a chemical reaction in the brain that is highly addictive. After being suckered in, there's often a downward spiral and there will be many, many more like the OP talked about. It's a bigger issue than people realise and we'll only start to see the scale of the devastation over the next few years.

Will it make much difference if we choose to ban gambling adverts from shirt sponsorship etc? Probably not systemically but if there's the slightest chance that one youngster will avoid the fate of the young lad in the OP, then I think it's a moral stand worth taking. I also think we will be on the right side of history when (and it will be when) online gambling is regulated and marginalised.

Regardless of our recent history, Derby are an exciting proposition for a whole host of potential sponsors and we should challenge ourselves to take a difficult stand if that's what it takes.

The short version of this tome is: I agree with the petition, I'm in. Should have probably written that at the start...

Edited August 2, 2022 by RodleyRam
Spelling shambles

[Foreveram]

1 hour 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. 

Sometimes it works the opposite, I would never drink Labatts on principle.

[Archied]

Personally won’t sign , if the petition was aimed at football in general to ban sponsorship from companies considered to cause damage then I may have a different view though one persons view on what companies to ban and for what may be very different from someone else’s.

I think it’s unfair to pressure derby owners to deprive the club and its fans from financial income that can help the club to succeed when virtually all other clubs are accepting this sponsorship and framing it in such a way as to make it feel the owner somehow does not care about the very sad loss of a young life if he doesn’t agree to unilaterally turn away sponsorship money is not good

[Ghost of Clough]

Most common forms of gambling:

• National lottery - 27.2%
• Scratchcards - 7.1%
• Sports - 5.2%
• Private betting - 3.8%
• Horse racing - 3.5%
• Online slot machine - 3.4%

[whestonram]

1 hour ago, RodleyRam said:

Interesting and relevant debate this. 

I'm not a gambler and have never particularly been interested in it, beyond a social flutter on the grand national or whatever. I always lose and have never seen the appeal.

However, through work, I have spoken to numerous people affected by gambling addiction and the tragic consequences outlined by the OP. 

As with many issues of this nature the situation will only change through regulation and a handful of clubs making a stand is unlikely to have much impact. That doesn't mean they shouldn't make that stand. Just because the money is there and we need it, doesn't mean that we should take it. 

Some have commented that gambling had been around for years, so why get Draconian now. The simple issue is that gambling online, with enticing free bets and in-play betting is so much more accessible and instantaneous. This drives a chemical reaction in the brain that is highly addictive. After being suckered in, there's often a downward spiral and there will be many, many more like the OP talked about. It's a bigger issue than people realise and we'll only start to see the scale of the devastation over the next few years.

Will it make much difference if we choose to ban gambling adverts from shirt sponsorship etc? Probably not systemically but if there's the slightest chance that one youngster will avoid the fate of the young lad in the OP, then I think it's a moral stand worth taking. I also think we will be on the right side of history when (and it will be when) online gambling is regulated and marginalised.

Regardless of our recent history, Derby are an exciting proposition for a whole host of potential sponsors and we should challenge ourselves to take a difficult stand if that's what it takes.

The short version of this tome is: I agree with the petition, I'm in. Should have probably written that at the start...

Thank you. Put far more clearly than I could.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours 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. 

Nike and Adidas for me when I was a little kid. When I was a little bit older it was actually Puma - more so because they are a better fit for wider feet, but I'm sure there was a bit of bias there due to sponsoring Derby

[whestonram]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Most common forms of gambling:

• National lottery - 27.2%
• Scratchcards - 7.1%
• Sports - 5.2%
• Private betting - 3.8%
• Horse racing - 3.5%
• Online slot machine - 3.4%

I'm sure that's true, but if there was a table of the harmfulness of each, it would be in the opposite order.  It's particularly online casino type gambling that is addictive and harmful.  Nearly all the boys (and it is mainly boys, very few young women) that we know of having committed suicide were addicted to online gambling.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, David said:

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.

In my opinion, this will by far be a bigger issue than gambling in the very near future. To be honest, I'm very surprised more hasn't been made of it so far.
I've actually know several people who have spent well over £100k on a single mobile game, and know one person who actually lost their house after taking out loans to pay for their addiction.
The fact it's so easy for minors to get involved in spending money on these games is ridiculous. At least there's some control over who gambles.

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, whestonram said:

I'm sure that's true, but if there was a table of the harmfulness of each, it would be in the opposite order.  It's particularly online casino type gambling that is addictive and harmful.  Nearly all the boys (and it is mainly boys, very few young women) that we know of having committed suicide were addicted to online gambling.

https://www.finder.com/uk/gambling-statistics

[LazloW]

FWIW I’m with @Davidon this. I’m not sure why DCFC should be the target of this petition.  Wouldn’t it be more effective to direct it to the Government, asking them to ban gambling advertising in all sport? Assuming that the club don’t (or can’t) cancel contracts with gambling companies, then is there going to be some kind of backlash, painting the club in a negative light for doing something some people find offensive (not all by a long shot), is otherwise perfectly legal and that everyone else is doing and will continue to do.

