Jump to content

Featured Replies

 
2 hours ago, Roger Mellie said:

I think the AFL will go hard after Pell and give him a lifetime ban even if he doesn't get jail time. They'll want to be seen as taking a strong stand so there will be lots of outrage. They'll also be miffed because they can't control the judicial process. But, they and media entities enjoying the support of betting agencies wont look at the toxicity of their relationship - nothing to see there!  That'll be left to media outlets that don't depend on gambling ads for revenue.

Seriously I don’t get the outrage directed at betting organisations. 
I acknowledge that it can be a slippery slope for some people just like with drugs and alcohol. 
 

People need to learn how to show restraint, practice temperance and take on a little virtue called self accountability in many facets of life and having a punt is just another. 
 

I have a bet but have put in place all of the available restriction’s provided by the agencies with regards to deposit and bet limits. 
It’s not up to them to check in on you to make sure you’re in control of your activity. They provide a service, it’s your choices that affect the outcome. 
 

When was the last time Fritta got 3 votes for kicking 4, 5, 6 or seven goals???

 
22 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Seriously I don’t get the outrage directed at betting organisations. 
I acknowledge that it can be a slippery slope for some people just like with drugs and alcohol. 

The problem is more to do with the overkill on advertising and the acceptance of gambling money by the AFL and AFL media...

It puts the AFL in difficult position.

Edited by rjay

  • Author

Who got the votes, and gave them in Gold Coast's last game of year.


4 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Who got the votes, and gave them in Gold Coast's last game of year.

Swallow 3

Anderson 2

Sexton 1

Umpires - Fisher, Johanson, Wallace

 

56 minutes ago, rjay said:

The problem is more to do with the overkill on advertising and the acceptance of gambling money by the AFL and AFL media...

It puts the AFL in difficult position.

Just like it was with Ciggies and booze?

The money has to come from somewhere that is relatively recession proof. People’s ‘vices’ are really just addiction and advertising does it’s job to get them hooked. 
I take no notice of the excessive advertisements. 

22 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Just like it was with Ciggies and booze?

The money has to come from somewhere that is relatively recession proof. People’s ‘vices’ are really just addiction and advertising does it’s job to get them hooked. 
I take no notice of the excessive advertisements. 

Good for you.

It targets 2 things...one is getting you to change allegiance to another brand of bookie...

...and the other is at kids, to normalise the activity (make you feel the odd one out if you don't) and keep a steady flow of new customers.

Edited by rjay

 
48 minutes ago, rjay said:

Good for you.

It targets 2 things...one is getting you to change allegiance to another brand of bookie...

...and the other is at kids, to normalise the activity (make you feel the odd one out if you don't) and keep a steady flow of new customers.

Like new toys, Pokémon cards, sugary treats etc?

It would all stop if the players were prepared to take a pay cut for the amount that gambling promotion delivers to the AFL.

I am not holding my breath.


8 hours ago, McQueen said:

People need to learn how to show restraint, practice temperance and take on a little virtue called self accountability in many facets of life…
 

I have some Colombian friends who agree with you. 

 

8 hours ago, McQueen said:

Seriously I don’t get the outrage directed at betting organisations. 
I acknowledge that it can be a slippery slope for some people just like with drugs and alcohol. 
 

People need to learn how to show restraint, practice temperance and take on a little virtue called self accountability in many facets of life and having a punt is just another. 

I have a bet but have put in place all of the available restriction’s provided by the agencies with regards to deposit and bet limits. 
It’s not up to them to check in on you to make sure you’re in control of your activity. They provide a service, it’s your choices that affect the outcome. 
 

Young people especially need support and guidance..... but ultimately you're correct Steve ..... we must take responsibility for our own actions.

8 hours ago, McQueen said:

Seriously I don’t get the outrage directed at betting organisations. 
I acknowledge that it can be a slippery slope for some people just like with drugs and alcohol. 
 

People need to learn how to show restraint, practice temperance and take on a little virtue called self accountability in many facets of life and having a punt is just another. 
 

I have a bet but have put in place all of the available restriction’s provided by the agencies with regards to deposit and bet limits. 
It’s not up to them to check in on you to make sure you’re in control of your activity. They provide a service, it’s your choices that affect the outcome. 
 

I wasn't directing outrage at betting organisations nor am I averse to a punt. My beef is with the saturation of all things sporting with gambling ads/odds quarter time, half time etc etc and the reliance of the AFL, SEN etc on the income of betting agencies. It puts them in a compromising position.

