Letter to 11 clubs (including Forest) about gambling ads | Page 6 | Vital Football

Letter to 11 clubs (including Forest) about gambling ads

What annoys me is Windows 10 - you used to be able to have a quiet game of free cell or spider solitaire in moments of boredom, but now it's a Solitaire Suite with ads every few games. You can play without ads - if you pay money to Windows.

So I put up with the ads. Some days they're ALL 'Vegas Slots' or similar - flashy, noisy virtual fruit machines imploring you to gamble. Given that you're playing Free Cell because you have time to waste, the temptation is clear enough. Go on, have a dip. Why not?

I'd definitely like gambling ads banned from places like that.
 
It is not perfectly legal for a child to place a bet in this Country; the legal age for placing a bet is 18 years old in any licenced outlet and 16 years old for any lottery.

The rules for fixed odds betting is also quite clear; you need to be 18 years old.

The bit amount not betting with real money does not make any sense either; you do not bet with real money in a Casino, you buy Chips; whether you play with credits or chips, if there is a monetary value it is Gambling


https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/What-is-gambling.aspx#:~:text=Age restrictions for betting,with a licensed gambling business.
Actually you're right. The reason loot boxes are legal has nothing to do with what I said (I have no idea why I thought that). Its actually that the rewards are not seen to have monetary value, but in the age of video games that is a bullshit definition of gambling.
 
I get where you are coming from. In my younger days i was involved as a hunt saboteur despite the fact hunting with dogs was legal at the time. I do think gambling should be regulated but ultimately if you decide gambling is a legal passtime then, imeo, you are better off targeting support to those who need it rather than a blanket rule that may generate resistance.

I have sympathy with mao's view- bookies know who the problem gamblers are since they see them every day. Start enforcing established rules before creating new ones.
Enforcing the current laws will prove difficult. For a start, the gambling commission takes money from bookies (who doesn't these days) so they don't want to do anything. Secondly, all they can really do if they did decide to do anything is issue a fine that wouldn't even come close to having a serious effect on bookies' income. Thirdly, the bookies feel like they can get away with continuing to encourage problem gamblers because not following these rules is really difficult to prove. How do you prove that staff in a bookies know that a particular individual can't afford the money they are gambling, and how can you prove that the managers even knew what was going on? Its all very wishy washy.

I knew a guy who used to gamble on FOBTs. He told me a story where he had put £4000 in one of these machines in an afternoon. When he ran out of money, he repeatedly attacked the machine, breaking it.
The next day, he went into the exact same bookies and started playing on one of the machines. A staff member approached him, told him that he had scared the staff the previous day, asked him if he was sure he was ok to be gambling, and then made him a cup of tea to drink while he continued gambling (a tactic they use so that people don't leave the shop immediately if they win money).

There is nothing more important to these companies than keeping addicts addicted. Not staff safety, not the money they 'contribute' to the Gambling Commission, not nothing.

However, a law banning advertising is simple (like the £2 limit on machines). Its easy to enforce, its clear when the rules have been broken, and it would be effective. The current laws are impossible to enforce properly and work in favour of the bookies.

About support, I get what you are saying, but I disagree. Again look at something like gun control in America. The harm the prevalence of guns causes is clear, but the government offering support to victims of gun crime doesn't exactly help prevent that harm.
You can support an addict, but when people are there legally deliberately trying as hard as possible to get people addicted, supporting them later is not enough. Its too late and the damage has been done.
 
Enforcing the current laws will prove difficult. For a start, the gambling commission takes money from bookies (who doesn't these days) so they don't want to do anything. Secondly, all they can really do if they did decide to do anything is issue a fine that wouldn't even come close to having a serious effect on bookies' income. Thirdly, the bookies feel like they can get away with continuing to encourage problem gamblers because not following these rules is really difficult to prove. How do you prove that staff in a bookies know that a particular individual can't afford the money they are gambling, and how can you prove that the managers even knew what was going on? Its all very wishy washy.

I knew a guy who used to gamble on FOBTs. He told me a story where he had put £4000 in one of these machines in an afternoon. When he ran out of money, he repeatedly attacked the machine, breaking it.
The next day, he went into the exact same bookies and started playing on one of the machines. A staff member approached him, told him that he had scared the staff the previous day, asked him if he was sure he was ok to be gambling, and then made him a cup of tea to drink while he continued gambling (a tactic they use so that people don't leave the shop immediately if they win money).

There is nothing more important to these companies than keeping addicts addicted. Not staff safety, not the money they 'contribute' to the Gambling Commission, not nothing.

However, a law banning advertising is simple (like the £2 limit on machines). Its easy to enforce, its clear when the rules have been broken, and it would be effective. The current laws are impossible to enforce properly and work in favour of the bookies.