Even if they decided to have nothing to do with gambling, which I’d obviously be fine with, it would have very little overall impact; hence the logic in directing this type of campaign to the top where some difference can be made. Feels a bit unfair that DCFC are being targeted (and it’s not as if they’ve announced the shirt sponsor will be a gambling firm anyway, so feels a bit premature too). Hey ho. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by LazloW

[whestonram]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

https://www.finder.com/uk/gambling-statistics

Wasn't doubting you! And if the national lottery was our sponsor, I doubt I'd be worrying about it. But 32Red is an online casino. And I know they're no longer our sponsor. I'm just hoping the club doesn't choose another gambling company. Though as we'll be on telly a lot less, maybe they'll not be as interested 

[whestonram]

8 minutes ago, LazloW said:

FWIW I’m with @Davidon this. I’m not sure why DCFC should be the target of this petition.  Wouldn’t it be more effective to direct it to the Government, asking them to ban gambling advertising in all sport? Assuming that the club don’t (or can’t) cancel contracts with gambling companies, then is there going to be some kind of backlash, painting the club in a negative light for doing something some people find offensive (not all by a long shot), is otherwise perfectly legal and that everyone else is doing and will continue to do.

Even if they decided to have nothing to do with gambling, which I’d obviously be fine with, it would have very little overall impact; hence the logic in directing this type of campaign to the top where some difference can be made. Feels a bit unfair that DCFC are being targeted (and it’s not as if they’ve announced there shirt sponsor will be a gambling firm anyway, so feels a bit premature too). Hey ho. 

Gambling with Lives has petitioned the government a lot! And I agree, it would be better if gambling advertising was illegal, like tobacco advertising. In the absence of that, the more organisations take a stand, the better. And on a personal note, I have not bought a shirt since we had gambling sponsors, and would love to do so again. But I'm not walking around advertising gambling.

[horizon]

Sponsors are the biggest factor in whether I buy a shirt or not. They are often the most visually striking part of the shirt and take up the most space

My personal stance is that I will not be a walking billboard for something that clearly has a negative impact on the health of others.

Maybe it's hypocritical because I drink and smoke and gamble, but I am fortunate enough to be able to do so within reason and I don't shove it in peoples face.

To wear it as some kind of badge of honour front and centre on my outfit just feels wrong.

I want a Derby shirt, not a 32red shirt.

In an ideal world, the Ram would be the centrepiece with sponsors dotted around the outside, but I can't see that kind of change happening...at least until the Ram becomes the global fashion brand it deserves to be ?

[Archied]

38 minutes ago, whestonram said:

Gambling with Lives has petitioned the government a lot! And I agree, it would be better if gambling advertising was illegal, like tobacco advertising. In the absence of that, the more organisations take a stand, the better. And on a personal note, I have not bought a shirt since we had gambling sponsors, and would love to do so again. But I'm not walking around advertising gambling.

I think there’s a difference between organisations taking a stand and organisations being pressured to take a stand , especially if the pressured stand puts them at a competitive disadvantage 

[Yani P]

I was a pro punter for many years, only horse racing and some sports betting when we knew we would beat the odds..

There were no fruit machines or virtual racing terminals...I think those things are a disaster.

Sadly like most potentially addictive things, some people have that weakness exploited that can lead to terrible things like that mentioned in the opening post.

Personally I would not be putting pressure on the new owner to limit his sponsorship options at this time.

[Carl Sagan]

4 hours ago, AutoWindscreens said:

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.

Fair enough. I like having a flutter and am happy to have gambling companies as sponsor at any time. I've found betting on a game has been a fun thing to do for many years, just as drinking at a game has. Humans are social animals and these things add to the mix and I'd suggest it's a strange attitude to partake in either but then want the names of the companies involved banned from the ground. As noted in the thread, the National Lottery is the biggest form of gambling in in country and I'd be delighted if they want to put Lotto on the Derby shirts. I feel there are too many morality lessons from the middle classes pervading society nowadays, who don't like seeing what us dirty oiks get up to.

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

I feel there are too many morality lessons from the middle classes pervading society nowadays, who don't like seeing what us dirty oiks get up to.

You're telling me you're not middle class?

What about the people that don't partake?

[Ram-Alf]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

You're telling me you're not middle class?

What about the people that don't partake?

Classless ?