Deesbet just called...

[Rich Demon 5]

Just had a call from Deesbet, you know, the betting agency that relies on MFC supporters losing bets to return money to the football club. The sooner we rid ourselves of this insidious sponsor the better.

And for the record yes I do have a regular bet on the horses.

[praha 11,131]

No one is holding a gun to your head to bet. Deesbet and other betting agencies tell you quite clearly of the chances you have to win. The odds are indicative of the chance you have to win, dictated by public support. If you lose it's because you've most likely placed a bet that most likely didn't lean in your favour. Deal with it or don't bet.

[jumbo returns 6,703]

Just had a call from Deesbet, you know, the betting agency that relies on MFC supporters losing bets to return money to the football club. The sooner we rid ourselves of this insidious sponsor the better.

And for the record yes I do have a regular bet on the horses.

I agree - the chap who rang me wouldn't take no for an answer - NO means NO

[old dee 23,505]

I agree - the chap who rang me wouldn't take no for an answer - NO means NO

Sorry I object to these people ringing up.

My answer

[censored] off!

[hardtack 10,424]

No one is holding a gun to your head to bet. Deesbet and other betting agencies tell you quite clearly of the chances you have to win. The odds are indicative of the chance you have to win, dictated by public support. If you lose it's because you've most likely placed a bet that most likely didn't lean in your favour. Deal with it or don't bet.

That is not the issue... the issue is that these people are making unsolicited calls trying to drum up business. The MFC should be above providing members' contact information to such agencies... I certainly don't recall approving such contact.

[Spaghetti 264]

That is not the issue... the issue is that these people are making unsolicited calls trying to drum up business. The MFC should be above providing members' contact information to such agencies... I certainly don't recall approving such contact.

Without bothering to look it up, I'm almost certain you would have agreed to such contact.

[hardtack 10,424]

Without bothering to look it up, I'm almost certain you would have agreed to such contact.

Damn, I hate that small print :-)

[Bay Riffin 1,454]

Without bothering to look it up, I'm almost certain you would have agreed to such contact.

please explain? are you talking about signing up for a membership? what agreement are you referring to ?

[Spaghetti 264]

please explain? are you talking about signing up for a membership? what agreement are you referring to ?

Yes, I am referring to the membership agreement. Couldn't find the terms and conditions, but the following is a checkable box on the 2012 Membership Application Form:

"I do not wish to receive any additional communication from the Club Sponsors in 2012"

[H_T 3,032]

Without bothering to look it up, I'm almost certain you would have agreed to such contact.

Agree. Always read the fine print and those boxes that might or might not need ticking before accepting/signing off.

[torpedo 33]

Without bothering to look it up, I'm almost certain you would have agreed to such contact.

I think whether or not members may have agreed to being contacted by club sponsors is beside the point, MFC is well aware that its involvement in the betting sector is considered inappropriate by many members so it should know better than to allow cold calling from Deesbet.

This is really dissapointing. At the start of his term Jimmy stated with direct reference to potential sponsors and the betting sector that MFC would only seek to align itself with community minded organisations.

[Spaghetti 264]

I think whether or not members may have agreed to being contacted by club sponsors is beside the point, MFC is well aware that its involvement in the betting sector is considered inappropriate by many members so it should know better than to allow cold calling from Deesbet.

This is really dissapointing. At the start of his term Jimmy stated with direct reference to potential sponsors and the betting sector that MFC would only seek to align itself with community minded organisations.

I disagree with almost everything you just said. Whether members agree to it is entirely on point. No doubt, Deesbet pay a certain price for the ability to contact members who have no opted out of such contact, and are contractually entitled to do so.

You say many members find the sponsorship inappropriate... Well they are welcome to opt out of contact if that is the case. Moral/Political arguments have no place in Deesbet's utilisation of their contractual sponsorship of the MFC.

[Junior 46]

Unfortunately, in this country, many sporting clubs rely pretty heavily on betting organisations for funding. If MFC ignore betting agencies and pokies it's at our peril. Most AFL clubs receive a significant chunk of their revenue from this area.

[torpedo 33]

Stylus - both my comments and your original comments made reference to members’ contracts with the MFC, not MFC's contract with Deesbet, they are completely separate matters and you cannot apply comments made regarding one to the other.

If MFC has entered into a contract with Deesbet which allows it to cold call its members then, as I said, that is really disappointing and completely against what Stynes was spruiking when he first took over.

And from a commercial perspective, your suggestion that members who are unhappy with a betting agency cold calling them can simply opt out of contact from all sponsors is hardly a proposition that would please reputable sponsors who advertise using more accepted means.

Edited September 28, 2011 by torpedo

[Bluelegs 36]

I agree - the chap who rang me wouldn't take no for an answer - NO means NO

There is a way to end the conversation with them instantly. It's called hanging up

[torpedo 33]

Unfortunately, in this country, many sporting clubs rely pretty heavily on betting organisations for funding. If MFC ignore betting agencies and pokies it's at our peril. Most AFL clubs receive a significant chunk of their revenue from this area.

