Raymond Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. The difference is huge. It's the leap into the digital age, into your living room, into the palm of your hand "more than 40 in play markets" It's creating a culture of gambling on a much unhealthier level. A level where statistics are already bearing out the end results being very sad and very destructive. To see my team running about with another online gambling site emblazoned across the chest is hugely disappointing and depressing. Sad times indeed. So let me get this straight. Buying a lotto ticket you literally have a 1/1,000,000,000,000 chance at winning next door to your home is better than placing a bet an informed person has a 2/3 chance of winning in your home? Seems a reasonable argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Please take the time to read them and educate yourself a bit more. That's it CI, give those awful patronising people what for, eh? Ah, where would the site be without colourful characters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture. When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 You seem to object strongly to this deal but seemingly thought the Genting one was "ok", I also would be interested to know your thoughts on the FX Pro deal? I don't recall you objecting to that one either. The Macron kit deal and Genting I suppose are ok deals Nothing spectacular mind you We are lagging behind spurs who we should perhaps be on a par with Seems odd you were okay with a previous gambling sponsor yet are so against this one. We weren't debating the ethics of gambling sites at the time and you know it. You've jumped in to protect BOF. Sad really that you take so much time to trawl through old posts and point score. Sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture. When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising. You said this already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 He's got a point though. Why was the Genting deal ok but this one is a "stain on the shirt"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture. When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising. You said this already Yep because you seemed to skip over the points raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) We weren't debating the ethics of gambling sites at the time and you know it. You've jumped in to protect BOF. Sad really that you take so much time to trawl through old posts and point score. Sad really. Which is the case for absolutely everything these days. You could start a sentence with 'when I was a kid' with absolutely anything in the modern day and it would make sense. EDIT: Pure dedication Trent. Bravo. No doubt you're point scoring though. Honestly though CI, I implore you to have an argument that isn't just 'you're abusing me and you're point scoring' Edited June 12, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 He's got a point though. Why was the Genting deal ok but this one is a "stain on the shirt"? Because that thread we weren't debating the ethics of gambling. I think it was more about Faulkner. No doubt Trent and BOF are now furrowing through posts from 2011 to try and point score some more ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture. When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising. You said this already Yep because you seemed to skip over the points raised. Well no, they were addressed. You (again) ignored what was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2013 You seem to object strongly to this deal but seemingly thought the Genting one was "ok", I also would be interested to know your thoughts on the FX Pro deal? I don't recall you objecting to that one either. The Macron kit deal and Genting I suppose are ok deals Nothing spectacular mind you We are lagging behind spurs who we should perhaps be on a par with Seems odd you were okay with a previous gambling sponsor yet are so against this one. We weren't debating the ethics of gambling sites at the time and you know it. You've jumped in to protect BOF. Sad really that you take so much time to trawl through old posts and point score. Sad really. Nice avoidance of the question there. No we weren't, because seemingly you had no issue at the time with the ethics of the deal you were just relatively happy with the amount of money we got and wishing we got more to keep up with Spurs. No mention of ethics or morals. Yet now you seemingly have a strong moral objection to it. So I asked you a question, a very simple question and one which you can't answer which really says a lot and makes me think you are simply seeking a reaction. I've literally no idea what you are talking about in reference to BOF, I've not read the thread but it has nothing to do with him. I've simply highlighted a marked difference in your opinion from one deal to another and asked you about it. You are now going on the attack to avoid the awkward fact you're strong moral position on this suddenly has been rather undermined by one of your own previous posts. As for it taking me taking time, it took about 1 min to do a post search and it has nothing to do with point scoring and everything to do with the topic at hand and what on the face of it rather looks like posting for effect considering your view on the Genting deal. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2013 He's got a point though. Why was the Genting deal ok but this one is a "stain on the shirt"? Because that thread we weren't debating the ethics of gambling. I think it was more about Faulkner. No doubt Trent and BOF are now furrowing through posts from 2011 to try and point score some more ;-) This thread wasn't either until you made it so, yet you didn't opt to do so last time. You described the deal as "ok" when you could have made the stance you are now but you didn't. So has something changed? If so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Please send a link to that thread so I can read it in full rather than selectively pull out snippets Please place the link below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyPowers Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Piss poor really. At least Genting had a connection to the city. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2013 Here you say Genting was decent, again no complaints about betting. The way I see it Faulkner main contributions to date The Genting deal (decent ?) The macron deal (decent financially, kit look etc ? Tbc) Got shot of MON (had to be done) Presided over the Houllier appointment (not his best day in the office) Presided over the McLeish appointment (a sackable offence IMHO) If you want to find the posts I've quoted just search your posts and the word "Genting" as you will see it takes about a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 As I thought . We were debating Faulkner purely on commercial terms. Ethics were not even on the table for debate and you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2013 No they weren't were they, you described the deal as "ok" and even "decent" no mention of ethics from you, no sign of objection. Your only complaint was it wasn't enough money to keep pace with Spurs. And no we weren't debating purely on Faulkner, the first quote of yours was in the thread about McLeish going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 This is better than the Bannan thread. We just need Con's opinion on Dafabet... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 As I thought . We were debating Faulkner purely on commercial terms. Ethics were not even on the table for debate and you know that. As Trent rightly said, ethics werent really in the debate in this thread until you steamrollered in with 'do the club have no moral or ethical compass' It's snowballed since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I'm addicted to gambling and have no problem with our shirt being sponsored by an online gambling company. Moral argument over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts