Petition to Derby to remove our relationship to gambling companies

[Archied]

45 minutes ago, whestonram said:

Well, I'm asking you to support me in addressing a petition to David Clowes.  And I am hoping that he'll have the same view as me about what is morally correct.

But with the wording that he seems like a good guy = if he doesn’t agree with you he’s not = your a good guy in the right ,

this tactic is the go to in all areas it seems these days 

personally my view is that the betting companies / booze ect should be taxed big on they’re profits and that money should be used along with gov money / charities monies to provide the help needed to those like the poor young lad you talk of , big ad campaigns making it clear that it’s not his fault and where to get the help needed ,

target help to the minority that suffer not moralise to and nanny state the vast majority who enjoy a bet with no probs

[RodleyRam]

31 minutes ago, Archied said:

Personally my view is that the betting companies / booze ect should be taxed big on they’re profits and that money should be used along with gov money / charities monies to provide the help needed to those like the poor young lad you talk of , big ad campaigns making it clear that it’s not his fault and where to get the help needed ,

target help to the minority that suffer not moralise to and nanny state the vast majority who enjoy a bet with no probs

I don't think the petition is suggesting 'banning' gambling per se. It's saying take a stand against it and stop the unscrupulous advertising.

You suggest heavy taxation to invest in support for the addicts. Fair suggestion, it's one that goes around with all types of harmful products but unfortunately an enormous amount of damage is done by the time that someone reaches out for help (if indeed they ever do) Whilst support for those that become addicted is essential and can make a big difference, wouldn't it be better if we helped people to avoid addiction in the first place?

The human and economic cost to us all for the issues raised in this thread is astronomical (alcohol, junk food, drugs, gambling, porn etc.)

Prevention is better than cure but that requires longer term thinking, investment and legislation.

Edited August 3, 2022 by RodleyRam

[LERam]

1 hour ago, whestonram said:

The gambling companies like the story to be that it is about your choice.  To some extent it is of course, but online casinos are so addictive, it gets beyond you very easily.  There must be some reason why some people get addicted and some (most) don't, but not having the addictive product put in front of your face would help not becoming addicted.  My Gambling with Lives colleagues would say that you shouldn't blame yourself for becoming addicted.  It was because Jack did blame himself that he took his own life.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, and I know betting companies have no real concern over my health. The only reason they pretend to care is to themselves. 

I do believe online slots etc, where its constantly available to play 24/7 are dangerous and should be limited in some way (although I'm not sure how) but I also don't believe in censoring things so it's difficult for me to say all sponsorship should be banned. I'm going to keep tabs on the thread and read other thoughts though. It's interesting to hear different views and experiences to understand better 

[Archied]

51 minutes ago, RodleyRam said:

I don't think the petition is suggesting 'banning' gambling per se. It's saying take a stand against it and stop the unscrupulous advertising.

You suggest heavy taxation to invest in support for the addicts. Fair suggestion, it's one that goes around with all types of harmful products but unfortunately an enormous amount of damage is done by the time that someone reaches out for help (if indeed they ever do) Whilst support for those that become addicted is essential and can make a big difference, wouldn't it be better if we helped people to avoid addiction in the first place?

The human and economic cost to us all for the issues raised in this thread is astronomical (alcohol, junk food, drugs, gambling, porn etc.)

Prevention is better than cure but that requires longer term thinking, investment and legislation.

Trust me , I’ve got a personal masters in addiction, up to age 35 being destroyed by it then many years after that helping others to escape it as I have with a lot of hard work and luck and in the main trying to find addiction s to things that are relatively good for me ,

all you can do is have very clear strong messages about the dangers of these things ie gambling / booze/ drugs ect to help discourage starting , recognise the signs of addiction becoming a problem for the participant and family and friends ,then have the help available in abundance ,,,, just look at the USA history with prohibition and the numbers rackets 

we addicts find a way no matter what and the more underground we are driven the worse it is 

still , just my opinion based on person experience , one thing I’ve found in myself and other addiction sufferers is we all seem to have a compulsion for self destruction no matter what the addiction is to

Edited August 3, 2022 by Archied

[Smalley Ram]

Signed - don't disagree with gambling as a thing but hate that it is advertised to such an extent it is normalised

[Miggins]

21 hours ago, LERam said:

It's a difficult one and it's very easy to say it should be banned when you read heartbreaking stories. I myself have an addictive personality and have my own issues as a youngster with gambling and drugs amongst other things. I remember a specific moment being told about a dead cert and putting everything I had in my account on it chasing money I'd spent elsewhere.

But I found the issue was ultimately me, my personality and my own flaws. 

