Would you buy an Argyle shirt with a gambling sponsor?

[pearces greens]

No. Betting is a mugs game and whilst i'm not a mug, so it wouldn't influence me, I'm getting a bit sick of betting becoming ubiquitous in football.

I see the malignant infiltration of betting companies into football going the same way as the insidious influence TV has come to have. Football is not about TV and betting, it is sooo much more. I wouldn't want football to go the way of horse racing, a 'sport' that seems to be there solely for TV and to support the betting industry.

I love Ginsters as a sponsor, a perfect synergie with our identity. If we switched to a global online betting site what would it say of our identity... just another mercenary sell-out with it's hands in the grubby trough of the gambling world.

No ta :wave:

This for me! I have never met anyone yet addicted to a Ginsters pasty, but I have met many who became addicted to gambling. Sky sport etc is totally addicted to promoting gambling, knowing full well it will encourage some to have a flutter. Ok the majority will be responsible , but a percentage will get hooked.
I have sat with families, whose kids have no food because the family income has been gambled away. Would I buy a shirt, yes and I would burn it outside of the directors entrance.

Mentioning 'getting hooked' reminds me quite how far things have come from how betting was regarded not so very long ago, It's a 180 degree mindset change and I don't think it's for the better.

When daughter #1 was a new born to kill a bit of time while her mum was shopping I went with her in her pram to fill out one of those weekend football sheets, something I did very occasionally at the time as a bit of fun, to try and pick six home wins.

As well as being unable to advertise by law bookies had to have completely blocked windows (so no-one could see the evil within). As I entered the door, naively as it transpired, the look on the staff's faces was like I had walked in with a sawn off shotgun and a balaclava... "No children" they screamed.

She was ushered out straight away and a female member of staff offered to sit with her outside while I made my bet.

My daughter was a matter of months old, how in the name of all that is holy could she possibly have been influenced to commence a gambling addiction?

She didn't become a gambling addict and that mindset regarding betting at the time was clearly at the puritanical end of the nutty spectrum. Move forward 25 years and she's getting married next month. Any subsequent grandchildren that result will now, by contrast as they grow up, be utterly bombarded with betting adverts through TV, social media, in app adverts and billboards.

The pendulum has swung sooo far the other way it has become just as ridiculous... but waaay more dangerous.

Good post ,well said

 

[pastiesforlife]

No. Betting is a mugs game and whilst i'm not a mug, so it wouldn't influence me, I'm getting a bit sick of betting becoming ubiquitous in football.

I see the malignant infiltration of betting companies into football going the same way as the insidious influence TV has come to have. Football is not about TV and betting, it is sooo much more. I wouldn't want football to go the way of horse racing, a 'sport' that seems to be there solely for TV and to support the betting industry.

I love Ginsters as a sponsor, a perfect synergie with our identity. If we switched to a global online betting site what would it say of our identity... just another mercenary sell-out with it's hands in the grubby trough of the gambling world.

No ta :wave:

This for me! I have never met anyone yet addicted to a Ginsters pasty, but I have met many who became addicted to gambling. Sky sport etc is totally addicted to promoting gambling, knowing full well it will encourage some to have a flutter. Ok the majority will be responsible , but a percentage will get hooked.
I have sat with families, whose kids have no food because the family income has been gambled away. Would I buy a shirt, yes and I would burn it outside of the directors entrance.

Mentioning 'getting hooked' reminds me quite how far things have come from how betting was regarded not so very long ago, It's a 180 degree mindset change and I don't think it's for the better.

When daughter #1 was a new born to kill a bit of time while her mum was shopping I went with her in her pram to fill out one of those weekend football sheets, something I did very occasionally at the time as a bit of fun, to try and pick six home wins.

As well as being unable to advertise by law bookies had to have completely blocked windows (so no-one could see the evil within). As I entered the door, naively as it transpired, the look on the staff's faces was like I had walked in with a sawn off shotgun and a balaclava... "No children" they screamed.

She was ushered out straight away and a female member of staff offered to sit with her outside while I made my bet.

My daughter was a matter of months old, how in the name of all that is holy could she possibly have been influenced to commence a gambling addiction?

She didn't become a gambling addict and that mindset regarding betting at the time was clearly at the puritanical end of the nutty spectrum. Move forward 25 years and she's getting married next month. Any subsequent grandchildren that result will now, by contrast as they grow up, be utterly bombarded with betting adverts through TV, social media, in app adverts and billboards.

The pendulum has swung sooo far the other way it has become just as ridiculous... but waaay more dangerous.

The law hasn't changed. Under 18s are still not allowed to enter a betting shop and the bookmakers risk losing their license if a child is permitted. It's always been clear that U18s are not allowed in betting shops, so not sure why you thought you could break the law in the first place.

 

[Argylegames]

I would not be happy if Argyle had a gambling firm as sponsor and I wouldn't buy a shirt with their logo on.

People talk about Ginsters and the fact that they employ local people. If the Cornish Pasty loses the regional protection when we leave the EU, then you won't see any factory in Cornwall making pasties soon after. The only reason they are (still) there is because they aren't Cornish Pasties if they aren't made in Cornwall.

 

[X Isle]

No. Betting is a mugs game and whilst i'm not a mug, so it wouldn't influence me, I'm getting a bit sick of betting becoming ubiquitous in football.

I see the malignant infiltration of betting companies into football going the same way as the insidious influence TV has come to have. Football is not about TV and betting, it is sooo much more. I wouldn't want football to go the way of horse racing, a 'sport' that seems to be there solely for TV and to support the betting industry.

I love Ginsters as a sponsor, a perfect synergie with our identity. If we switched to a global online betting site what would it say of our identity... just another mercenary sell-out with it's hands in the grubby trough of the gambling world.

No ta :wave:

This for me! I have never met anyone yet addicted to a Ginsters pasty, but I have met many who became addicted to gambling. Sky sport etc is totally addicted to promoting gambling, knowing full well it will encourage some to have a flutter. Ok the majority will be responsible , but a percentage will get hooked.
I have sat with families, whose kids have no food because the family income has been gambled away. Would I buy a shirt, yes and I would burn it outside of the directors entrance.

Mentioning 'getting hooked' reminds me quite how far things have come from how betting was regarded not so very long ago, It's a 180 degree mindset change and I don't think it's for the better.

When daughter #1 was a new born to kill a bit of time while her mum was shopping I went with her in her pram to fill out one of those weekend football sheets, something I did very occasionally at the time as a bit of fun, to try and pick six home wins.

As well as being unable to advertise by law bookies had to have completely blocked windows (so no-one could see the evil within). As I entered the door, naively as it transpired, the look on the staff's faces was like I had walked in with a sawn off shotgun and a balaclava... "No children" they screamed.

She was ushered out straight away and a female member of staff offered to sit with her outside while I made my bet.

My daughter was a matter of months old, how in the name of all that is holy could she possibly have been influenced to commence a gambling addiction?

She didn't become a gambling addict and that mindset regarding betting at the time was clearly at the puritanical end of the nutty spectrum. Move forward 25 years and she's getting married next month. Any subsequent grandchildren that result will now, by contrast as they grow up, be utterly bombarded with betting adverts through TV, social media, in app adverts and billboards.

The pendulum has swung sooo far the other way it has become just as ridiculous... but waaay more dangerous.

The law hasn't changed. Under 18s are still not allowed to enter a betting shop and the bookmakers risk losing their license if a child is permitted. It's always been clear that U18s are not allowed in betting shops, so not sure why you thought you could break the law in the first place.

Break the law :funny:

Even if you counted a (probably sleeping) 2-3 month old being as relavent in law t'would be the bookies that broke the law for permitting it... as you outline yourself :wink:

But in any event the law is interpreted first by letter, then by spirit. The spirit of the law is massively unsatisfied in this case thus no law was broken.

Your pedantry deflects from the point of the post, times have changed mahoosively. Is the current laissez faire free for all a better state of affairs? No.

 

[Stiffler]

Gambling is regulated Stiffler? :shock:

(NB, I know it is but it hardly seems so these days)

Gambling is poorly regulated, for instance In a shop you can walk in and stake £50 on a machine but one could be absolutely hammered at 3am and gamble 3k on one roulette spin online or in a casino.

 

[mervyn]

I’m sure few people would be daft enough to take up gambling just because of advertising on a shirt. However I would never buy such a shirt. Gambling companies do nothing for the economy, simply shifting hard earned wages from losers to winners. They’ve devastated families for whom gambling is an addiction, and what they do bears no relation to sport, other than profiting from outcomes.

£2.3 billion a year towards the economy

10005 jobs

£1.5 billion to good causes by the National Lottery alone.

I could continue but to say it does nothing is utter nonsense and both you and I know that.

Stiffler, look at my response to Andy Holland and tell me where my logic is wrong.

I must have been posting at the time you posted so didn’t see that but having now done so it is still wide of the mark. If you were to do as you say then we would end up with back street casinos, betting shops ect which will just raise the crime and in turn money spent on trying to exterminate something that will never go away, just like the battle on drugs.

Not only does gambling need to be better regulated it needs to be educated better along with other addictions.

Stiffler, if you re-read the post I referred you to, you will see I made a point of saying that I wouldn’t ban it, for exactly the reason you say, it would drive it underground. I also agree that education is the solution, as it is for most complex sociological problems.

 

[Dalton Is God]

I would not be happy if Argyle had a gambling firm as sponsor and I wouldn't buy a shirt with their logo on.

People talk about Ginsters and the fact that they employ local people. If the Cornish Pasty loses the regional protection when we leave the EU, then you won't see any factory in Cornwall making pasties soon after. The only reason they are (still) there is because they aren't Cornish Pasties if they aren't made in Cornwall.

Ginsters are getting away with calling their product a pasty in the first place!

 

[Lev Yashin]

Anything with a logo on is not for me totally plain only thank you very much.
Free will for the rest of the world.
As for the ads before,during and after games that is why I bought a PVR.
Never watch an ad again! :thumbs:

 

[Stonehouse Mike]

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if that was the best deal for Argyle. Also have no issues with our current sponsor or any of the previous one's.

 

[MarkMatthews]

No. Betting is a mugs game and whilst i'm not a mug, so it wouldn't influence me, I'm getting a bit sick of betting becoming ubiquitous in football.

I see the malignant infiltration of betting companies into football going the same way as the insidious influence TV has come to have. Football is not about TV and betting, it is sooo much more. I wouldn't want football to go the way of horse racing, a 'sport' that seems to be there solely for TV and to support the betting industry.

I love Ginsters as a sponsor, a perfect synergie with our identity. If we switched to a global online betting site what would it say of our identity... just another mercenary sell-out with it's hands in the grubby trough of the gambling world.

No ta :wave:

This for me! I have never met anyone yet addicted to a Ginsters pasty, but I have met many who became addicted to gambling. Sky sport etc is totally addicted to promoting gambling, knowing full well it will encourage some to have a flutter. Ok the majority will be responsible , but a percentage will get hooked.
I have sat with families, whose kids have no food because the family income has been gambled away. Would I buy a shirt, yes and I would burn it outside of the directors entrance.

Mentioning 'getting hooked' reminds me quite how far things have come from how betting was regarded not so very long ago, It's a 180 degree mindset change and I don't think it's for the better.

When daughter #1 was a new born to kill a bit of time while her mum was shopping I went with her in her pram to fill out one of those weekend football sheets, something I did very occasionally at the time as a bit of fun, to try and pick six home wins.

As well as being unable to advertise by law bookies had to have completely blocked windows (so no-one could see the evil within). As I entered the door, naively as it transpired, the look on the staff's faces was like I had walked in with a sawn off shotgun and a balaclava... "No children" they screamed.

She was ushered out straight away and a female member of staff offered to sit with her outside while I made my bet.

My daughter was a matter of months old, how in the name of all that is holy could she possibly have been influenced to commence a gambling addiction?

She didn't become a gambling addict and that mindset regarding betting at the time was clearly at the puritanical end of the nutty spectrum. Move forward 25 years and she's getting married next month. Any subsequent grandchildren that result will now, by contrast as they grow up, be utterly bombarded with betting adverts through TV, social media, in app adverts and billboards.

The pendulum has swung sooo far the other way it has become just as ridiculous... but waaay more dangerous.

The law hasn't changed. Under 18s are still not allowed to enter a betting shop and the bookmakers risk losing their license if a child is permitted. It's always been clear that U18s are not allowed in betting shops, so not sure why you thought you could break the law in the first place.

Break the law :funny:

Even if you counted a (probably sleeping) 2-3 month old being as relavent in law t'would be the bookies that broke the law for permitting it... as you outline yourself :wink:

But in any event the law is interpreted first by letter, then by spirit. The spirit of the law is massively unsatisfied in this case thus no law was broken.

Your pedantry deflects from the point of the post, times have changed mahoosively. Is the current laissez faire free for all a better state of affairs? No.

Also goes to show how attitudes to smoking have changed, I caught the fag end of smoking smoking in bookies, and from memory they were some of the smokiest, enclosed places and I say that as someone who was contributing to that and in still an heavy smoker, I was in a Hong Kong airport smoking lounge recently and even that didn’t seem as smoky as I remember bookies. To take a couple months old baby in to such an atmosphere now would be child abuse, as the ban on smoking in cars with U18s in it (even with the window down!) shows.

 

[GreenArmy1984]

Our shirt sponsors 1983/84 to present day

Beacon Electrical
Ivor Jones Insurance
National Provincial
Sunday Independent
Rotolok
Evening Herald
Ginsters
Bond Timber
LTC
Ginsters

 

[Quintrell Green]

I would accept a gambling co. shirt sponsor on the basis that the activity was within the law and there was no evidence that that company's promotional activity was not orientated towards minors. St Austell Brewery has been sponsoring rugby club shirts with their 'Tribute' logo for years. There is no evidence of the SW becoming a region of alcoholics. Brighton F C are heavily sponsored by American Express. There are no reports on the South Coast of massive credit card liabilities. I think we need to be adult in our approach to shirt sponsorship.

 

[dunlop]

Like it or lump it gambling is a big part of sport it's up to the individual if they want a bet or not, no different than the company's that advertise alcohol.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

There's actually a form of a gambling game for fans to take part in at every home match.
There's also the Big Green Lottery.

 

[Hooe Green]

I’m an exiled Watford fan who loves live football and therefore have a ST at Home Park.

I’ve bought several replica shirts over the years but declined to buy Watford ones with a gambling logo on. Interestingly kids shirts can’t carry gambling logos by law so they sell them with no logo. There was a lot f interest in logo free adult shirts but apparently the contract doesn’t allow it.

I have a Ginsters Argyle shirt but wouldn’t buy one with a gambling logo on.