About support, I get what you are saying, but I disagree. Again look at something like gun control in America. The harm the prevalence of guns causes is clear, but the government offering support to victims of gun crime doesn't exactly help prevent that harm.
You can support an addict, but when people are there legally deliberately trying as hard as possible to get people addicted, supporting them later is not enough. Its too late and the damage has been done.

From the above, the only logical conclusion you can reach is that you consider gambling as not appropriate for legal entertainment. As, whatever our opinions, it is currently legal then much of what you suggest is difficult to sustain. A blanket rule, while protecting the few, restricts the many and it is this balance that makes the decision and decisions like this, tricky and not black and white.

Until we develop prescience we will always be supporting people after an event, by definition. Guns are clearly different to gambling and cannot be used as an example in this case.

Having said that it seems equally clear that if current rules are non enforceable (assuming this is correct) then they require reform but blanket bans should be approached with caution imo.
 
From the above, the only logical conclusion you can reach is that you consider gambling as not appropriate for legal entertainment. As, whatever our opinions, it is currently legal then much of what you suggest is difficult to sustain. A blanket rule, while protecting the few, restricts the many and it is this balance that makes the decision and decisions like this, tricky and not black and white.

Until we develop prescience we will always be supporting people after an event, by definition. Guns are clearly different to gambling and cannot be used as an example in this case.

Having said that it seems equally clear that if current rules are non enforceable (assuming this is correct) then they require reform but blanket bans should be approached with caution imo.
I've said many times in this thread I'm not arguing for a ban on gambling.
I don't believe in that. I understand that gambling makes sport more fun and adds something to the experience. I wouldn't want to tell people that they shouldn't have that, because they should. I would legalize heroin too, because what a person does in their own time is their own business. I wouldn't want people advertising heroin to kids on social media though, and I assume neither would you.
I'm arguing for a ban on advertising, and not even all advertising. Logos on shirts is fine. Literally telling every person that is watching a football match, including kids, to go and gamble, is not fine. Advertising to people who do not want to be advertised to on social media where they can't avoid it apart from not using social media ever is a fucking disgrace. That is what needs to stop, and it doesn't restrict anyone's ability to go and gamble if they want to.
 
I've said many times in this thread I'm not arguing for a ban on gambling.
I don't believe in that. I understand that gambling makes sport more fun and adds something to the experience. I wouldn't want to tell people that they shouldn't have that, because they should. I would legalize heroin too, because what a person does in their own time is their own business. I wouldn't want people advertising heroin to kids on social media though, and I assume neither would you.
I'm arguing for a ban on advertising, and not even all advertising. Logos on shirts is fine. Literally telling every person that is watching a football match, including kids, to go and gamble, is not fine. Advertising to people who do not want to be advertised to on social media where they can't avoid it apart from not using social media ever is a fucking disgrace. That is what needs to stop, and it doesn't restrict anyone's ability to go and gamble if they want to.

I was under the impression that you could decide how on line advertisers targeted you; if you deem something unsuitable in any way you have the power to block it.

I know Google had something along those lines built into Adsense at one time; you could go through a process were you prevented Advertisements from certain sectors appearing but you had to choose alternatives.

Would you be prepared to pay for Social Media if it came Ad free?

The Social Media Companies use Advertising to monetise their sites, thus allowing free access; if you curtail that activity how are they supposed to make money.

It is the same with advertising when Sport is on TV; The Advertising slots around those events are premium slots which attract the most money; those slots are taken up by Bookmakers because they are the ones prepared to pay those rates.

If you stopped Sky using Bookmaker advertising and they decided to put their Football package up £10 a month to compensate for lost revenue you would have a massive outcry; you would soon see how deep some peoples morals are.

Do Boohoo advertise on Social Media? if so, are there the same levels of mock indignation surrounding their adverts?

Or does using slave labour occupy a different part of the morality spectrum?

Stopping Bookmaker Advertising will not stop Problem Gambling; stopping Bookmakers from taking bets off of Problem Gamblers will.

Regulations are in place which would allow this to happen; the problem is that the Bookmakers have been allowed to put the onus back on the the Problem gamblers asking them to self regulate, using gimmicks like betting holidays, self imposed deposit restrictions and an assortment of other measures which will not work.

The Bookmakers have all the power they need not to take those bets, but they are not using that power; more importantly, they are not being forced to use those powers.
 
I was under the impression that you could decide how on line advertisers targeted you; if you deem something unsuitable in any way you have the power to block it.

I know Google had something along those lines built into Adsense at one time; you could go through a process were you prevented Advertisements from certain sectors appearing but you had to choose alternatives.

Would you be prepared to pay for Social Media if it came Ad free?

The Social Media Companies use Advertising to monetise their sites, thus allowing free access; if you curtail that activity how are they supposed to make money.

It is the same with advertising when Sport is on TV; The Advertising slots around those events are premium slots which attract the most money; those slots are taken up by Bookmakers because they are the ones prepared to pay those rates.

