StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 How much do we even get for a shirt sponsorship? Don't we get like 70 million pounds from the broadcast deal even if we finish near relegation next season? What's 8 million pounds for a shirt sponsorship compared to that? I'd much rather have Acorns or Stan's foundation on the shirt and not a bloody gambling company again. They'd want to be offering a fair bit of money to make it worth it. Erm....£8,000,000 is a hell of a lot of money to a business the size of Villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Don't really understand the issue with gambling sites. Don't really think people turn into addicted gamblers just cos the Villa has a casino/betting site on its shirt. People that are gamblers would've turned it into ahbit without Villa's 'help'. Going to a casino is a decent night out, and can be enjoyed when done so responsible by responsible adults. certain sections of society do seem always want to blame companies, when sometimes it is the indivdual CONSENTING ADULTS fault for their own issues. Like Stan Balaban said look hard enough and you can find a problem with almost any sponsor. I honestly think that having a casino on the shirt isn't more likely to make me go gambling, but it may make me look for a Genting casino over another brand when I do go out. Like the DWS Investments sponsor. It's not going to suddenly make you go out and start investing all your money, but it make make you notice one of their funds in your Prudential pension scheme for instance. It's all about the awareness of the brand WITHIN the industry when you in that market anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted June 11, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2013 Don't really understand the issue with gambling sites. Don't really think people turn into addicted gamblers just cos the Villa has a casino/betting site on its shirt. People that are gamblers would've turned it into ahbit without Villa's 'help'. Going to a casino is a decent night out, and can be enjoyed when done so responsible by responsible adults. certain sections of society do seem always want to blame companies, when sometimes it is the indivdual CONSENTING ADULTS fault for their own issues. Like Stan Balaban said look hard enough and you can find a problem with almost any sponsor. This is very topical down here. Our free to air games of Rugby League now have live crosses to a bookie (Bet365, SportsTAB, Tom Waterhouse type companies) that give the latest odds. There has been a huge outcry against this - so much, in fact, that they are considering banning gambling shirt and stadium sponsors (of which there are quite a few) along with the live crosses. Now there is nothing illegal in gambling this way. Nor is there anything illegal in advertising for these companies. So why should they be banned since responsible individuals enjoy gambling? One reason was little kids - preschool aged - started quoting the odds and understanding what gambling means because they liked to watch the game on the box. Right or wrong? Too far or not far enough? Dunno. I only know that I'd be less likely to buy a shirt with Genting Casinos on the front. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Don't really understand the issue with gambling sites. Don't really think people turn into addicted gamblers just cos the Villa has a casino/betting site on its shirt. People that are gamblers would've turned it into ahbit without Villa's 'help'. Going to a casino is a decent night out, and can be enjoyed when done so responsible by responsible adults. certain sections of society do seem always want to blame companies, when sometimes it is the indivdual CONSENTING ADULTS fault for their own issues. Like Stan Balaban said look hard enough and you can find a problem with almost any sponsor. This is very topical down here. Our free to air games of Rugby League now have live crosses to a bookie (Bet365, SportsTAB, Tom Waterhouse type companies) that give the latest odds. There has been a huge outcry against this - so much, in fact, that they are considering banning gambling shirt and stadium sponsors (of which there are quite a few) along with the live crosses. Now there is nothing illegal in gambling this way. Nor is there anything illegal in advertising for these companies. So why should they be banned since responsible individuals enjoy gambling? One reason was little kids - preschool aged - started quoting the odds and understanding what gambling means because they liked to watch the game on the box. Right or wrong? Too far or not far enough? Dunno. I only know that I'd be less likely to buy a shirt with Genting Casinos on the front. I get that and I think that's quite different. The live crosses imo are quite different to advertising the brand. Having Malboro for instance on a billboard may make a smoker consider trying that brand - but I doubt it would make many people take up smoking if they weren't already predisposed to do so. Having an add break where someone's effectively waving a packet of fags in your face saying "smoke, SMOKE!!!" is very different. Same with the gambling / casino thing. Having Genting makes me more aware of that brand WHEN I've decided I'm going to a casino. Giving me live odds in an ad break