REVEALED: No more betting firms to sponsor front of football shirts https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... e-masthead

Thats stuck a tenner on each matchday ticket

fanzone wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:58 pm

Thats stuck a tenner on each matchday ticket

You never know, it may result in a reduction in players wages !!!!

Good... they've only themselves to blame if this goes through.

Self governance doesn't seem to get through to this rabble, it needs to be enforced. They're not to be trusted and enough is enough.

TV adverts are the bugger issue I believe. On sky before the game and at half time it is nothing but betting adverts, then they squeeze in another betting advert just before kick off for good measure. That has to stop. Should be a limit of 1 betting ad per ad break or a total betting advert ban, and no betting adverts just before kick off.

Promising. I want to hear that fat lady singing though. Good news. Keep banging that drum!

Funkydrummer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:02 am

You never know, it may result in a reduction in players wages !!!!

An action taken in the Uk is unlikely to affect the global market prices.

thelaughingclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:50 am

TV adverts are the bugger issue I believe. On sky before the game and at half time it is nothing but betting adverts, then they squeeze in another betting advert just before kick off for good measure. That has to stop. Should be a limit of 1 betting ad per ad break or a total betting advert ban, and no betting adverts just before kick off.

You won’t have seen an advert for gambling at half time, or squeezed in just before kick off for well over 12 months and now approaching 2 years. There is a whistle to whistle advertising ban starring 5 minutes before kick off, through to 5 minutes after the game ends before 9pm.

Edit to say if you’re watching on an official UK match production on Sky, BT sport or ITV. If you’re watching a pirated global feed, then these are never going to be covered by the regulations in the Uk.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility, if they are stopping gambling companies from advertising on shirts why stops there, will there be a drive to stop advertising on TV altogether. Whilst I have sympathy for those who are addicted to gambling stopping advertising on a shirt will not cure them, in other walks of life there are many people who have shopping addictions in this country that have driven them into debt but we are not stopping advertising encouraging spending.

Lets hope those who have this odd notion that having a gambling firm as a shirt sponsor causes addiction, are fine with the ticket price increases when the short falls have to be made.

Morals always seem to be fine until they hit your own pocket. Makes you wonder which bandwagon will be climbed on next.

Tells you everything when our Mormon owners still went with a betting company as our principal sponsors. Betting companies are giving Burnley Football Club the most money, it’s as simple as that.

I’ve haven’t been affected by gambling, ive got no interest in it, I see nothing more than different logos whizzing around pitch and none of the adverts have enticed me to gamble either

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:13 am

Tells you everything when our Mormon owners still went with a betting company as our principal sponsors. Betting companies are giving Burnley Football Club the most money.

I’ve haven’t been affected by gambling, ive got no interest in it, I see nothing more than different logos whizzing around pitch and none of the adverts have enticed me to gamble either

I imagine you didn't eat Hollands pies 24 hours a day either when they sponsored us, or drunk Vodka kick for breakfast when they did.

Probably not good news for us. Bigger clubs can get sponsored by large corporations but we won't attract lucrative deals now.

I certainly agree with the decision, just a shame it's another thing that will go against us.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:15 am

I imagine you didn't eat Hollands pies 24 hours a day either when they sponsored us, or drunk Vodka kick for breakfast when they did.

No, but I remember trying VK in a nightclub purely because of its exposure via Burnley FC and it tasted like fruit flavoured battery acid.

The point I’m making is that seeing logos of a business doesn’t give me an impulse to buy or engage with the brand in general.

Maybe they should just give more restrictions and rule on no odds or offers should be advertised. Rather than blanket ban?

That said, I don’t really give a ****, just means less money in the coffers for Burnley FC, and even that is not really my concern.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:47 am

No, but I remember trying VK in a nightclub purely because of its exposure via Burnley FC and it tasted like fruit flavoured battery acid.

The point I’m making is that seeing logos of a business doesn’t give me an impulse to buy or engage with the brand in general.

Maybe they should just give more restrictions and rule on no odds or offers should be advertised. Rather than blanket ban?