Ciggies are a good comparison. Tobacco Co's certainly have the marketing budget and could easily (and would be desperate to) replace the betting agency ads in terms of media saturation but they can't for a good reason. What's the difference between kids watching gasper ads versus gambling ads?

I also agree with you that for most people it's a bit of fun or makes it interesting, but the level of advertising is ridiculous and there are too many people that 'take it to the next level' (pardon the pun). I'm quite surprised by the amount they get away with in advertising.

56 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

I wasn't directing outrage at betting organisations nor am I averse to a punt. My beef is with the saturation of all things sporting with gambling ads/odds quarter time, half time etc etc and the reliance of the AFL, SEN etc on the income of betting agencies. It puts them in a compromising position.

Ciggies are a good comparison. Tobacco Co's certainly have the marketing budget and could easily (and would be desperate to) replace the betting agency ads in terms of media saturation but they can't for a good reason. What's the difference between kids watching gasper ads versus gambling ads?

I also agree with you that for most people it's a bit of fun or makes it interesting, but the level of advertising is ridiculous and there are too many people that 'take it to the next level' (pardon the pun). I'm quite surprised by the amount they get away with in advertising.

Gotcha. Agree with the above. 
 

11 hours ago, Roger Mellie said:

I wasn't directing outrage at betting organisations nor am I averse to a punt. My beef is with the saturation of all things sporting with gambling ads/odds quarter time, half time etc etc and the reliance of the AFL, SEN etc on the income of betting agencies. It puts them in a compromising position.

Ciggies are a good comparison. Tobacco Co's certainly have the marketing budget and could easily (and would be desperate to) replace the betting agency ads in terms of media saturation but they can't for a good reason. What's the difference between kids watching gasper ads versus gambling ads?

I also agree with you that for most people it's a bit of fun or makes it interesting, but the level of advertising is ridiculous and there are too many people that 'take it to the next level' (pardon the pun). I'm quite surprised by the amount they get away with in advertising.

I know this is off-topic, but can anyone remember whether we had one of the Gasper brothers on our list at the same time as Craig Smoker?

As to the difference between betting ads and tobacco ads, let's remember that every cigarette is bad for you; not every bet is. That's not to say betting is not dangerous for some people, but for most people it is safe whereas there is no safe level of tobacco use. A better analogy would be to compare betting ads with liquor ads. Both are safe in moderation but dangerous for some people.  


3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know this is off-topic, but can anyone remember whether we had one of the Gasper brothers on our list at the same time as Craig Smoker?

As to the difference between betting ads and tobacco ads, let's remember that every cigarette is bad for you; not every bet is. That's not to say betting is not dangerous for some people, but for most people it is safe whereas there is no safe level of tobacco use. A better analogy would be to compare betting ads with liquor ads. Both are safe in moderation but dangerous for some people.  

Agree. But I go a step further. Why do they need to be advertised?  Have you ever seen a beer ad that actually gives you any evidence as to why brand A is better than the rest other than suggesting you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A.  What a waste.

At least the gambling companies offer slightly different products whose differences can be explained in an ad (though they still largely rely on the mates/girlfriends motivation. Perhaps a better word is manipulation).

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Agree. But I go a step further. Why do they need to be advertised?  Have you ever seen a beer ad that actually gives you any evidence as to why brand A is better than the rest other than suggesting you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A.  What a waste.

At least the gambling companies offer slightly different products whose differences can be explained in an ad (though they still largely rely on the mates/girlfriends motivation. Perhaps a better word is manipulation).

I think there's a code of conduct for liquor advertising which expressly forbids advertising which promotes anything that suggests "you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A." There are a few other things in that code, too, such as not showing minors, etc. I suspect the betting industry (or gambling generally) also has a code which puts some limits on what the can say (eg, that you can't expect to make money by gambling). And if there's not such a code, there should be.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think there's a code of conduct for liquor advertising which expressly forbids advertising which promotes anything that suggests "you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A." There are a few other things in that code, too, such as not showing minors, etc. I suspect the betting industry (or gambling generally) also has a code which puts some limits on what the can say (eg, that you can't expect to make money by gambling). And if there's not such a code, there should be.

If there is a liquor ad code that expressly forbids suggesting "you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A" then it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, to misquote Hamlet.

17 hours ago, tiers said:

It would all stop if the players were prepared to take a pay cut for the amount that gambling promotion delivers to the AFL.