Maybe some limitations might help making it so normal and easily accessible? But at some point I think individuals have to take some personal responsibility. Otherwise everyone will need everything controlled, alcohol, junk food, shopping habits, porn etc. All can lead to addiction and all can have severe consequences.

I don't want that to come across as insensitive and I feel for the original poster and the poor guys family and friends. 

That's just my view, which is of course, one of many different ones. I don't know if my view is right, skewed by my own experiences. Maybe I still blame myself for a past me instead of outside factors, I don't know.

The problem is that there will always be a small number of people who, for whatever reason, are incapable of taking personal responsibility. Mental health issues make it almost impossible for some to dig themselves out of the big dark hole they find themselves in and they become increasingly incapable of rational thought.

As a sad example, a close member of my family has dreadful mental health problems caused by cerebral palsy. He cannot stop spending money and although he has a well paid job he takes out loan after loan from unscrupulous lenders. His parents have had to spend £20,000 to keep the bailiffs from the door over the past 2 years and yet as soon as the debts are paid he is bombarded again on line with the same advertising offering him more loans which he accepts.

I wish more could be done to protect vulnerable people against being exploited this way. It's a nightmare for themselves and for their families. They can't help their character flaws, mental health issues, lack of self control or whatever it is that leads to compulsive behaviour.

[Rammysees]

On 02/08/2022 at 14:10, Ghost of Clough said:

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'.

FYI EDS - Electronic Data Systems were the US based IT Services company Rolls-Royce sold all its computing requirements to and TUPEd it computing and data support etc. Somewhere around the early 90s. They provided a lot of IT solutions for big sporting events, hence the sports sponsoring. It was bought by HP a few years later and eventually renamed.

Irrelevant but fills the gap

[Tamworthram]

12 hours ago, Smalley Ram said:

Signed - don't disagree with gambling as a thing but hate that it is advertised to such an extent it is normalised

There is a difference between advertising and sponsorship though. I’d rather we steered well clear of betting companies but it doesn’t bother me that much if we have their name plastered over the front of our shirts. As has been discussed, sponsorship (IMO) is all about brand recognition. Seeing 32Red on the front of the shirt isn’t going to encourage someone to place a bet but, if they’re going to anyway, they may now choose 32Red before any other company. The constant ads on TV detailing all the “exciting” options available is a different matter though and really should be better regulated. As others have said, I think comments like “please bet responsibly” and “when the fun stops, stop” are just the betting companies playing lip service to the problems gambling addiction can cause.

[RoyMac5]

37 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

There is a difference between advertising and sponsorship though. I’d rather we steered well clear of betting companies but it doesn’t bother me that much if we have their name plastered over the front of our shirts. As has been discussed, sponsorship (IMO) is all about brand recognition. Seeing 32Red on the front of the shirt isn’t going to encourage someone to place a bet but, if they’re going to anyway, they may now choose 32Red before any other company. The constant ads on TV detailing all the “exciting” options available is a different matter though and really should be better regulated. As others have said, I think comments like “please bet responsibly” and “when the fun stops, stop” are just the betting companies playing lip service to the problems gambling addiction can cause.

Or of course might be 'new' to gambling and be wary, but upon seeing 32Red who sponsor Derby, think oh I know them they must be okay, I'll try them then. Or I wonder who our sponsors are, hmmm an online gambling company, is that a thing? I'll give it a go. They are seen as 'trustworthy' because of us allowing them on our shirt. Etc...

Just as likely as your scenario. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Tamworthram]

36 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or of course might be 'new' to gambling and be wary, but upon seeing 32Red who sponsor Derby, think oh I know them they must be okay, I'll try them then. Or I wonder who our sponsors are, hmmm an online gambling company, is that a thing? I'll give it a go. They are seen as 'trustworthy' because of us allowing them on our shirt. Etc...

Just as likely as your scenario. 

I disagree.

I don't really think it's very likely (or common) that someone technology savvy enough to be able to place an online bet won't yet know that such a thing exists. Besides, the shirt sponsorship doesn't mention online betting does it? 

With regard to thinking 32Red must be trustworthy because they saw their name, kind of supports my argument. Seeing their name on our shirts might just encourage gamblers to use them in preference to an alternative rather than start gambling.

[LERam]

3 hours ago, Miggins said:

The problem is that there will always be a small number of people who, for whatever reason, are incapable of taking personal responsibility. Mental health issues make it almost impossible for some to dig themselves out of the big dark hole they find themselves in and they become increasingly incapable of rational thought.

