Jump to content

Dafabet is our new official sponsor


BOF
 Share

Recommended Posts

Someone called gambling sites a scam.  You can not like gambling.  That is a "reasonable" opinion, but what exact scam are the gambling sites running?  You give us money to bet on a sports event.  If you win we give you money.  If you lose we take your money.  Seems fairly straight forward to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or, not for you, but for some, is it a prestige thing with not having a household name as the sponsor? I'm genuinely intrigued to know.

 

 

This is my thought too. If this was Ladbrokes or William Hill, there wouldn't be the same faux-uproar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that? People are saying that Dafabet are recruiting new customers, like any other advertiser would. They are no more immoral than any other big company who would willingly run the customer into the ground, be it through obesity, alcoholism or bankruptcy by shopping (shopping addiction is a thing) or their staff into the ground.

 

There's just a raft of double standards emanating through this thread and if telling people they are being hypocrites, when they are, is point scoring; then I'm sorry. I must be point scoring.

I am strongly opposed to the growth of internet gambling. I hate it and I don't want to see my club helping this insidious strategy to seduce new and unwitting customers, a proportion of whom are going to get in  way above their heads, with consequences for some individuals of debt, destroyed personal relationships and a host of wider problems. I posted two articles based on careful research which show a strong link between internet gambling and high levels of gambling addiction, particularly amongst new groups previously unfamiliar with gambling. You haven't refuted those so I have to assume you accept their veracity.

 

Given all that how dare you imply that my reasoned opposition to online gambling is hypocritical?

 

That is the sort of comment that makes forums like this a waste of time for people seeking to have serious debate. You haven't made any sensible or telling points in this debate; you are losing the argument, so you resort to stupid and offensive abuse. Probably better just to butt out.

Great post , you've nailed it there.

And people comparing confectionary to online gambling, well only on vt I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter

 

 

Or, not for you, but for some, is it a prestige thing with not having a household name as the sponsor? I'm genuinely intrigued to know.

 

 

This is my thought too. If this was Ladbrokes or William Hill, there wouldn't be the same faux-uproar

 

 

Yep. Because those who refuse to buy a shirt because it has a gambling company as sponsor.....

 

... would change our minds if it was Ladbrokes or William Hill. :rolleyes:

 

You might be deliriously happy that we have a gambling company on the front. Others, such as myself, are not. Period.

 

Uproar? Hardly. Could the club have done better? IMO, yes.

 

 

 

How would you feel if it was sponsored by Carlsberg?

 

 

Same as a gambling company, for mine. Throw in smokes and porn while you're at it.

 

 

Or Nestlé.

 

As another poster said, If you look hard enough you'll find reason to hate any sponsor. I would buy a shirt for my son with this sponsor on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way I do see a difference between playing the lottery, betting in the National etc and online gambling straight to your smartphone, and in play seduction.

Totally on another level now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as you can see CI (or maybe you haven't. You've seemed to have deliberately ignored posts that prove your argument wrong), I've responded to Briny's post. Comparing 'confectionary' to gambling is a completely fair and valid point, and it has been made numerous times. You're yet to prove it wrong.

 

I see some people debating and I see others just rubbishing their arguments without developing points of their own. I'm not saying which camp you're in, because I think you can work it out for yourself.

Edited by StefanAVFC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way I do see a difference between playing the lottery, betting in the National etc and online gambling straight to your smartphone, and in play seduction.

Totally on another level now.

Care to explain the difference? At least one relies on skill instead of plain luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Or, not for you, but for some, is it a prestige thing with not having a household name as the sponsor? I'm genuinely intrigued to know.

 

 

This is my thought too. If this was Ladbrokes or William Hill, there wouldn't be the same faux-uproar

 

 

Yep. Because those who refuse to buy a shirt because it has a gambling company as sponsor.....

 

... would change our minds if it was Ladbrokes or William Hill. :rolleyes:

 

You might be deliriously happy that we have a gambling company on the front. Others, such as myself, are not. Period.

 

Uproar? Hardly. Could the club have done better? IMO, yes.

 

 

I think there has been a misunderstanding. The only people I have targeted (for want of a better word) are those who gamble, but are against this sponsor for moral reasons. My point is that the points are morality wouldn't come into question if it were Ladbrokes or William Hill. If you're against all gambling, that's fine. Your choice.

 

And please please please quote me where I said I was happy. My first (and only) point was questioning people's morality. I personally couldn't care less what the sponsor is, as long as we contribute financially from it.

Edited by StefanAVFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites


They won the 'World's Most Unethical Company' award.

 

For the sake of balance, it is worth noting that they won that award primarily on the basis that they inflicted Milkybars onto the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as you can see CI (or maybe you haven't. You've seemed to have deliberately ignored posts that prove your argument wrong), I've responded to Briny's post. Comparing 'confectionary' to gambling is a completely fair and valid point, and it has been made numerous times. You're yet to prove it wrong.

 

I see some people debating and I see others just rubbishing their arguments without developing points of their own. I'm not saying which camp you're in, because I think you can work it out for yourself.

Yet more pathetic abuse and point scoring. You just can't help yourself can you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, as you can see CI (or maybe you haven't. You've seemed to have deliberately ignored posts that prove your argument wrong), I've responded to Briny's post. Comparing 'confectionary' to gambling is a completely fair and valid point, and it has been made numerous times. You're yet to prove it wrong.

 

I see some people debating and I see others just rubbishing their arguments without developing points of their own. I'm not saying which camp you're in, because I think you can work it out for yourself.

Yet more pathetic abuse and point scoring. You just can't help yourself can you.

 

 

Right. Please highlight the abuse, because I'm baffled.

Edited by StefanAVFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as you can see CI (or maybe you haven't. You've seemed to have deliberately ignored posts that prove your argument wrong), I've responded to Briny's post. Comparing 'confectionary' to gambling is a completely fair and valid point, and it has been made numerous times. You're yet to prove it wrong.

I see some people debating and I see others just rubbishing their arguments without developing points of their own. I'm not saying which camp you're in, because I think you can work it out for yourself.

Yet more pathetic abuse and point scoring. You just can't help yourself can you.

Maybr I'm blind but I didn't see any abuse in Stefans post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, as you can see CI (or maybe you haven't. You've seemed to have deliberately ignored posts that prove your argument wrong), I've responded to Briny's post. Comparing 'confectionary' to gambling is a completely fair and valid point, and it has been made numerous times. You're yet to prove it wrong.

 

I see some people debating and I see others just rubbishing their arguments without developing points of their own. I'm not saying which camp you're in, because I think you can work it out for yourself.

Yet more pathetic abuse and point scoring. You just can't help yourself can you.

 

 

What abuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â