I am not holding my breath.

Is it the AFL or the TV networks that receiving the revenue from gambling sponsorships?  Because if it's the TV networks, it shouldn't really affect AFL player payments.  Certainly the amount of gambling ads seem to be at odds with a lot of clubs' focus on the "love the game, not the odds" campaign.

Edited by Katrina Dee Fan

6 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Is it the AFL or the TV networks that receiving the revenue from gambling sponsorships?  Because if it's the TV networks, it shouldn't really affect AFL player payments.  Certainly the amount of gambling ads seem to be at odds with a lot of clubs' focus on the "love the game, not the odds" campaign.

It's a more complex ecosystem. The TV networks pay for the AFL TV rights using money they earn from advertising. The more advertising revenue they can earn, the more they can bid for the rights. So, in effect, the AFL is a downstream collector of betting ad revenue. There have also been separate sponsorship deals between betting companies and individual clubs, although I'm not sure there are any still in place.  


Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's a more complex ecosystem. The TV networks pay for the AFL TV rights using money they earn from advertising. The more advertising revenue they can earn, the more they can bid for the rights. So, in effect, the AFL is a downstream collector of betting ad revenue. There have also been separate sponsorship deals between betting companies and individual clubs, although I'm not sure there are any still in place.  

Fair point. I guess the next question is what percentage of the advertising revenue is from gambling companies, and can they be subsidised/replaced by more appropriate advertisers?  

17 minutes ago, sue said:

Agree. But I go a step further. Why do they need to be advertised?  Have you ever seen a beer ad that actually gives you any evidence as to why brand A is better than the rest other than suggesting you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A.

There is an ad for some non-alcoholic drink that you can drink so you'll still be "one of the boys". Hard to dunk on a non-alcoholic drink though. It's hardly a "gateway" drink; more of the opposite.

A lot of ads infer being part of the group ...camping with the boys (and girl) ... as part of the beer drinking experience, but I can't recall any (maybe I am just too inured to the whole ad business) that link "mates" and "alcohol" as explicitly as the gambling companies do "mates" and "betting".

 

17 minutes ago, sue said:

At least the gambling companies offer slightly different products whose differences can be explained in an ad (though they still largely rely on the mates/girlfriends motivation. Perhaps a better word is manipulation).

It's insidious. "You can't be part of a group of mates if you're not gambling with them" is the barely-disguised subtext. It's borderline social engineering.

9 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

 

It's insidious. "You can't be part of a group of mates if you're not gambling with them" is the barely-disguised subtext. It's borderline social engineering.

Exactly right.  There are some sports that rely on gambling for it to be relevant - horse racing for example. And its why I don't support that sport.  Football is different, when I was a kid gambling was barely on the agenda when it came to VFL footy.  Now as a teacher I find it terrifying that kids are talking about betting odds as a factor if a club is favourite or not to win.  That is definitely social engineering, it should not be part of the venacular of footy.  I'm a big supporter of the "enjoy the game, not the odds" campaign, and I'm pleased a lot of the clubs, including Melbourne, have done away with revenue from gambling and pokies.  

Edited by Katrina Dee Fan

 
21 hours ago, McQueen said:

Seriously I don’t get the outrage directed at betting organisations. 
I acknowledge that it can be a slippery slope for some people just like with drugs and alcohol. 
 

People need to learn how to show restraint, practice temperance and take on a little virtue called self accountability in many facets of life and having a punt is just another. 
 

I have a bet but have put in place all of the available restriction’s provided by the agencies with regards to deposit and bet limits. 
It’s not up to them to check in on you to make sure you’re in control of your activity. They provide a service, it’s your choices that affect the outcome. 
 

McQueen, I don't have an issue with whether people gamble either but do have concerns with the amount of gambling related advertising in sport. This not only presents issues for those addicted to gambling but also normalised gambling for kids, e.g. they are so heavily exposed to advertising that glamorises gambling at a young age that by the time they are an adult they are de-sensitised to it's harmful effects. As a parent I want to be able to take my kids to the Footy or watch a game on TV without gambling ads everytime the play stops.

If gambling was removed from horse racing, it would overnight shrink to the size of competitive dressage.

(Note to the horse lovers: I am not advocating that. But I do think that the horse results should be in the papers next to the Tattslotto numbers, and not in the sports section.)


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Haha
    • 50 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Like
    • 4 replies