bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

[StriderX]

What cost are you referring to?

Policing, health service and welfare costs mainly in having to deal with gamblers turning into criminals to feed their habit (robbery, assault, burglary, manslaughter, murder, fraud...) or when they cause their family grief/lose their job/go homeless or whatever other possible outcome that can befall them/their victims.

Having a moral **** by blaming the initial gambler as many seem to enjoy doing, doesn't really do anything.

Anyway, here's a fine example, how much policing, judicial, prison service costs might he rack up just by himself?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/losing-gambler-rips-man-out-17586073

A gambler 'who lost all of his money' launched a vicious assault on a man in a wheelchair in a bid to steal his £10,000 winnings.

The victim had gone to the Grosvenor Casino in Broad Street and won a "substantial" amount of money consisting of £9,000 in cash and a cheque for £1,000.

During his winning spree he had been followed around the casino by Anjum Rahim as he played the tables on March 30, last year.

The victim, who used a wheelchair because of a spinal problem he had suffered years before, then left the building to have a cigarette.

He was then approached by Rahim, who told him he had lost all of his money and asked him for £20 so he could get home.

The victim gave him the money but when the defendant asked for a further £20 he refused.

Rahim then grabbed the man's jacket, pulling him from the wheelchair and they struggled on the ground, said Peter Grice, prosecuting at Birmingham Crown Court.

But the robbery bid, which was captured on CCTV, was foiled after two members of the public intervened.

The victim suffered bruising to his shoulders, back and arm.

Rahim, 39, of Somerville Road, Small Heath, who had previously admitted attempted robbery, was jailed for three years and nine months.

 

[b00merang69]

^^ Looks a trustworthy stand up guy (the guy in the wheelchair must have riled him with winnings as he had lost his own), I would let him babysit my kids anyway.

 

[stuman]

Policing, health service and welfare costs mainly in having to deal with gamblers turning into criminals to feed their habit (robbery, assault, burglary, manslaughter, murder, fraud...) or when they cause their family grief/lose their job/go homeless or whatever other possible outcome that can befall them/their victims.

Having a moral **** by blaming the initial gambler as many seem to enjoy doing, doesn't really do anything.

Anyway, here's a fine example, how much policing, judicial, prison service costs might he rack up just by himself?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/losing-gambler-rips-man-out-17586073

doesn’t sound like a crime of desperation to me. More jealousy and opportunistic.

it is also flavour of the month to blame a gambling addiction to reduce sentence and shift blame.

I’m not saying gambling addiction doesn’t lead to crime, it very much does.

for me, it’s similar to alcohol and blaming brewery’s for crimes...

 

[Dirk Diggler]

for me, it’s similar to alcohol and blaming brewery’s for crimes...

Would it be acceptable for the Premier League to grant exclusive rights to Wetherspoons, and the only way you could watch the match is if you went to your local, and either bought a pint or had a balance on your bar tab?

 

[stuman]

Would it be acceptable for the Premier League to grant exclusive rights to Wetherspoons, and the only way you could watch the match is if you went to your local, and either bought a pint or had a balance on your bar tab?

Yes, if that is the business model they wanted to follow. Football watchers would either have to start enjoying Weatherspoon's, or find another sport / league to follow.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Yes, if that is the business model they wanted to follow. Football watchers would either have to start enjoying Weatherspoon's, or find another sport / league to follow.

This is the problem with internet debate, you're now posting ridiculous statements because defending your position and winning the argument becomes much more important than facts or common sense.

 

[stuman]

This is the problem with internet debate, you're now posting ridiculous statements because defending your position and winning the argument becomes much more important than facts or common sense.

Just because its football, doesn't mean it's protected as some sort of holy right, it's a business and if that is what the owners / shareholders want to do then they can. If you still want to follow the "Premier League" at that point then you will have to go down the pub.

or, you could stop watching, and give your money to another league / sport / company.

Much in the same way that Some leagues / sports only get shown on sky / pay per view, that you have to pay for.

I'm sorry if you feel entitled to watch football, but at the end of the day, business is business.

 

[Sankari]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46289499
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-coates-paid-herself-an-obscene-265m-in-2017

Just wanted GD thoughts on this, is it a case of she earned it so why not? or should there be something in place to stop someone earning so much, i mean i can not think of a reason she can justify her salary, even if you took a 0 of the end and it was 26.5 million that is more money than most will earn in their lifetime.

I don't believe in salary caps. If businesses want to pay their CEOs an insane amount of money, that's their choice and nobody else's.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Just because its football, doesn't mean it's protected as some sort of holy right, it's a business and if that is what the owners / shareholders want to do then they can. If you still want to follow the "Premier League" at that point then you will have to go down the pub.

or, you could stop watching, and give your money to another league / sport / company.

Much in the same way that Some leagues / sports only get shown on sky / pay per view, that you have to pay for.

I'm sorry if you feel entitled to watch football, but at the end of the day, business is business.

It's a lovely little rant you've put together there, however you seem to be oblivious to some really basic facts. For starters, you've just condoned shutting children out of watching their favourite team. You've condoned shutting out people with alcohol issues, and anyone who is elderly, ill or has a disability.

Thankfully, the Government Sports Minister in the article quoted has put slightly more thought and consideration into the subject than you.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Would it be acceptable for the Premier League to grant exclusive rights to Wetherspoons, and the only way you could watch the match is if you went to your local, and either bought a pint or had a balance on your bar tab?

Well I remember when they took football away from us and told us the only way was to buy Sky and then Sky users were then told that some matches will be on BT so you need to subscribe to that also.
You've picked a bad example because I don't remember anybody being forced into crime to get their football fix.
For many years you can only watch certain programmes on Netflix or Amazon, again I don't see cases where somebody turned to crime so they could watch Game Of Thrones.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Well I remember when they took football away from us and told us the only way was to buy Sky and then Sky users were then told that some matches will be on BT so you need to subscribe to that also.
You've picked a bad example because I don't remember anybody being forced into crime to get their football fix.
For many years you can only watch certain programmes on Netflix or Amazon, again I don't see cases where somebody turned to crime so they could watch Game Of Thrones.

You're comparing media content providers to substance addiction & abuse. I think the actual issue is being somewhat lost in the noise here. The point isn't that these companies are obtaining exclusive rights, it's about what you need to purchase in order to view the match. With Sky, Netflix, BT etc. you only purchase the media content that you want to view.

 

[Kenai]

Well I remember when they took football away from us and told us the only way was to buy Sky and then Sky users were then told that some matches will be on BT so you need to subscribe to that also.
You've picked a bad example because I don't remember anybody being forced into crime to get their football fix.
For many years you can only watch certain programmes on Netflix or Amazon, again I don't see cases where somebody turned to crime so they could watch Game Of Thrones.

Making football matches exclusively available via a fixed price subscription is different to putting it behind a gambling paywall that is designed to encourage people to engage in 'bad habits' that for a minority of people can and often will spiral out of control. Hence the comparison to an alcohol paywall, something most will enjoy normally without issue but a minority will struggle deeply with.

The question is, is it right on a societal level to restrict access to something as innocuous as watching your local team play football on the basis of engaging in potentially addictive behaviours? Personally I think it starts to stray into a morally grey area and I can't say it sits entirely comfortably with me.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The question is, is it right on a societal level to restrict access to something as innocuous as watching your local team play football on the basis of engaging in potentially addictive behaviours? Personally I think it starts to stray into a morally grey area and I can't say it sits entirely comfortably with me.

and that's why using football only in Wetherspoons is a bad example.
Having live football in betting shops would be better but you can still say no.

 

[Kenai]

and that's why using football only in Wetherspoons is a bad example.
Having live football in betting shops would be better but you can still say no.