As a sad example, a close member of my family has dreadful mental health problems caused by cerebral palsy. He cannot stop spending money and although he has a well paid job he takes out loan after loan from unscrupulous lenders. His parents have had to spend £20,000 to keep the bailiffs from the door over the past 2 years and yet as soon as the debts are paid he is bombarded again on line with the same advertising offering him more loans which he accepts.

I wish more could be done to protect vulnerable people against being exploited this way. It's a nightmare for themselves and for their families. They can't help their character flaws, mental health issues, lack of self control or whatever it is that leads to compulsive behaviour.

Maybe that's the issue that needs looking at? Not the advertisers of gambling, loans, food etc (the list is long)

But maybe more needs to happen to protect people vulnerable to such things from actually falling into these traps. 8ts very hard to recognise the signs though.

I've mentioned my own problems with gambling and drugs, no one close to me would have guessed either though unless I did something terrible in which case its too late.

I honestly don't know what the best approach is ?‍♂️

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I disagree.

I don't really think it's very likely (or common) that someone technology savvy enough to be able to place an online bet won't yet know that such a thing exists. Besides, the shirt sponsorship doesn't mention online betting does it? 

With regard to thinking 32Red must be trustworthy because they saw their name, kind of supports my argument. Seeing their name on our shirts might just encourage gamblers to use them in preference to an alternative rather than start gambling.

You really do not have to be 'tech savvy' to use a mobile phone. 

As for thinking 32Red are trustworthy because they are on our shirts - why not start gambling with them? 

It's all those things and more - plus a little social responsibility with a strap line added. ?

[Ghost of Clough]

56 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

You really do not have to be 'tech savvy' to use a mobile phone. 

As for thinking 32Red are trustworthy because they are on our shirts - why not start gambling with them? 

It's all those things and more - plus a little social responsibility with a strap line added. ?

The point Tamworthram made was that someone who is capable of using a phone to gamble, will already know how to before they see a sponsor on a shirt.

Sponsorship is all about brand awareness, and that specific company trying to increase their own market share.
Think about it... did you start buying more footwear because we were sponsored by Puma, drink more because of Pedigree, or buy more phones because of buymobiles?

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

You really do not have to be 'tech savvy' to use a mobile phone. 

As for thinking 32Red are trustworthy because they are on our shirts - why not start gambling with them? 

It's all those things and more - plus a little social responsibility with a strap line added. ?

It wasn't me suggesting they are trustworthy. That was your scenario not mine. 

Perhaps talking about being tech savvy was a but over the top but so, in my opinion, is the thought that a none gambler is going to start just because they've suddenly found out about an online gambling company as they've seen their name on our shirt. Presumably that individual doesn't watch much commercial TV.

[RoyMac5]

Edit: Bottom line is for me a big no to gambling advertising just like not advertising smoking nor alcohol.

Edited August 4, 2022 by RoyMac5

[R@M]

I’d rather we didn’t have gambling sponsorship, but I’d also rather we didn’t condemn our new owners for taking business opportunities. My ratherings are not going to stop either. 

[Miggins]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The point Tamworthram made was that someone who is capable of using a phone to gamble, will already know how to before they see a sponsor on a shirt.

Sponsorship is all about brand awareness, and that specific company trying to increase their own market share.
Think about it... did you start buying more footwear because we were sponsored by Puma, drink more because of Pedigree, or buy more phones because of buymobiles?

I agree, GOC, but there are people out there who are much more impressionable and may think that anything connected with their club has the club's approval and that DCFC actually endorse the product. I don't think I have ever been influenced by sponsorship (apart from Robinson's lemon barley water at Wimbledon ?), but I guess that some folk are.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Miggins

[SirBrian]

All major companies advertise to bring in more new customers ie BMW, Toyota, M&S, Heinz, Mars, Cadbury etc and betting companies are very savvy in their marketing, so through advertising it does bring results via new customers, if the companies data showed that all the millions spent from the companies advertisement budget did not work then why spend the money!!!

[SirBrian]

Ladbokes, Coral owners Entain have been fined a record 17 million for many offences including not checking on customer who invested online £230,000 lack of money laundring checks, anyway it is on BBC news today, if anyone still feel bookmakers are good guys and gals after this latest disclosure!

[Day]

15 minutes ago, SirBrian said:

Ladbokes, Coral owners Entain have been fined a record 17 million for many offences including not checking on customer who invested online £230,000 lack of money laundring checks, anyway it is on BBC news today, if anyone still feel bookmakers are good guys and gals after this latest disclosure!

Toyota were fined $180 million fine for violations of the Clean Air Act, should we remove the branding from our West Stand and the entire automotive industry?