of an FA Cup match on ITV is tempting people to gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Anyway, no one bats an eyelid at the McDonalds football schools, or Coca Cola sponsoring an entire league, despite their products nt being marketed to kids, but doing far more damage to far more kids than a shirt with a casino name on the front - which can't even be sold to kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I won't buy the shirt if it is a betting company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I won't buy the shirt if it is a betting company. Fair enough CED but can I ask why betting companies are singled out? (honest question) Would you buy the shirt with an alcoholic drinks company or fast food manufacturer on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I honestly don't care who the sponsor is, as long as their logo doesn't look ridiculous on our shirt. I don't think Genting's logo is that bad, either. Gambling isn't illegal, alcohol isn't illegal, people aren't forced to use pay-day loan sites. Unless it's some kind of dodgy insurance company that encourages people to make claims and take other peoples money, I don't really care who is on our shirt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I won't buy the shirt if it is a betting company. Bet you will 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) blimey we've got a load of moral preaching do gooder's in here Just because some people have gambling addictions doesn't make it evil anymore than me blaming Stella Artois for sleeping with some fat chick Edited June 11, 2013 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I won't buy the shirt if it is a betting company. Bet you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 This is pathetic, so do you switch your TV off and when a betting site is being advertised, or close your eyes when walking through airports. Villa are a business, they have put a price for a sponsorship, if a company offers that then fair play to them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) Fair enough CED but can I ask why betting companies are singled out? (honest question) I'm not comfortable with betting companies having such close ties to the sport. Edited June 11, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 This is pathetic, so do you switch your TV off and when a betting site is being advertised, or close your eyes when walking through airports. Villa are a business, they have put a price for a sponsorship, if a company offers that then fair play to them. I think "pathetic" is harsh. Even if people don't see it as 'morally wrong' per se I can see why people with kids or whatever might be disappointed that a 'family club' like Villa is being sponsored by some morally dubious gambling corporation. I personally don't like the idea of being sponsored by a gambling company but I'm not going to be that bothered by it. I certainly rather we weren't. I personally draw the line at payday loan companies though as they are just disgusting corporations praying on the current dire straits that a lot of people are suffering as a result of the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I personally don't like the idea of being sponsored by a gambling company but I'm not going to be that bothered by it. This is my point, the only reason AVFC will have a sponsor on there shirt is due to the ££££, not whether they agree with them morally or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 It's an interesting debate. We all seem to want Randy to find an extra couple of million a year to keep Benteke in claret and blue. Are we saying that we would rather Benteke left AVFC than have a gambling company sponsor our shirts? Personally I don't mind if Randy decides to rent himself out at the back of Rackhams to get some extra cash if it means that we get to keep our magic Belgian! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) My initial question was why no one seems to object to fast food or alcoholic drinks companies yet will object to gambling companies? Edited June 11, 2013 by StanBalaban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 There is little danger of fast food / drinks companies corrupting the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted June 11, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2013 How much do we even get for a shirt sponsorship? Don't we get like 70 million pounds from the broadcast deal even if we finish near relegation next season? What's 8 million pounds for a shirt sponsorship compared to that? I'd much rather have Acorns or Stan's foundation on the shirt and not a bloody gambling company again. They'd want to be offering a fair bit of money to make it worth it. Eh? So if you earned £20k a year then £2k wouldn't be a lot of money to you? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 There is little danger of fast food / drinks companies corrupting the game. You see I get your viewpoint CED, but I think it's different to many others (I could be wrong). I see people objecting to promoting gambling / ruining lives / unsuitable for kids. I assume your viewpoint would be based on gambling in professional sport escalating into various match fixing scandals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts