One Semenyo in Bristol

[Davefevs]

Just now, marcofisher said:

Do agree with what you say @Davefevs in that it needs a pro in RobinsTV to round it off a bit. Does it need to be a current pro or one of our players? Surely there would be some ex-city players etc. who still live in the area and love the club who would love a chance to do some commentary.

Yep, agree Marco.  Doesn’t have to be a current player.  Remember chatting to Hunt at half-time when he was doing it, and he said it was “really difficult saying good things about the bloke playing in my position” (that was his words ).

[Prinny]

1 minute ago, marcofisher said:

Think you'll be disappointed. They won't care.

No, I'm interested in their views. And if I get an "We don't care" that's the interest fulfilled. That comment shows me you're projecting your standards onto me. I'm not going to interact with the OSIB posts after this one because I won't be listening so it's just another thread that doesn't interest me. And unlike certain members of this forum I don't click on stuff I know I'm not interested in to comment "I'm not interested." I won't down vote or leave negative emojis or anything. My interest actually comes from learning more about the views of the ST. So as long as I learn the policy, I won't be disappointed.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not calling for his head, or trying to prevent his content being shared. I'm not digging up his twitter trying to find offensive tweets from 10 years ago.

I'm just saying, there's a clear conflict of interest here, so that means I won't listen, and I'm asking if it's ok for money making ventures to advertise on here for free if that's what's happening. Nothing about that is unreasonable.

 

[RedRoss]

1 hour ago, Prinny said:

Also the other thing I thought about when I woke up was, is it ok for @Shtanley to advertise his business on here for free (if he is)? Even if it is BCFC related?

Should you be taking out adverts with the forum and paying some advertising fee? Maybe it should work the way a lot of sub-reddits do. Where the person involved or people involved can't just promote their own content and someone unconnected to the money making venture should link it if they think it's worth discussing. In this case it would be none of the podcast guests.

 Interested in the supporters trust views on this.

With all due respect I understand this is your opinion but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.

We could all have moral objections about all sorts of advertising but we accept that adverts benefit us too. We are advertised by Thatcher's yet people consider that okay compared to a betting company. These companies are scorned yet games like FIFA and Fortnite use what they call 'suprise mechanics' to entice kids and adults to spend thousands on virtual content and continue unregulated regardless.

I get your moral objection but let's not blow things out of proportion.

 

[marcofisher]

10 minutes ago, Prinny said:

No, I'm interested in their views. And if I get an "We don't care" that's the interest fulfilled. That comment shows me you're projecting your standards onto me. I'm not going to interact with the OSIB posts after this one because I won't be listening so it's just another thread that doesn't interest me. And unlike certain members of this forum I don't click on stuff I know I'm not interested in to comment "I'm not interested." I won't down vote or leave negative emojis or anything. My interest actually comes from learning more about the views of the ST. So as long as I learn the policy, I won't be disappointed.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not calling for his head, or trying to prevent his content being shared. I'm not digging up his twitter trying to find offensive tweets from 10 years ago.

I'm just saying, there's a clear conflict of interest here, so that means I won't listen, and I'm asking if it's ok for money making ventures to advertise on here for free if that's what's happening. Nothing about that is unreasonable.

 

As far as I am aware, OSIB is a non-for-profit fans podcast, and the Mansion Bet sponsorship would help make it sustainable more than anything rather than a hugely profitable venture.

That it was I took from that anyway. Happy to be corrected if wrong and only Stan could confirm. 

[Prinny]

6 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

With all due respect I understand this is your opinion but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.

We could all have moral objections about all sorts of advertising but we accept that adverts benefit us too. We are advertised by Thatcher's yet people consider that okay compared to a betting company. These companies are scorned yet games like FIFA and Fortnite use what they call 'suprise mechanics' to entice kids and adults to spend thousands on virtual content and continue unregulated regardless.

I get your moral objection but let's not blow things out of proportion.

 

I agree we all accept it, I make that point in my first post on the thread.

What do you think I asking for that's blowing it out of proportion?

5 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

As far as I am aware, OSIB is a non-for-profit fans podcast, and the Mansion Bet sponsorship would help make it sustainable more than anything rather than a hugely profitable venture.

That it was I took from that anyway. Happy to be corrected if wrong and only Stan could confirm. 

