Betting/Gaming ads during football matches

thebaz

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Gambling addiction is though.Nobody has ever forced anybody to gamble on anything.

Technically I have been affected by as I've been affected by the property gambling that existed in this country during the Celtic tiger era as my parents stupidly remortgaged our house to buy an investment property which of course tanked and have now left me with having to pay all this money back for the rest of my life.They were complete idiots to gamble with there life savings and anyone who gambles excessively in any way is a complete idiot.Simple as that.

Gambling anything more than small amounts is complete idiocy unless you are really really good at it which almost nobody is.

that was my point , most people including me , and you , have been affected by Gambling - labelling them or us as stupid is what i had issue with - i used to gamble too much when i was young , i stopped when i lost what i could not pay , but it becomes a buzz , that many sports people have written about , its not about stupidity , maybe its running away from something or just getting a kick ... life is full if addictions & temptations of one sort today - smoking, booze - but gambling is quite bad cause you can run up debts that no amount of drinking or smoking could ... anyway lets move on , was a bit sensitive today.

Dirty Dingus McGee

eagle eye wrote: »

My answers are about advertisements for kids. I don't care what you advertise after hours but not during the hours that kids might be watching tv.

I don't believe that adverts for gambling or alcohol or for anything porn related or phonecalls to hotlines for private chats should be allowed before 10.00pm on the night of a football match if your tv station is showing said match and 8.00pm on all other nights.

Fizzy drinks are not very good for children at all.If anything allowing them to be advertised would be much worse for children than alcohol as they're not allowed to drink alcohol.

Personally I think you should be allowed to advertise whatever you want whenever you want on TV, if you don't like the ads send you children out of the room while they are on.Sports shouldn't have to sacrifice income just to be a good role model for someones children it's not the premier leagues job to be anyones parent.

Fr Tod Umptious

howiya wrote: »

That's not what I asked. Are you ok with betting companies funding your child's dream of Liverpool winning trophies etc?

Bet365 own Stoke so they're probably not going anywhere

I did not know that about Stoke, thought they were just a sponsor, not an owner.

Would prefer if there was no association between clubs and gambling companies, would also not be wild about the kids walking around in replica shirts if they had betting company logos on them, which is currently not the case with Liverpool thankfully.

eagle eye

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Fizzy drinks are not very good for children at all.If anything allowing them to be advertised would be much worse for children than alcohol as they're not allowed to drink alcohol.

Personally I think you should be allowed to advertise whatever you want whenever you want on TV, if you don't like the ads send you children out of the room while they are on.Sports shouldn't have to sacrifice income just to be a good role model for someones children it's not the premier leagues job to be anyones parent.

That's fine then, and I'll be the most hated father because I don't let my kids watch the Premier league or GAA or basically any sport on tv.

That's what it takes to be a good parent but imo those on tv have a responsibility to the consumer and those consumers who are parents too.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Fizzy drinks are not very good for children at all.If anything allowing them to be advertised would be much worse for children than alcohol as they're not allowed to drink alcohol.

Personally I think you should be allowed to advertise whatever you want whenever you want on TV, if you don't like the ads send you children out of the room while they are on.Sports shouldn't have to sacrifice income just to be a good role model for someones children it's not the premier leagues job to be anyones parent.

That's an extreme view point to be sure.

Not sure how seriously to take it.

Did you read the other posters post about porn add between the cartoons on a Saturday morning ?

Care to comment, move the kids out of the room for every as break ?

I take it your not a parent either.

theteal

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I used to respect Ray Winston.

Multiple times bankrupt who is still openly vocal about avoiding tax.

I can't say that appearing on a gambling ad makes much of a difference to my opinion of the man

Dirty Dingus McGee

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's an extreme view point to be sure.

Not sure how seriously to take it.

Did you read the other posters post about porn add between the cartoons on a Saturday morning ?

Care to comment, move the kids out of the room for every as break ?

I take it your not a parent either.

I'm not a parent.

I doubt porn would be on at that time in the morning on a childrens channel and I doubt it would ever be considered as it wouldn't make much sense.

Why should companies sacrifice income for the sake of someone elses children.If betting companies help professional sports make money then they should be entitled to exploit this as much as they can.