I think there is a difference between owning pokie machines and actively aligning yourself with a betting agency that engages in predatory advertising practices.

[Spaghetti 264]

Stylus - both my comments and your original comments made reference to members’ contracts with the MFC, not MFC's contract with Deesbet, they are completely separate matters and you cannot apply comments made regarding one to the other.

If MFC has entered into a contract with Deesbet which allows it to cold call its members then, as I said, that is really disappointing and completely against what Stynes was spruiking when he first took over.

No, they are linked. Deesbet would have a contract with MFC allowing them to contact members who have not opted out (the link).

Regarding your comments about opting out of "reputable sponsors"... I think that is a touch pedantic. Either you are happy to accept calls from sponsors or you are not. If you really are really that disappointed, you can just hang up on them. Stopping calls from them does not remove our association with them.

[Spaghetti 264]

I think there is a difference between owning pokie machines and actively aligning yourself with a betting agency that engages in predatory advertising practices.

Serious? You think OWNING poker machines is the lesser evil?

I'm not saying I agree with Deesbet practices, but they are not acting illegally. People are jumping all over clubs (such as MFC) for their "involvement", but if people are serious about the issue, then they need to direct their anger/disappointment to where it belongs - and that is in politics. If MFC were not involved, someone else would be. If someone is to make money from it, then I would prefer it to be the MFC.

[daisycutter 29,343]

Serious? You think OWNING poker machines is the lesser evil?

I'm not saying I agree with Deesbet practices, but they are not acting illegally. People are jumping all over clubs (such as MFC) for their "involvement", but if people are serious about the issue, then they need to direct their anger/disappointment to where it belongs - and that is in politics. If MFC were not involved, someone else would be. If someone is to make money from it, then I would prefer it to be the MFC.

maybe he was saying our poker machines are the non-predatory type? :wacko:

[Spaghetti 264]

maybe he was saying our poker machines are the non-predatory type? :wacko:

Oh yeah, maybe we chose those ones

[torpedo 33]

Serious? You think OWNING poker machines is the lesser evil?

I'm not saying I agree with Deesbet practices, but they are not acting illegally. People are jumping all over clubs (such as MFC) for their "involvement", but if people are serious about the issue, then they need to direct their anger/disappointment to where it belongs - and that is in politics. If MFC were not involved, someone else would be. If someone is to make money from it, then I would prefer it to be the MFC.

Stylus you have a real skill at misinterpretation. Firstly, you wrongly applied my comments about the MFC & Members' contracts to the MFC& Deesbet contract. Then to justify that, you implied that I was denying any link between the two when I had done the opposite. And now you are saying I think pokies are a lesser evil than betting agencies when I have said nothing of the sort.

If the club is going to rely on gambling revenue, it should at least have the sense to do it out of the public eye, ie pokies, rather than directly aligning itself with a betting agency, ie Deesbet. People assume Deesbet is the MFC but they would not have a clue who owns what pokies. Obviously the MFC once saw the sense in that too, given its previous commitment to only align itself with community minded organisations.

Clearly, it is not essential to have a direct alignment with a betting agency, given the majority of rich clubs do not and continue to thrive. It seems they are smart enough to not engage in an alignment which has the potential to damage the club’s image and commercial value.

The old ‘it’s a political issue’ & ‘if we do not do it someone else will’chestnuts can be used to deflect and justify anything and add nothing to the debate.

Edited September 28, 2011 by torpedo

[Rich Demon 5]

My main beef (aside from the I won't take no for an answer tone from telemarketers, and I am too mild mannered for my own good just to hang up) is that the product is aimed directly at MFC supporters. As I understand the situation the club receives money only from bets made with Deesbet, not their parent Betezy, therefore the majority of money made from the arrangement is coming straight from losses of I'd imagine a majority of MFC supporters. Somehow, despite my views against sports betting in general, I'd rather there be a sponsorship or arrangement with a company that doesn't so closely associated itself with the club through use of colours, symbols and name and has a wider customer base.

Oh and I was called on my mobile, usually these calls come to the home phone, might have to remove my number when I renew this year.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

No one is holding a gun to your head to bet. Deesbet and other betting agencies tell you quite clearly of the chances you have to win. The odds are indicative of the chance you have to win, dictated by public support. If you lose it's because you've most likely placed a bet that most likely didn't lean in your favour. Deal with it or don't bet.

That's a scary quote.

Edited September 28, 2011 by WAClark

[Old Man Rivers 326]

Sorry I object to these people ringing up.

My answer

[censored] off!

The Perfect Response Old Dee

I am in your corner here!

[beelzebub 23,200]

Sorry I object to these people ringing up.

My answer

[censored] off!

ditto