That said, I don’t really give a ****, just means less money in the coffers for Burnley FC, and even that is not really my concern.

That is the bottom line, less revenue and eventually you end up with 1 place to try and get more money from, the supporters.

I wouldn't have any form of ban, I would let each club choose themselves which sponsor they wanted. How can people whinge about a sponsor on a shirt but be fine with the "Skybet" championship is lost on me.

From the FMMT thread, post dated August 26th 0720pm:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&p=1628525&hil ... r#p1628525

From this it seems that these betting companies are not here to attract UK gamblers but those in the Far East so surely this ban (and any on pitchside hoardings etc.) will have little effect of protecting British punters. All it will do is remove money from the sport.

Of course there are the other questions of these companies legitimacy, money laundering etc..

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:47 am

The point I’m making is that seeing logos of a business doesn’t give me an impulse to buy or engage with the brand in general.

The size of the marketing industry would quite clearly suggest that seeing logos/adverts works very well, whether that be betting, or food.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:51 am

That is the bottom line, less revenue and eventually you end up with 1 place to try and get more money from, the supporters.

I wouldn't have any form of ban, I would let each club choose themselves which sponsor they wanted. How can people whinge about a sponsor on a shirt but be fine with the "Skybet" championship is lost on me.

There are other companies around who may be willing to invest in football, especially if the opportunities are more readily available.

Banning gambling companies doesn't mean an instant increase in ticket prices.

It’s because fans are snobs, Spread Ex have got away with it quite easy in terms of criticism from fans.

To put simply, fans don’t like Chinese writing. I think a betting company gives the perception of cheap, because most mid-tier, lower Premier League and Championship clubs are low hanging fruit for overseas businesses to partner with - and they are much-of-a-muchness

I suppose former sponsors like Endsleigh, P3 Computers, VK, Hunters, Holland’s are brands fans in the UK can relate to in some way. LaBa360 and Fun88 are just another betting company.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:51 am

That is the bottom line, less revenue and eventually you end up with 1 place to try and get more money from, the supporters.

I wouldn't have any form of ban, I would let each club choose themselves which sponsor they wanted. How can people whinge about a sponsor on a shirt but be fine with the "Skybet" championship is lost on me.

The only people having a whinge on here are those who seem to think that widespread betting advertising is OK and those that have somehow decided ticket prices will have to go up because it's being banned.


The "Skybet" nonsense should - and hopefully will - go too.

And VAR-city Rules?

Nah, slide rules.

That's good. Can't come soon enough.

It won’t make much difference if any if people want to gamble they will, we banned cigarette advertising & the packets display graphic pictures of diseased organs but people still smoke, people/kids don’t see pictures of jerseys covered with William hill ect & think to themselves I think I’ll have a bet tonight it’s not the same as walking past a chippy & smelling it & being attracted to the taste. The shop are pretty much everywhere on the high streets & easily accessible you can’t avoid them unless you become a recluse.

Can relate to some of the comments above. Seeing a gambling logo doesn’t make me think I need to have a bet with that company but maybe it does to some.Same with anything else being advertised on a shirt.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:40 pm

REVEALED: No more betting firms to sponsor front of football shirts https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... e-masthead

I wouldn't bet on it.!

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:47 am

No, but I remember trying VK in a nightclub purely because of its exposure via Burnley FC and it tasted like fruit flavoured battery acid.

Glad to see that it wasn't just me that made that mistake.

Back in the days of Endsleigh Insurance, I always gave them the opportunity to quote me for my car/motorbike insurances and did insure my motorbikes with them for 3 or 4 years; isn't that how advertising works? If I'm 'in the market' for a product I'll look into getting it from the company that sponsors my club's shirts, but I'm not going to buy their product if it's not the best for my needs and certainly not if I don't want/need it in the first place; should I decide to start online gambling next week, then the website of whomever it is that's taken over from Dafabet would be one of the sites that I'd look at, but the decision to start gambling wouldn't have been because of that shirt-ad.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:26 am

It won’t make much difference if any if people want to gamble they will, we banned cigarette advertising & the packets display graphic pictures of diseased organs but people still smoke, people/kids don’t see pictures of jerseys covered with William hill ect & think to themselves I think I’ll have a bet tonight it’s not the same as walking past a chippy & smelling it & being attracted to the taste. The shop are pretty much everywhere on the high streets & easily accessible you can’t avoid them unless you become a recluse.