There are many things advertised on TV that are far more harmful than betting is.

keane2097

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Why should companies sacrifice income for the sake of someone elses children.If betting companies help professional sports make money then they should be entitled to exploit this as much as they can.

Honestly this is a seriously depressing worldview.

Companies have entitlements and shouldn't have to make sacrifices, human beings with addictions are stupid and are an exploitable resource and the children can just get the **** out of the room.

#latestagecapitalism

eagle eye

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not a parent.

I doubt porn would be on at that time in the morning on a childrens channel and I doubt it would ever be considered as it wouldn't make much sense.

Why should companies sacrifice income for the sake of someone elses children.If betting companies help professional sports make money then they should be entitled to exploit this as much as they can.

There are many things advertised on TV that are far more harmful than betting is.

Well then your view is worthless really if you don't understand how important it is to protect kids.

Dirty Dingus McGee

keane2097 wrote: »

Honestly this is a seriously depressing worldview.

Companies have entitlements and shouldn't have to make sacrifices, human beings with addictions are stupid and are an exploitable resource and the children can just get the **** out of the room.

#latestagecapitalism

People need to take personal responsibility have some restraint and not use the world as an excuse for their problems.Simple as that.

Despite being continuously bombarded with advertising for alcohol and gambling I don't drink and I don't gamble.If I can avoid these sort of pitfalls I'm sure most other people can.

There is too much blame being put on society for personal issues.

Gambling addiction is stupid because anyone with any sense can see that gambling excessively is stupid from the get go and you shouldn't fall into that trap.That may be harsh but maybe that is what's needed in order to get people to stop throwing out the line that I was addicted to gambling I had no choice.

I feel sorry for anyone who gets addicted to anything but it doesn't mean there isn't a degree of stupidity involved as you have a choice of whether or not to participate in something that is addictive.

Dirty Dingus McGee

eagle eye wrote: »

Well then your view is worthless really if you don't understand how important it is to protect kids.

No it isn't.

A parents job is to protect their children, nobody else, not Sky TV, BT sport, the premier league or anyone else.It is 100% a parents job to protect their children from this sort of stuff.

I have no huge issue with it...but there does seem to be an extraordinary amount of it in British football compared to, say, the NFL.

What I don't like is the flawed philosophy behind it. That certain vices are pretty much not allowed next or near the game, like cigarette ads, alcohol was very restricted, but gambling poses no problem. They should either all be regulated or all left unregulated, selecting certain problems while ignoring others suggests measures based on reaction rather than a coherent stance.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no huge issue with it...but there does seem to be an extraordinary amount of it in British football compared to, say, the NFL.

What I don't like is the flawed philosophy behind it. That certain vices are pretty much not allowed next or near the game, like cigarette ads, alcohol was very restricted, but gambling poses no problem. They should either all be regulated or all left unregulated, selecting certain problems while ignoring others suggests measures based on reaction rather than a coherent stance.

Gambling is illegal in most states in the USA.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Where do you draw the line at what should and should not be allowed in sports sponsorship.

Should alcohol be banned?

Should fizzy drinks be banned?

Should chocolate be banned?

Should fast food restaurants be banned?

Should car/airline companies that pollute our environment be banned?

There is very obviously a drawn line at what can and cannot be advertised. I suggest gambling advertising should be strictly controlled.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No it isn't.

A parents job is to protect their children, nobody else, not Sky TV, BT sport, the premier league or anyone else.It is 100% a parents job to protect their children from this sort of stuff.

Why have any form of regulation on TV then?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

There is very obviously a drawn line at what can and cannot be advertised. I suggest gambling advertising should be strictly controlled.

Absolutely.

I like a flutter every now and again myself but can't fathom why the gambling laws are so lax in the country.

It's a factor in a lot of suicides unfortunately.

Their lobbying group obviously has a lot of sway.

thebaz

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I feel sorry for anyone who gets addicted to anything but it doesn't mean there isn't a degree of stupidity involved as you have a choice of whether or not to participate in something that is addictive.

I would guess 50% of the population have tried smoking - probably 95% have tried drinking - does that make us all stupid ?? - calling people stupid cause they don't do as you , is kind of stupid

Dirty Dingus McGee

thebaz wrote: »

I would guess 50% of the population have tried smoking - probably 95% have tried drinking - does that make us all stupid ?? - calling people stupid cause they don't do as you , is kind of stupid

It's stupid to get addicted to something that is completely avoidable

Anyone who starts smoking now is very stupid.They know that they are addictive, they know they have very serious negative affects on your health.Looking at it rationally why would any sensible individual start smoking in this day and age if they aren't prepared to deal with the negative affects of it?

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's stupid to get addicted to something that is completely avoidable

Anyone who starts smoking now is very stupid.They know that they are addictive, they know they have very serious negative affects on your health.Looking at it rationally why would any sensible individual start smoking in this day and age if they aren't prepared to deal with the negative affects of it?

Your understanding of addiction is second to none.

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

Why have any form of regulation on TV then?

Why indeed.

People can control what their children watch on television now so there really isn't any need to interfere with what TV channels (99% of which are for adults) show for the sake of protecting people from themselves.

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

Your understanding of addiction is second to none.

If you don't start drinking or smoking you can never get addicted to them.The best way to avoid getting addicted to anything is to avoid starting.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Why indeed.

People can control what their children watch on television now so there really isn't any need to interfere with what TV channels (99% of which are for adults) show for the sake of protecting people from themselves.

So its perfectly acceptable to allow anything and everything on TV at any time.
An interesting viewpoint.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

If you don't start drinking or smoking you can never get addicted to them.The best way to avoid getting addicted to anything is to avoid starting.

Groundbreaking.

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

So its perfectly acceptable to allow anything and everything on TV at any time.
An interesting viewpoint.

Personally I've no problem with it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

Groundbreaking.

I know isn't it.

Maybe if people thought like that they wouldn't start these bad habits and wouldn't end up getting addicted.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Personally I've no problem with it.

As a matter of interest around about what age are you?

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

As a matter of interest around about what age are you?

30.

You need to be 18 to gamble, the adds are aimed at adults
Same applies to alcohol

If your 12 year old has a betfair account and is slugging from a bottle of Jameson then other issues may be bubling up

kippy

M!Ck^ wrote: »

You need to be 18 to gamble, the adds are aimed at adults
Same applies to alcohol

If your 12 year old has a betfair account and is slugging from a bottle of Jameson then other issues may be bubling up

Its the normalisation and association of gambling and sport I have an issue with. I dont expect my 12 year old would gamble.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

Its the normalisation and association of gambling and sport I have an issue with. I dont expect my 12 year old would gamble.

Face facts they always have been, more adds or less
Gambling and soccer isn't anything shocking
There's bigger competition between the Sports betting companies
That's why you are seeing more adds

kippy

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Face facts they always have been, more adds or less
Gambling and soccer isn't anything shocking
There's bigger competition between the Sports betting companies
That's why you are seeing more adds

I know there always has been but its never been as in your face as it is now and there is abolustely no need for it. Normalisation of such a potentially disastrous activity should not be tolerated.

thebaz

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's stupid to get addicted to something that is completely avoidable

Anyone who starts smoking now is very stupid.They know that they are addictive, they know they have very serious negative affects on your health.Looking at it rationally why would any sensible individual start smoking in this day and age if they aren't prepared to deal with the negative affects of it?

in a perfect world - but peer pressure is why many start , in the schoolyard if you remember - but you don't seam to have any bad habits , except sneering at people as stupid cause they don't live like you - I find it offensive - and I don't smoke - but did - sometimes you need to live a little - 70% of Irish people drink , and many are not stupid.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

I know there always has been but its never been as in your face as it is now and there is abolustely no need for it. Normalisation of such a potentially disastrous activity should not be tolerated.

That's why they clearly state gamble responsibly
Same as alcohol

Addiction is a bad thing but multiple factors outside of advertising are attributing factors.

I see no issue with the increase in it, as a respsonable gamblers it allows me to have a good choice in the market

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

You need to be 18 to gamble, the adds are aimed at adults
Same applies to alcohol

If your 12 year old has a betfair account and is slugging from a bottle of Jameson then other issues may be bubling up

Ignorant post.

You need to be legally 18 to drink and gamble but anyone with common sense knows its easy to do both when underage.