Well no, I mean on this podcast he's spoken about receiving free gifts. A free bet or a crate of cider (that might have been a joke) doesn't help sustain the podcast in any way (edit - well that's not true, technically if he was going to use the winnings to directly support the podcast). And I'm not angry about him accepting gifts either because he's been open about it and therefore you get to make your own informed decision about whether you're comfortable with that or not.

[petehinton]

4 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I agree we all accept it, I make that point in my first post on the thread.

What do you think I asking for that's blowing it out of proportion?

Well no, I mean on this podcast he's spoken about receiving free gifts. A free bet or a crate of cider (that might have been a joke) doesn't help sustain the podcast in any way (edit - well that's not true, technically if he was going to use the winnings to directly support the podcast). And I'm not angry about him accepting gifts either because he's been open about it and therefore you get to make your own informed decision about whether you're comfortable with that or not.

The receiving of free gifts was for giveaways btw. So benefits listeners/fans not the podcast directly 

[Olé]

1 hour ago, Prinny said:

is it ok for @Shtanley to advertise his business on here for free

I think MansionBet are giving him some prizes not putting him in charge of their European operations

[marcofisher]

Just now, Prinny said:

Well no, I mean on this podcast he's spoken about receiving free gifts. A free bet or a crate of cider (that might have been a joke) doesn't help sustain the podcast in any way. And I'm not angry about him accepting gifts either because he's been open about it and therefore you get to make your own informed decision about whether you're comfortable with that or not.

He mentioned receiving gifts from Mansion Bet to be for the listeners and supporters of OSIB. Something like that adds to the podcast, gives another reason for listeners to tune in and helps it to grow. 

As for him receiving a free bet once, I think it is appaling he didn't share it out with all his subscribers. I could've won a lot with that 5p share. 

I have spent many hours listening to OSIB and honestly, they all deserve far more than a £50 free bet. I am more than happy for them to take what is offered to them if it is going back into the podcast and means having an occasional reward from a sponsor, as they all do a cracking job and deserve it in my opinion. 

[exAtyeoMax]

4 minutes ago, Olé said:

I think MansionBet are giving him some prizes not putting him in charge of their European operations

not yet anyway…

 

[exAtyeoMax]

It was possible to support OSIB via Patreon for £2 per month…perhaps if more people had supported it that way, Stan might not have felt it necessary to take sponsorship from Mb?

 

[Prinny]

5 minutes ago, petehinton said:

The receiving of free gifts was for giveaways btw. So benefits listeners/fans not the podcast directly 

The giveaway is designed to benefit mansionbet directly by leveraging the trust the show built up with the audience. That's to make them become customers with mansionbet. And do you think that will generally benefit the listeners or fans? Really now? There are certainly some aspects of gambling that are fun! But if your view is that encouraging and promoting it is beneficial to the listeners and fans, ... I dunno man... we just have VERY different views.

It's more that it's the club sponsor that I dislike. It's the conflict of interest which means I won't listen rather than the gambling or drinking aspect of it. Said that earlier.

8 minutes ago, Olé said:

I think MansionBet are giving him some prizes not putting him in charge of their European operations

Excellent contribution! The sun is hot.

[Prinny]

13 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

It was possible to support OSIB via Patreon for £2 per month…perhaps if more people had supported it that way, Stan might not have felt it necessary to take sponsorship from Mb?

 

Don't fall into the trap of stripping peoples decision making from them. He always has the option to not do the podcast if its cost is too much for the value. It's his choice here. It's definitely not necessary.

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, Olé said:

I think MansionBet are giving him some prizes not putting him in charge of their European operations

Now that would be dangerous!

[Phileas Fogg]

20 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

It was possible to support OSIB via Patreon for £2 per month…perhaps if more people had supported it that way, Stan might not have felt it necessary to take sponsorship from Mb?

 

I doubt the creators of OSIB ever anticipated getting a brand like MansionBet as sponsors. I'm not a regular listener, but I remember the early days of the podcast where they genuinely needed a few quid for equipment and set up costs.

I imagine they probably have the equipment they need now. I think it's great they've gone from a very amateur production to a decent product that can attract sponsors like MansionBet. I doubt they'd given it much thought from a business ethics point of view because it wasn't ever something they considered feasible. I think @Prinny raises some interesting things to consider but in the scheme of things I don't think it's a huge issue.