The point being made is that making the game available on condition of betting is similar to making it conditional on buying alcohol - both innocuous activities with potential for abusive tendencies to develop. Neither should be seen as a good thing imo.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The point being made is that making the game available on condition of betting is similar to making it conditional on buying alcohol - both innocuous activities with potential for abusive tendencies to develop. Neither should be seen as a good thing imo.

Every year I go abroad I have to find a bar that shows football and I will have to have around 3 drinks so I don't look like I'm taking the pee.
I can always say no to going to the bar, it's not hard.

 

[Kenai]

Every year I go abroad I have to find a bar that shows football and I will have to have around 3 drinks so I don't look like I'm taking the pee.
I can always say no to going to the bar, it's not hard.

That's not the comparison though - these games are specifically only available if you bet or deposit money in a betting account. The comparable scenario is being obligated to buy an alcoholic drink. What you describe is simply buying a drink out of awkwardness. You could easily have watched without buying anything, even if you got a dirty look from the barman.

I just don't see the argument that restricting matches to those betting is a good thing. I completely get the 'it's a business, they can do what they want' angle but should it be that way with things like gambling or should we try to introduce at least a little bit of sensible protection surrounding potentially problematic behaviour?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Every year I go abroad I have to find a bar that shows football and I will have to have around 3 drinks so I don't look like I'm taking the pee.
I can always say no to going to the bar, it's not hard.

It's not about the inability to say no, the issue is that it is being made conditional on participation with proven potentially addictive & destructive behaviour. It's been explained thoroughly in the last few posts and I genuinely find it interesting that you are fixating on the ability of people to resist (you've mentioned it a few times now).

Another aspect that you're missing is that football is culturally very important in UK society. The sport is immersed in our childhood, and making gambling a condition of viewing it is not only putting it beyond the reach of anyone under the age of 18, is also normalising addictive behaviour and making it appear to children that this is synonymous with a perfectly healthy interest like their favourite sport.

 

[stuman]

Every year I go abroad I have to find a bar that shows football and I will have to have around 3 drinks so I don't look like I'm taking the pee.
I can always say no to going to the bar, it's not hard.

and this is the point I'm getting at. You're not born with an entitlement to watch football. If you don't agree with it being behind a "gambling based pay wall" don't watch it. Following enough people deciding that it is not quite right, their money will drop far enough that they will change their minds and change the business model again.

 

[Gornall]

It's bad for the sport, and it's a bad practice in general. That's my opinion,someone working in the gambling industry no less.

I can see the commercial reasons behind it obviously, it's a great thing for the businesses involved. But as many say, hiding a kids favourite team behind a gambling payway is pretty poor.

Lootboxes/Fifa Ultimate team is the same issue. Hiding the best players behind a gambling mechanic is detrimental to those vulnerable. There is plenty of money to be made by gambling companies by focusing on the leisure and entertainment aspect of gambling. The fun with your mates, the cheeky bet, the few spins of roulette. But the same companies need to make sure they identify those at risk and take necessary action.

Some people are vulnerable, it affects every aspect of every part of life. Hell we have to tax and control sugary drinks to high heaven because people just indulge too much.

Gambling is very much the bad guy in focus now, but there is a lot of sensationalism to the numbers and the impact. I work with the decision science and statistic teams, and they always run the numbers the papers quote and compare to our customer base out of curiosity. The recent credit card headlines are an example where the 'sample' is just not representative at all but gains news and traction.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Gambling is very much the bad guy in focus now, but there is a lot of sensationalism to the numbers and the impact. I work with the decision science and statistic teams, and they always run the numbers the papers quote and compare to our customer base out of curiosity. The recent credit card headlines are an example where the 'sample' is just not representative at all but gains news and traction.

That's caught my eye. Do you have any additional detail you could provide on the credit card example? It would be good to hear a "real world" example because, whilst we obviously agree on the fundamental issue being discussed, I am always aware that the media tend to exaggerate and sensationalise so it would be good to get some facts if there is dispute.