If you stopped Sky using Bookmaker advertising and they decided to put their Football package up £10 a month to compensate for lost revenue you would have a massive outcry; you would soon see how deep some peoples morals are.

Do Boohoo advertise on Social Media? if so, are there the same levels of mock indignation surrounding their adverts?

Or does using slave labour occupy a different part of the morality spectrum?

Stopping Bookmaker Advertising will not stop Problem Gambling; stopping Bookmakers from taking bets off of Problem Gamblers will.

Regulations are in place which would allow this to happen; the problem is that the Bookmakers have been allowed to put the onus back on the the Problem gamblers asking them to self regulate, using gimmicks like betting holidays, self imposed deposit restrictions and an assortment of other measures which will not work.

The Bookmakers have all the power they need not to take those bets, but they are not using that power; more importantly, they are not being forced to use those powers.

The first part... This is exactly what the letter was saying. In order to not get advertised to by bookies, people are not able to even follow their football team on social media, because the football team's social media accounts advertise gambling. I don't understand why you think this is 'mock indignation' when its a letter from gambling addicts about how they can't even follow a football team on social media without being triggered.
You think these people are pretending to be addicted to gambling so they can virtue signal? That seems like an extremely strange thing to do.
And you can probably tell from arguing with me about it that I have personal experience of the damage gambling addiction can do (I'd rather not go into it though).
Actually Boohoo do occupy a different part of the morality spectrum. Slave labour is absolutely awful, but what we are talking about here is triggering people's addiction and suggesting to kids that gambling is fine with no negative consequences. Its a very different issue.

I understand your point, but what I don't get is why you are so insistent that bookies are allowed to advertise during football? Personally I can't see what anyone gains from it, but plenty of people lose because of it.
 
It was likened to a ponzi scheme...

Yes, by the Journalist who is reporting on the saga for the Athletic.

Having read what he has penned, I seriously doubt whether he has understood the FI model or what a Ponzi scheme is.

The model is based on the Stockmarket and is demand driven; the huge difference between the two is that the Stockmarket has liquidity.

When people want to sell shares on the Stockmarket there are people willing to buy them; that is not the case on FI.

Some people are sat on shares which have "appreciated" in value but there is no one to buy them from them.

FI have been accused of tanking the market to try and get some liquidity back into it: markets tank when there is no demand, it is as simple as that.

The latest problem is that dividends have been cut.

I read the prospectus cover to cover and could not figure out how dividends where either calculated or who paid them.

The calculation involved some kind of factor relating to what they called "media buzz" which I assume relates to press coverage, which is fucking lunacy.

It is clear now that FI are the ones who pay the dividend and that it comes from their cut; the spread between the buy and sell prices.

Guess what happens when the markets tank?

There are no buys or sells meaning there is no spread, meaning there is no money for dividends.

The people who took part in this farce are either reckless, stupid or both; no one in their right mind would have bought any shares after reading the prospectus.
 
The people who took part in this farce are either reckless, stupid or both; no one in their right mind would have bought any shares after reading the prospectus.
Firstly this true, its incredibly reckless to take part in this.
But I'd like to note that those people were relentlessly advertised to by the football club they support and trust with the aim of getting them to do that.
I include Forest as having taken part in the farce, and having been as reckless and stupid as those who lost their money.
 
If just like to see individual entities, like our own club run with moral consideration to its neighborhood. Its totally the one control we have about whether we accept advertisers of things like gambling and pharma. But we are just as guilty as the gambling advertisiers because we want the revenue. How many times have I questioned it over the years? Give me sports and wellbeing brands, its sport. Gambling whilst it might involve sport is not sport and it cant be heathy but can be unhealthy. I dont really see the much difference to tobacco advertising
 
Not much to say. Did we create enough? I don't think so. Draw for this half is a fair result.
If we don't raise our game a bit, draw is the best we can get.
Pressure on the defense to keep a clean sheet, as for us to score looks a bit hard.
 
We have seen bans for tobacco, which is legal and Alcohol which is legal, (oof and hemp of course in most places) it wouldnt be setting any new precident for a product considered to bring harm to a % of the population.
 
Guns are clearly different to gambling and cannot be used as an example in this case.

Dunno - I would still put them in a similar category.

My dad was a gambling addict. He would mostly lose and then when he did, when I was a kid he would come home and beat the shit out of me (at least a couple times a week) and say it was my fault that we were poor.

We would regularly go for days without food despite him having a relatively well paid full time job.

When my mum eventually divorced him, he moved to the US.

He died when he was still working because he didn't keep up with his medical insurance because of gambling.

Despite working for nearly 50 years, the only 'assets' that he died with were a fold-up bed, mattress, TV, hob stove, a few clothes and personal effects and $10 in his wallet.

Because of gambling.