Also, naive to the think gambling ads are aimed at only over 18s. The moral high ground gambling industry

RoboKlopp

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Ignorant post.

You need to be legally 18 to drink and gamble but anyone with common sense knows its easy to do both when underage.

Also, naive to the think gambling ads are aimed at only over 18s. The moral high ground gambling industry

Ignorant post
Smiley face makes it annoying also

Really, is it that easy to walk into a bookies underage and gamble

I just gave an example

Please provide and example if you are so sure

Fr Tod Umptious

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not a parent.

I doubt porn would be on at that time in the morning on a childrens channel and I doubt it would ever be considered as it wouldn't make much sense.

Why should companies sacrifice income for the sake of someone elses children.If betting companies help professional sports make money then they should be entitled to exploit this as much as they can.

There are many things advertised on TV that are far more harmful than betting is.

The porn on the cartoon channel is an extreme example I'll give you that.

But during the Big Tobacco cases in the mid 90s numerous examples of how tobacco advertising was aimed at children came to light.

The same would happen in your unregulated TV world.
The next generation of gamblers, drinkers, smokers would be targeted.

I have no problem with drinks or betting adds at 10 pm at night, but I do have a problem with wall to wall adds before, during and after every sports event that's on.
Some regulation is required.

Dirty Dingus McGee

thebaz wrote: »

in a perfect world - but peer pressure is why many start , in the schoolyard if you remember - but you don't seam to have any bad habits , except sneering at people as stupid cause they don't live like you - I find it offensive - and I don't smoke - but did - sometimes you need to live a little - 70% of Irish people drink , and many are not stupid.

Most of those people don't get addicted though.

I'm not sneering just pointing out that it isn't very clever to get addicted to drink ,gambling,cigarettes when it is very avoidable as people know the risk associated with these things.

Sometimes too much understanding and not enough harsh truths actually causes more trouble than it solves.

Fr Tod Umptious

M!Ck^ wrote: »

That's why they clearly state gamble responsibly
Same as alcohol

Addiction is a bad thing but multiple factors outside of advertising are attributing factors.

I see no issue with the increase in it, as a respsonable gamblers it allows me to have a good choice in the market

You could see all the choices you have in the market after the watershed, I doubt you'll have forgotten them by the time the next sports event comes along.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Ignorant post
Smiley face makes it annoying also

Really, is it that easy to walk into a bookies underage and gamble

I just gave an example

Please provide and example if you are so sure

Yes it is. See it in bookies quite a bit. More so at race courses.

Bookmakers at a course will accept bets of almost anyone.

It's the normalisation of gambling that Kippy said that is probably the biggest issue.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

it isn't very clever to get addicted to drink ,gambling,cigarettes when it is very avoidable as people know the risk associated with these things.

Ah, if only the the world was so simple...

Dick phelan

I have the odd bet myself but i'm sick and tired of all the gambling adds on tv, i honestly believe gambling is the most common addiction in this country at present, practically every lad i know my age bets to some extent, i do as well but i know plenty of people who place bets on a daily basis not healthy.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Ignorant post
Smiley face makes it annoying also

Really, is it that easy to walk into a bookies underage and gamble

I just gave an example

Please provide and example if you are so sure

I've been going to betting shops since I was 16, seven years ago now, and I was never asked for ID. That's a mix of local independents and the big chain bookies. A number of lads my age have been the same.

Now, we would only have been putting a fiver on an acca or something, so nothing eyebrow raising, but still.

howiya

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I did not know that about Stoke, thought they were just a sponsor, not an owner.

Would prefer if there was no association between clubs and gambling companies, would also not be wild about the kids walking around in replica shirts if they had betting company logos on them, which is currently not the case with Liverpool thankfully.

As far as I know childrens replica shirts aren't sold with betting company logos. I'm not sure if this is the law in the UK or a voluntary code that clubs follow.

Liverpool's training kit has Bet Victor's logo on it but the kids versions don't

http://store.liverpoolfc.com/kit/training-kit/mens/

http://store.liverpoolfc.com/kit/training-kit/kids/?limit=all

howiya

eagle eye wrote: »

That's fine then, and I'll be the most hated father because I don't let my kids watch the Premier league or GAA or basically any sport on tv.

