UPTHEPORT wrote:

llanwern exile wrote:I've lost a family member through gambling and alcoholism, he lost his wife children and his home because of it before he took his own life, so I am in huge favour of banning all advertising by betting and drinks company's.

I'm sorry for your loss

How far do we go though a cousin of mine rang up thousands of pounds of debt from shopping channels she had to be declared bankrupt do we stop shopping ads at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions

Yes they do.

Which is why I don't argue that we should ban these things. Drink and gambling damage lives. To encourage these actions is in my view wrong.

When it comes to your cousin any responsible retailer should have seen that she was spending well beyond her means. But by offering credit they entrap her. She may have a responsibility but so too does the shopping channel.

I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to. Our entire League is sponsored by gambling. Many football shirts have been sponsored by alcohol, loan companies, air lines, double glazing, banks, all of whom have or are dodgy in their dealings to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm not sure shirt advertising even WORKS as a sales medium anyway. I have never bought a single product just because one of my teams were sponsored by it, or that I had been aware of the brand because of it.
I drink Guinness because I like it, not because it's plastered across what is widely recognised to be QPR's fans' favourite retro kit. For the same reason, I never opened an account with Royal Panda, or flew with Air Asia.
Equally I never opened an account with 32 Red, or obtained a job through Acorn. I did buy Mr.Tom bars though if I couldn't find any freebies at the match.
The idea that someone will become an alcoholic because County have 'Tiny Rebel' on their shirt is fanciful. You'd need to ask an alcoholic to essentially retrace their lives, and identify specifically WHICH drink was the one that put them over the edge, why they drank it, what influenced it........... I wonder how many would say: "Because my local 4th Div football team had their logo on their shirt"...... not many I suspect.
Addiction usually comes with other problems first. Some people are simply known to have an "addictive nature", not knowing when enough is enough. That's not the fault of the advertisers, when as I say, I don't actually think shirt advertising works.

newgroundrodney wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to. Our entire League is sponsored by gambling. Many football shirts have been sponsored by alcohol, loan companies, air lines, double glazing, banks, all of whom have or are dodgy in their dealings to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm not sure shirt advertising even WORKS as a sales medium anyway. I have never bought a single product just because one of my teams were sponsored by it, or that I had been aware of the brand because of it.
I drink Guinness because I like it, not because it's plastered across what is widely recognised to be QPR's fans' favourite retro kit. For the same reason, I never opened an account with Royal Panda, or flew with Air Asia. Equally I never opened an account with 32 Red, or obtained a job through Acorn. I did buy Mr.Tom bars though if I couldn't find any freebies at the match.
The idea that someone will become an alcoholic because County have 'Tiny Rebel' on their shirt is fanciful. You'd need to ask an alcoholic to essentially retrace their lives, and identify specifically WHICH drink was the one that put them over the edge, why they drank it, what influenced it........... I wonder how many would say: "Because my local 4th Div football team had their logo on their shirt"...... not many I suspect.
Addiction usually comes with other problems first. Some people are simply known to have an "addictive nature", not knowing when enough is enough. That's not the fault of the advertisers, when as I say, I don't actually think shirt advertising works.

Hi Gary,

I have no doubt you are right when you say some people have addictive personalities. I am sure that you are right about you are not influenced by the adverts on the shirts.

But I smoked as a young man. I started as a child and I was undoubtedly influenced by adverts that made smoking look cool. The sports car, the airline captains insignia, the long legged blonde, and the open packet of Rothmans.

I was lucky, I gave up smoking 32 years ago. Others of my vintage died horrible deaths from lung cancer. As for drink I've defended drink drivers. I have also seen the police photographs of how a young woman who has been splattered all over the road by a drunk driver looks. Mutilated body of a young woman that is.

I don't think we should advertise the products which do this.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

newgroundrodney wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to. Our entire League is sponsored by gambling. Many football shirts have been sponsored by alcohol, loan companies, air lines, double glazing, banks, all of whom have or are dodgy in their dealings to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm not sure shirt advertising even WORKS as a sales medium anyway. I have never bought a single product just because one of my teams were sponsored by it, or that I had been aware of the brand because of it.
I drink Guinness because I like it, not because it's plastered across what is widely recognised to be QPR's fans' favourite retro kit. For the same reason, I never opened an account with Royal Panda, or flew with Air Asia. Equally I never opened an account with 32 Red, or obtained a job through Acorn. I did buy Mr.Tom bars though if I couldn't find any freebies at the match.
The idea that someone will become an alcoholic because County have 'Tiny Rebel' on their shirt is fanciful. You'd need to ask an alcoholic to essentially retrace their lives, and identify specifically WHICH drink was the one that put them over the edge, why they drank it, what influenced it........... I wonder how many would say: "Because my local 4th Div football team had their logo on their shirt"...... not many I suspect.
Addiction usually comes with other problems first. Some people are simply known to have an "addictive nature", not knowing when enough is enough. That's not the fault of the advertisers, when as I say, I don't actually think shirt advertising works.

Hi Gary,

I have no doubt you are right when you say some people have addictive personalities. I am sure that you are right about you are not influenced by the adverts on the shirts.

But I smoked as a young man. I started as a child and I was undoubtedly influenced by adverts that made smoking look cool. The sports car, the airline captains insignia, the long legged blonde, and the open packet of Rothmans.

I was lucky, I gave up smoking 32 years ago. Others of my vintage died horrible deaths from lung cancer. As for drink I've defended drink drivers. I have also seen the police photographs of how a young woman who has been splattered all over the road by a drunk driver looks. Mutilated body of a young woman that is.

I don't think we should advertise the products which do this.

Hi Brendan.
In my view, Rothman's should still be allowed to advertise. People should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase that product. Unlike so much in your day, warnings are now clearly given, even pictures shown of the possible outcome. Having or not having the word Rothmans on a football shirt (cos that's what we're on about - shirt advertising) will neither start someone smoking, or stop them. They do it out of choice.

UPTHEPORT wrote:

llanwern exile wrote:I've lost a family member through gambling and alcoholism, he lost his wife children and his home because of it before he took his own life, so I am in huge favour of banning all advertising by betting and drinks company's.

I'm sorry for your loss

How far do we go though a cousin of mine rang up thousands of pounds of debt from shopping channels she had to be declared bankrupt do we stop shopping ads at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions

Don't get me wrong jim! I am no temperance wierdo, I like a drink as much as the next man and I also have a little flutter now an again, all I am saying is everyone should have a choice without it being thrown in their faces everywhere they look.

newgroundrodney wrote:
Hi Brendan.
In my view, Rothman's should still be allowed to advertise. People should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase that product. Unlike so much in your day, warnings are now clearly given, even pictures shown of the possible outcome. Having or not having the word Rothmans on a football shirt (cos that's what we're on about - shirt advertising) will neither start someone smoking, or stop them. They do it out of choice.

I agree with most of what you say. And to be clear I don't argue drinking and gambling should not be lawful activities. I go further in that I wouldn't treat alcohol and tobacco any differently from any other drug. But whilst I would legalize the use of all drugs I would not encourage their use and neither would I shy away from acknowledging the damage that they do. I follow the same logic with respect to gambling.

And I drink, I sometimes go to a race meeting. So I don't hold myself as any paragon of virtue. However where I don't share your analysis is with respect to advertising. Whether we like it or not, 32Red was advertised on our shirts. It aided their product awareness. If it didn't these corporations, firms an companies wouldn't buy the space.

And the difference for me is the collateral damage. If I eat too many sweets I get fat. My responsibility. If I gamble to excess I might leave my family bereft of money. If I drink and drive I might end the life of an innocent human being. For that reason I don't have the same objection to Mr Tom as I did to the gambling companies or would have to alcohol suppliers.

Does in the scheme of things ad's on our shirts make any difference? Probably not. If it were my decision would I ever sully our colours with advertisements for products which damage our society? No I wouldn't. I am not entitled to impose my moral views on others. All I can do is say how I feel.

newgroundrodney wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to.

Ever heard of a physiological condition called “addiction” ?

Or the concept of “people who are not you”?

Divine Wright wrote:

newgroundrodney wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to.

Ever heard of a physiological condition called “addiction” ?

Or the concept of “people who are not you”?

I disagree with Gary on this one. However it's not for any of us to impose our views on others. What we should do is argue our points and try to persuade, and accept that others can likewise persuade us.

I know Gary. I can assure you that he fully understands the concept of people who are not he. Speaking only for myself, whilst I disagree with Gary on this topic and disagree strongly, it does not alter the high esteem in which I hold him.

Divine Wright wrote:

newgroundrodney wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to.

Ever heard of a physiological condition called “addiction” ?

Or the concept of “people who are not you”?

I touch on the point of addiction a couples of times, so yes, I have heard of it.
On your 2nd point, no I've never heard of other people. They don't matter to me. I'm all self, self, self, but then you already know that, knowing me as well as you do. I never listen to, or do anything for anyone but myself.

I note with interest that the only two comments I can recall you making towards / about me have both been unpleasant to a greater or lesser extent.
Why that should be I have no idea. Is the 'foe' function no longer working?

A Will Rogers quote:

"Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need."

Mr Figo wrote:A Will Rogers quote:

"Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need."

By that definition, I'd be even more convinced that shirt sponsorship doesn't work.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Divine Wright wrote:

newgroundrodney wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that people make their own choices, and should be allowed to.

Ever heard of a physiological condition called “addiction” ?

Or the concept of “people who are not you”?

I disagree with Gary on this one. However it's not for any of us to impose our views on others. What we should do is argue our points and try to persuade, and accept that others can likewise persuade us.

I know Gary. I can assure you that he fully understands the concept of people who are not he. Speaking only for myself, whilst I disagree with Gary on this topic and disagree strongly, it does not alter the high esteem in which I hold him.

I’m sure he’s safe enough. That said, his opinions seem a little bit naive. My response might have been a bit blunt but I think it pretty much sums up the thrust of the argument against the “ We are all in control of our actions because in my own personal experience that’s the way it is” argument.

I don’t advocate the Rothmans fella either and I’d have betting, booze, fags and loan companies all banned from advertising....or anywhere else for that matter. They pray on the most vulnerable in society and it’s not a product/service that should be rammed down people’s throats and normalised through constant exposure.

If advertising didn’t work , firms whose sole intention it is to make money wouldn’t be spending so much money on it.

Interesting that of all the brands of stout that Gary could’ve chosen as an example he chose the one that spends most on advertising.... I guess he’ll say that was the point but had they not spent so much on advertising we’d likely be talking about another brand of stout altogether. He might even drink that brand of stout because he likes it. There are many nice stouts but the one that sells far more than any other is guiness.

Gary...I’m not going to get personal about this. You just happen to have come out with two comments that I think were off the mark. It’s a coincidence. Don’t take it to heart. Moreover, I think you’ll find there is some degree of substance to both responses. They aren’t personal slights.

My twopence worth:

Gambling is far too prevalent in football. I'd like to see it banned from football if, for no other reason, to tell them that they are ethically corrupt.

Who is the female director of one of the betting companies who took a 250m dividend last year, basically cashing in on the misery of others.

Disgraceful, and I hope football makes a stand.

My two pence worth

I think they should ban Sturridge for life.