DUNDER - Now announced

[stephenkibby.]

10 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Like shafting the disabled over and over again?

Some care and the rest are happy to turn a blind eye, seems to be the rule of thumb.

Zider do you ever go to bed before daylight?

I only ask because i'm trying to outlast you.

[RedLionLad]

50 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said:

Zider do you ever go to bed before daylight?

I only ask because i'm trying to outlast you.

He's a robot. posting 100 times a day.

Still not as active as Robbored

[ZiderEyed]

1 hour ago, stephenkibby. said:

Zider do you ever go to bed before daylight?

I only ask because i'm trying to outlast you.

Insomnia!

31 minutes ago, RedLionLad said:

He's a robot. posting 100 times a day.

Still not as active as Robbored

</Default response/>

[havanatopia]

14 hours ago, Monkeh said:

but you said there was no responsible gambling,

the vast majority of people gamble responsibly just like the vast majority drink responsibly, and until the advertising is outlawed then there is no problem with the club maximizing it's revenue streams,

people have been crying out for the club to become more professional with its off field affairs, this is the out come of that,

Money over everything these days  I'm afraid 

Well i think to correct the context on my part perhaps I should have said responsible and gambling in the same sentence is an oxymoron... Or, put another way, the average gambling exercise or transaction is not a responsible past time; how else would these organisations get so cash rich so quickly? I contest if you are a perpetual winner you are in the very small minority.

[havanatopia]

13 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

how much have you lost so far?

Arhhh yes indeed... I replied on the probable wrong assumption that Monkeh was a perpetual winner. He is saying he bets responsibility because he can afford to lose 'x' pounds per week. Its an interesting way of interpreting 'responsible' gambling.

[Natchfever]

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Arhhh yes indeed... I replied on the probable wrong assumption that Monkeh was a perpetual winner. He is saying he bets responsibility because he can afford to lose 'x' pounds per week. Its an interesting way of interpreting 'responsible' gambling.

Some people enjoy the excitement of placing a bet. It isn't an entirely financial motivation although of course the "prize" is there.

The day after spending money on a piss up if you look at it purely financially you probably think in hindsight you could have spent some of it at least on more sensible pursuits..

Shamefully, there are probably loads of City fans over the years who have squandered thousands of pounds on away days and neglected their family responsibilities.

Personally, I think its fashionable to knock gambling but just my view of course.

[East End Old Boy]

8 hours ago, stephenkibby. said:

But did you smoke Kensitas, No 6 or Rothmans king size?

Possibly, yes,yes!

[havanatopia]

1 hour ago, Loon plage said:

Some people enjoy the excitement of placing a bet. It isn't an entirely financial motivation although of course the "prize" is there.

The day after spending money on a piss up if you look at it purely financially you probably think in hindsight you could have spent some of it at least on more sensible pursuits..

Shamefully, there are probably loads of City fans over the years who have squandered thousands of pounds on away days and neglected their family responsibilities.

Personally, I think its fashionable to knock gambling but just my view of course.

Indeed we all make choices good and bad often every week but hopefully more good. Advertising yet more gambling is unlikely to encourage any good choices being made.

[Gilli74]

All I can see is Will from inbetweeners....

 

[Spud55]

4 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Arhhh yes indeed... I replied on the probable wrong assumption that Monkeh was a perpetual winner. He is saying he bets responsibility because he can afford to lose 'x' pounds per week. Its an interesting way of interpreting 'responsible' gambling.

So shopping therefore must be irresponsible then? Anything the involves spending money must equally be irresponsible by definition as someone could do the same but with money they don't have and can't afford to pay back, or equally they could spend the money that's required to feed their kids on a TV, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have Samsung as a sponsor though does it? I enjoy watching football, but equally I don't particularly enjoy watching as a total neutral, most games I will just arbitrarily pick a team I'd rather win, sometimes I will stick a couple of quid on a team to win, so in essence I'm laying out a few quid to get a bit more interest out of something. Equally I might go to the casino to play poker, that is also gambling but I get a few hours of doing something I enjoy for 40 odd quid, I went to the cinema with the Mrs, that was pushing 30 odd quid for a couple of hours of time, does that mean that films shouldn't be advertised just in case someone spends their rent money on going to watch a film? 

Can I see a good case for restricting gambling adverts on TV and the like? Of course I can as it can be dangerous, but so can many other things, and as alcohol only has the drink responsibly message on ads why should gambling be any different? 

[Major Isewater]

15 hours ago, blockbrowt1 said:

New Kit?

Ayling's put on weight .

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

20 hours ago, Spud55 said:

So you do gamble then? People can do almost anything irresponsibly, but at some point they have to take some responsibility for their own actions, the vast, vast majority of people are not problem gamblers, and I would hazard that the largest majority of gambling establishments money comes from people who don't bet their house on the football, so if I decide tomorrow to max out all my credit and stick it all on the football and loose, is that bet 365's fault or mine? Just like the vast majority of people who drink aren't alcoholics. 