Haven't smoking rates dropped considerably though? I'm not saying it's the only factor but it's surely at least contributory.

I do have mixed feelings about this - there certainly needs to be a toning down of betting marketing, particularly when Ladbrokes slapped vast chunks of the ground with their logo while doing the hard sell for punters on the concourse, but a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship is perhaps unnecessary and could harm future revenue, particularly for clubs like us.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:14 pm

Haven't smoking rates dropped considerably though? I'm not saying it's the only factor but it's surely at least contributory.

I do have mixed feelings about this - there certainly needs to be a toning down of betting marketing, particularly when Ladbrokes slapped vast chunks of the ground with their logo while doing the hard sell for punters on the concourse, but a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship is perhaps unnecessary and could harm future revenue, particularly for clubs like us.

Yes because more people vape now lots of smokers do that instead now, if the vape sticks hadn’t been invented they’d still be on the normal fags.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:14 pm

Haven't smoking rates dropped considerably though? I'm not saying it's the only factor but it's surely at least contributory.

I do have mixed feelings about this - there certainly needs to be a toning down of betting marketing, particularly when Ladbrokes slapped vast chunks of the ground with their logo while doing the hard sell for punters on the concourse, but a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship is perhaps unnecessary and could harm future revenue, particularly for clubs like us.

If you look at the drop in smoking rates since the beginning of the 70s the decline is fairly constant. There’s no speeding up or slowing down at the time the advertising ban or public place ban happened so it could be argued that neither had much impact. It’s a better understanding of the effects on health that has been the main factor.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:31 pm

If you look at the drop in smoking rates since the beginning of the 70s the decline is fairly constant. There’s no speeding up or slowing down at the time the advertising ban or public place ban happened so it could be argued that neither had much impact. It’s a better understanding of the effects on health that has been the main factor.

Or a surefire reliable substitute that satisfies the nicotine cravings, the e-cigarettes are a godsend to some people with COPD ect I think most scientists now agree the e-cigarettes are far safer despite not being 100% healthy themselves.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:31 pm

If you look at the drop in smoking rates since the beginning of the 70s the decline is fairly constant. There’s no speeding up or slowing down at the time the advertising ban or public place ban happened so it could be argued that neither had much impact. It’s a better understanding of the effects on health that has been the main factor.

....or perhaps the effects on a younger generation that no longer become addicted to smoking?

Hipper wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:46 pm

....or perhaps the effects on a younger generation that no longer become addicted to smoking?

Maybe, but the biggest downward trend pre-dates the advertising ban so that isn’t what has stopped them getting addicted.

There are numerous studies that support the theory that the banning of tobacco advertising and sponsorship have had a noteworthy effect on smoking rates. As I say, it's clearly not the only reason, but I imagine it's had an effect in sustaining those decreases.

http://ash.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 ... wnload.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593060/

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/29/3/282

According to an article in the Independent in April smoking is on the rise in young adults in the U.K., this is at a time when there is plain packaging with warnings, complete smoking ban on advertising and in pubs and the workplace.

This shows that banning advertising in a set area to prevent uptake will not stop those who want to participate

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:15 pm

There are numerous studies that support the theory that the banning of tobacco advertising and sponsorship have had a noteworthy effect on smoking rates. As I say, it's clearly not the only reason, but I imagine it's had an effect in sustaining those decreases.

http://ash.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 ... wnload.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593060/

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/29/3/282

If you can pinpoint the impact of the ban on this graph then you’ve got better eyes than me.

Bolton to Cut links to betting*

https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2021/septem ... ing-links/


* Except their own lottery that the club runs.

** A look at their sponsors page shows no links to betting companies - so no real impact for them? They still have official beer sponsors though.