Betting sponsorship
Sorry if this is in another thread already (feel free to direct me there), but I wondered whether we have given any indication about our feelings towards being sponsored by a betting company to the trust board or Couhigs. I would personally be completely against it, particularly in the view of Scotty K's problems, and those of another former player (and my classmate at school) Scott Davies. But I know that we need the money, so I'm not assuming my stance necessarily reflects the majority.
Two questions really: Are we for or against betting sponsorship, should the opportunity arise? And have we made that stance known to the powers that be?
Poll not found
0
Comments
Personally, I'd rather not put ourselves at a financial disadvantage over it, but if we get equal offers from other industries then we should probably take them.
It's not really our choice to make anymore though.
I'm completely against it and wouldn't buy the shirt if we were.
Added a poll. You know, why not?
It's not our money to say now though.
If we're in a situation where a betting company is offering 100k more than anyone else, can we really insist the Couhigs lose 100k more money?
Betting sponsorship is rare at this level beyond the biggest clubs, but almost all Championship teams have it, so I'd worry in that regard if we were to go up.
No we can't insist, but we can make our feelings known which is the same amount of control that people normally have in situations where somebody else is in charge. Football clubs more than most other enterprises are founded on the goodwill of their supporters, so it would be defeatist to think that just because we don't own the club we don't have a voice.
I wouldn’t buy the shirt. Unbecoming enough already on an octogenarian!
I understand, and if people feel that strongly then good luck to them
To me, it's easy to make a moral stand when it's not your money going down the drain. Chairboys highlighted something I hadn't noticed in the difference in sponsors between our division and the one above where sponsorship values jump and a choice might present itself.
In the end it'll essentially boil down to what's more important, less debt or not having a betting company as a sponsor.
If only it was as simple as your last paragraph @Username.
To me it is. All clubs lose money and accumulate debt - football league economics are broken, sponsorship is one of the main incomes, if you choose to take a lower deal, you're adding to the debt.
So cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy foods and now betting are being banned. Not sure where income comes from and in the meantime Sky increase their stranglehold.
I don't personally gave a problem but can appreciate more addictive personalities might. I di admit to buying lots of extra Candy in the 80"s after Liverpool were playing.
It's true that football economics are broken, but I don't think that makes it OK.
Not to get all left wing, but if clubs already charge a lot of money to view games (away tickets in our league have been £25 and above which is a lot considering we are a way away from elite level football), receive a lot of money from TV companies and sell advertising space to companies that cash in on people's addictions, and still can't make ends meet, then what is the next step?
(Hint: it's a few clubs selling themselves to wealthy governments while the rest gradually fade away)
You can't ban betting because it'll just get criminalised and pushed underground. But clubs are only spending gambling money because it's there, if enough clubs took a stand against it (some already have, like Luton) then it would get pushed out of the game and hopefully bring the haves and have-nots closer together.
It's true though that you don't get much gambling sponsorship in League 1 so us denouncing betting adverts might be a bit like Oxford fans complaining about the cost of maintaining a fourth stand...
Not everyone has a moral objection to gambling remember, I see it as a personal choice (while understanding that some people have genuine problems with it). Anything that humans take pleasure out of can be addictive, where to draw the line?
I agree with your thinking in principle about making a stand to close the financial gap , but in reality us taking a stand would make no difference as the big clubs couldn't care less if we survive or not!
That's true, good point. You could argue all day about what should be restricted and what shouldn't, and everybody will have different points of view. I don't mean to assume that everybody feels the same way as I do about it.
...clearly, based on the poll, opinion is split down the middle!!
I think we should all club together on here and sponsor the shirt:
Gasroom 2.0
"You're wrong. But here's a pun to soften the blow"
You'd need a Gasroom logo
I don't think we should rest until a team sponsored by "Crisps" runs out at the Dave Tarpey Arena
Only low salt vegan crisps puffed not fried though. No pleasure should be possible to be taken from any of our sponsors. They need to get onto HS2 limited...they've got money to burn and a need for positive public image moving forwards (very slowly and expensively!)
It would even take @Wendoverman a while to chomp through this packet of crisps!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-24093990
I reckon 90 minutes even with cold weather toilet breaks. At least as I am on the back row it would not impede anyone's view.
I wouldn't turn it down out of hand if it was an outstanding offer, but I'd rather not have it, far too much betting advertising ATM, gets on my nerves, but can be more serious for people with no self control or an addictive personality
I'm with those saying that it's a matter of free choice whether people choose to gamble or not. However, the negative outcomes of gambling, to individuals and to society, cause me much to prefer that we did not take money from it, in the same way I would never want to be sponsored by a tobacco or firearms company. In an ideal world, and I think that is what we are talking about, I'd like the football club I follow to be a beacon of positive virtues (including having an absence of sanctimony, so I won't get too high on the horse about it). The current sponsor appeals to me.