I am struggling to think of a sector in business that can be considered moral, they are there to make money, nothing more, and largely should be considered amoral in my eyes. 

Like I said not through anything other than £8-10 a month on the lottery, but even those buggers I blocked their emails and promo stuff because I think they are getting a bit out of hand.  

The shares in my pension and ISA and that's it.  

As for bookies I think the last bet I made was on the 2008 playoffs.  I just find them very pushy and I don't like it so I obstain.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

2 hours ago, Spud55 said:

So shopping therefore must be irresponsible then? Anything the involves spending money must equally be irresponsible by definition as someone could do the same but with money they don't have and can't afford to pay back, or equally they could spend the money that's required to feed their kids on a TV, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have Samsung as a sponsor though does it? I enjoy watching football, but equally I don't particularly enjoy watching as a total neutral, most games I will just arbitrarily pick a team I'd rather win, sometimes I will stick a couple of quid on a team to win, so in essence I'm laying out a few quid to get a bit more interest out of something. Equally I might go to the casino to play poker, that is also gambling but I get a few hours of doing something I enjoy for 40 odd quid, I went to the cinema with the Mrs, that was pushing 30 odd quid for a couple of hours of time, does that mean that films shouldn't be advertised just in case someone spends their rent money on going to watch a film? 

Can I see a good case for restricting gambling adverts on TV and the like? Of course I can as it can be dangerous, but so can many other things, and as alcohol only has the drink responsibly message on ads why should gambling be any different? 

Not really if you're a shopoholic a well meaning family member can always force you to see sense and take things back you can't afford most things will give you a full or partial refund.  Try that with a bookies.  It's a bit hard to hide alcoholism from family too, but gambling you can open accounts and run up huge debts.

[CyderInACan]

It’s put this song in my head since it was announced 

 

[Tom]

Could be worse, could have this lot sponsoring us. Would people prefer Michael Scott to Mark Ashton, though?

 

 

[havanatopia]

16 hours ago, Spud55 said:

So shopping therefore must be irresponsible then? Anything the involves spending money must equally be irresponsible by definition as someone could do the same but with money they don't have and can't afford to pay back, or equally they could spend the money that's required to feed their kids on a TV, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have Samsung as a sponsor though does it? I enjoy watching football, but equally I don't particularly enjoy watching as a total neutral, most games I will just arbitrarily pick a team I'd rather win, sometimes I will stick a couple of quid on a team to win, so in essence I'm laying out a few quid to get a bit more interest out of something. Equally I might go to the casino to play poker, that is also gambling but I get a few hours of doing something I enjoy for 40 odd quid, I went to the cinema with the Mrs, that was pushing 30 odd quid for a couple of hours of time, does that mean that films shouldn't be advertised just in case someone spends their rent money on going to watch a film? 

Can I see a good case for restricting gambling adverts on TV and the like? Of course I can as it can be dangerous, but so can many other things, and as alcohol only has the drink responsibly message on ads why should gambling be any different? 

We are talking about gambling; of course you can throw in a plethora of other past times and risky purchases just to string out an argument and make gambling somehow, bizarrely, the same as them. I don't see your point.

14 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

Not really if you're a shopoholic a well meaning family member can always force you to see sense and take things back you can't afford most things will give you a full or partial refund.  Try that with a bookies.  It's a bit hard to hide alcoholism from family too, but gambling you can open accounts and run up huge debts.

This sums it up better.

[Spud55]

9 hours ago, havanatopia said:

We are talking about gambling; of course you can throw in a plethora of other past times and risky purchases just to string out an argument and make gambling somehow, bizarrely, the same as them. I don't see your point.

This sums it up better.

No it doesn't, it doesn't sum anything up at all, so your implying that alcoholism and debts run up by over spending can be stopped by a well meaning family member? That's rubbish and you know it. 

My whole point is that business is there to make money and nothing more, there are immoral practices in every industry you cannot single out one industry for your moral indignation yet didn't have a pop at lancer Scott for being part of an industry that is at least partly the cause of 71 deaths at grenfell. Where was your moral outrage there? 

Do you know for a fact that Dunbar or whoever they are are doing anything immoral or targeting vulnerable individuals specifically to get their money? Or are you basing your judgement on them solely on your perception of the industry as a whole? If so then you cannot make that argument while not accepting that any sponsor is part of an immoral industry. 

My other point is that there is only one person responsible for their own actions and that is them. I do not understand why people offering a legitimate and legal service are responsible for those individuals who choose to abuse it.

If gambling was like tobacco when it is absolutely not possible to do it without causing harm, smoking may not kill you but it is certainly going to do you harm. Then I would agree ,but the fact is most people do not ruin their lives gambling so I do not see the problem with us having a gambling company as our sponsor. 

 

[WhistleHappy]

On ‎01‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 21:35, Harry said:

Personally, I don’t gamble. And having a name on the shirt whom I’ve no idea what they do, isn’t gonna make me start gambling. 

They can spend all the money in the world on advertising casino’s and betting, it doesn’t work on me. 

What's the odds on that?  …. I bet it will...  