That's what it takes to be a good parent but imo those on tv have a responsibility to the consumer and those consumers who are parents too.

Change the channel while the ads are on. Pretend you want to catch the news headlines or whatever. You don't have to stop the kids watching the games themselves

kippy

howiya wrote: »

Change the channel while the ads are on. Pretend you want to catch the news headlines or whatever. You don't have to stop the kids watching the games themselves

There are bookies adds intertwined with sports now in a major way. From hoarding advertisements at pitchside, jersey sponsors and it can be difficult to even switch them off during the in game television experience.
Again, its not entirely about stopping the kids seeing the televised adds, it the attempt to normalise gambling and make it an acceptable activity to be engaged in when watching sports.

Arghus

howiya wrote: »

To the people saying advertising works, to what extent does it work?

Do ye buy everything you see in an ad?

I'm not so sure about this line of reasoning - so does it follow that you buy nothing that you see advertised?

Whatever about the morality of it, advertising clearly works. You seem to be sure that you are impervious to it, which would make you a very, very rare beast indeed. I literally can not think of anyone I know - aside from infants - who doesn't occasionally pay heed to an advertising campaign from time to time.

An advertisement doesn't have to convince everyone that sets eyes upon it to be effective - if it only has an effect on 1% who otherwise wouldn't have spent their cash then it's having an impact of some sort.

Fr Tod Umptious

howiya wrote: »

As far as I know childrens replica shirts aren't sold with betting company logos. I'm not sure if this is the law in the UK or a voluntary code that clubs follow.

Liverpool's training kit has Bet Victor's logo on it but the kids versions don't

http://store.liverpoolfc.com/kit/training-kit/mens/

http://store.liverpoolfc.com/kit/training-kit/kids/?limit=all

Good to see that in place, credit where credit is due, whether the regulation be from the club or the government.

user2011

howiya wrote: »

As far as I know childrens replica shirts aren't sold with betting company logos. I'm not sure if this is the law in the UK or a voluntary code that clubs follow.

Liverpool's training kit has Bet Victor's logo on it but the kids versions don't

http://store.liverpoolfc.com/kit/training-kit/mens/

http://store.liverpoolfc.com/kit/training-kit/kids/?limit=all

Good to see, yet the situation is the kids with no bet Victor on their jerseys see the manager advertising a betting company on breaks during a game.. Is he doing this solely for the club or is he personally benefiting from this, he is the only one doing these ads no other person associated with the club involved in these ads.

howiya

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this line of reasoning - so does it follow that you buy nothing that you see advertised?

Whatever about the morality of it, advertising clearly works. You seem to be sure that you are impervious to it, which would make you a very, very rare beast indeed. I literally can not think of anyone I know - aside from infants - who doesn't occasionally pay heed to an advertising campaign from time to time.

An advertisement doesn't have to convince everyone that sets eyes upon it to be effective - if it only has an effect on 1% who otherwise wouldn't have spent their cash then it's having an impact of some sort.

I'm not saying i'm impervious to all advertising but what I am saying is that just because somebody advertises something doesn't mean you have to buy it or place a bet in this instance.

To answer your question I'm sure I have bought products due to advertising. We won't know of the existence of some products but for advertising. In other instances we want to buy something but advertising informs our choice between different suppliers.

But as I've said in the post you've quoted nobody buys absolutely everything that they see advertised so there is an element of personal choice.

I grew up in a time when cigarette advertising was still legal. Jordan F1 cars were covered in Benson & Hedges logos. But I also knew that they were bad for you so I have never tried a cigarette. So no matter how much advertising the tobacco companies engaged I was never going to start smoking.

The flipside of that is that people still take up smoking in 2017 even though these companies aren't allowed advertise, shops aren't even allowed have their products on display etc.

All I'm really arguing for is personal responsibility. Either for yourself or for your children that you watch sport with

howiya

user2011 wrote: »

Good to see, yet the situation is the kids with no bet Victor on their jerseys see the manager advertising a betting company on breaks during a game.. Is he doing this solely for the club or is he personally benefiting from this, he is the only one doing these ads no other person associated with the club involved in these ads.

Haven't seen the ad. I assume it's a Bet Victor ad because of the relationship they have with the club?

He has a history of doing ads so I would also assume he is benefiting personally