[EnderMB]

I've got nothing against an online casino from abroad sponsoring us, as long as it brings in enough money for us to actually compete.

In terms of money generated, Dunder aren't a big company. They've existed since 2016, and their turnover is low enough that it doesn't inspire confidence.

I also had a look into their parent company, MT SecureTrade, assuming that they've be loaded since they operate Dunder alongside a number of other casinos, and it looks like in terms of net income they've got a smaller budget than us.

We'll see whether our transfers this season reflects this change, but I don't see us splashing the cash.

[phantom]

21 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

I've got nothing against an online casino from abroad sponsoring us, as long as it brings in enough money for us to actually compete.

In terms of money generated, Dunder aren't a big company. They've existed since 2016, and their turnover is low enough that it doesn't inspire confidence.

I also had a look into their parent company, MT SecureTrade, assuming that they've be loaded since they operate Dunder alongside a number of other casinos, and it looks like in terms of net income they've got a smaller budget than us.

We'll see whether our transfers this season reflects this change, but I don't see us splashing the cash.

I suppose the bottom line is it is more than before?

Though not seen this "officially" announced anywhere

[Red-Robbo]

Dunder means thunder in Swedish. 

I did say when I worked with the guys establishing the operation that they might do better if the name was in English.

Look better on a footie shirt too....

[EnderMB]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

I suppose the bottom line is it is more than before?

Though not seen this "officially" announced anywhere

It probably is, but is it worth cutting a contract with a willing sponsor to get maybe a year or two out of a casino that has existed for less time than Lancer Scott has sponsored us?

For me, it'd have to be because Dunder (or their parent company) is paying us a LOT more than what we were getting from Lancer Scott, and unless they're doing some hardcore fiddling of the books in Malta I can't see how it can be for the kind of money we'd need to push onwards.

[phantom]

14 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

It probably is, but is it worth cutting a contract with a willing sponsor to get maybe a year or two out of a casino that has existed for less time than Lancer Scott has sponsored us?

For me, it'd have to be because Dunder (or their parent company) is paying us a LOT more than what we were getting from Lancer Scott, and unless they're doing some hardcore fiddling of the books in Malta I can't see how it can be for the kind of money we'd need to push onwards.

100% agree with you @EnderMB surely of more benefit to have a recognised, City supporting company as main sponsor

[Ivorguy]

Suspect the deal is more Byzantine than people think.

Expect more Swedish footballers to sign who never get to play much

[phantom]

16 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

Expect more Swedish footballers to sign who never get to play much

Sounds very familiar @Ivorguy

 

[Monkeh]

18 hours ago, phantom said:

100% agree with you @EnderMB surely of more benefit to have a recognised, City supporting company as main sponsor

money talks, and in the cut throat industry we are in then to compete we sadly have to have these kind of sponsors 

[Ivorguy]

54 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

money talks, and in the cut throat industry we are in then to compete we sadly have to have these kind of sponsors 

No we don't. What we do have to have is integrity

[m42]

Well done, Bristol Sport. You alienated me out of renewing my season ticket with your punitive charges for Seniors.  Now you've alienated me out of buying a shirt for the next four years by jumping into bed with a gambling company.  I am certainly not going to spend £40+ endorsing a company which facilitates the destruction of family and domestic life through, sadly, affected people allowing gambling to take over their lives.  Yes most gamblers act responsibly but a substantial number don't and it ruins their lives and that of their families.  Are the children's shirts going to be displaying Dunder (what sort of a name is that anyway?), so introducing gambling subliminally to young minds?  And yet Bristol Sport claims to be family based and community minded.  Well not to me. Those are the last things I would associate with Bristol Sport.  The awe and wonder that I previously held for the Lansdown family in creating such a brilliant stadium has just gone down the plughole.  I never thought I could feel so disaffected with an institution that has been part of my life for over 60 years.  Four months is all it has taken.  One crap decision after another. Unbelievable and very sad. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

An interesting article here about Pompey`s new shirt sponsorship deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44226655

[Spoons]

On 07/06/2018 at 15:20, m42 said:

Well done, Bristol Sport. You alienated me out of renewing my season ticket with your punitive charges for Seniors.  Now you've alienated me out of buying a shirt for the next four years by jumping into bed with a gambling company.  I am certainly not going to spend £40+ endorsing a company which facilitates the destruction of family and domestic life through, sadly, affected people allowing gambling to take over their lives.  Yes most gamblers act responsibly but a substantial number don't and it ruins their lives and that of their families.  Are the children's shirts going to be displaying Dunder (what sort of a name is that anyway?), so introducing gambling subliminally to young minds?  And yet Bristol Sport claims to be family based and community minded.  Well not to me. Those are the last things I would associate with Bristol Sport.  The awe and wonder that I previously held for the Lansdown family in creating such a brilliant stadium has just gone down the plughole.  I never thought I could feel so disaffected with an institution that has been part of my life for over 60 years.  Four months is all it has taken.  One crap decision after another. Unbelievable and very sad. 

Get a grip !