[petehinton]

5 minutes ago, Prinny said:

The giveaway is designed to benefit mansionbet directly by leveraging the trust the show built up with the audience. That's to make them become customers with mansionbet. And do you think that will generally benefit the listeners or fans? Really now? There are certainly some aspects of gambling that are fun! But if your view is that encouraging and promoting it is beneficial to the listeners and fans, ... I dunno man... we just have VERY different views.

It's more that it's the club sponsor that I dislike. It's the conflict of interest which means I won't listen rather than the gambling or drinking aspect of it. Said that earlier.

Excellent contribution! The sun is hot.

Do you think that somehow the club can directly influence (Let alone even care) what we say on OSIB, based on a third party sponsor...? That’s some 3am YouTube hole level conspiracy and I’m all for it tbf!

[exAtyeoMax]

Just now, Prinny said:

Don't fall into the trap of stripping peoples decision making from them. He always has the option to not do the podcast if its cost is too much for the value. It's his choice here. It's definitely not necessary.

I'm not falling into any trap. Why should he stop doing the podcast? Stan and co have worked really hard over the last couple of years to provide post-match comment and the Cider With… series.

If you want a true fan-led broadcast then the fans should support it. I don't always agree with their comments but I'm more interested in supporting a new venture than getting anything in return. 

 

[Phileas Fogg]

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

Do you think that somehow the club can directly influence (Let alone even care) what we say on OSIB, based on a third party sponsor...? That’s some 3am YouTube hole level conspiracy and I’m all for it tbf!

I don't know how they operate, but I think if the podcast was ferociously slagging off the board and management then you'd find it much harder to get direct access to them for interview (ie Jon Lansdown). This probably subconciously affects your output a bit, whether you realise it or not. That's not a criticism really, it's just self-preservation of the brand from your pov.

 

[!james]

No issues from me as a long time listener, well deserved. 

If people aren't comfortable with the sponsorship or who they are, don't listen. Fairly simple premise. 

[Prinny]

5 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Do you think that somehow the club can directly influence (Let alone even care) what we say on OSIB, based on a third party sponsor...? That’s some 3am YouTube hole level conspiracy and I’m all for it tbf!

It's a conflict of interest. There's no conspiracy here. I'm not saying anything has happened. If the aim is to provide honest chat about the club then it COULD be a problem. It's still a conflict of interest, even if nothing has actually happened yet.

3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I'm not falling into any trap. Why should he stop doing the podcast? Stan and co have worked really hard over the last couple of years to provide post-match comment and the Cider With… series.

If you want a true fan-led broadcast then the fans should support it. I don't always agree with their comments but I'm more interested in supporting a new venture than getting anything in return. 

 

I'm not saying he SHOULD, I'm saying he CAN. So there's no "necessary." You mean he did this if it was necessary to keep the podcast going. I don't know the financials behind it of course, but continuing the podcast isn't necessary. It is desirable, but not necessary.

1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I don't know how they operate, but I think if the podcast was ferociously slagging off the board and management then you'd find it much harder to get direct access to them for interview (ie Jon Lansdown). This probably subconciously affects your output a bit, whether you realise it or not. That's not a criticism really, it's just self-preservation of the brand from your pov.

 

Yeah it's entirely understandable. The criticism is from my POV only.

And also it's possible that that everyone on there always has views that align with the club enough, so even if they're being totally unfiltered or honest there wouldn't be a problem with the club. I'm very clear not to call people dishonest here. Because the conflict of interests exists, that's enough for me not to listen. No big deal, for me or them.

 

[samo II]

I’ve enjoyed OSIB without having had to spend a penny, and am mindful of the effort and time it takes a to create content like that.

I’ve never felt the content or contributions have been mediated or dampened down based on fear of upset, other than often openly acknowledged avoidance of being flat-out rude. The self-awareness of the opportunities and access they have had is refreshing, and not avoided in discussion.

The issue of sponsorship is for the creators; unless you are part of that crew or underwriting it, you can hold a view of course, but they have to spend the time and effort to produce it, so it’s their call.

The very fact those running it have openly discussed this and invited comment is to their credit, and unless they start aggressively shilling Masion Bet every two mins, they still have my ear.

And as for ‘advertising’ on OTIB; been in here a long time (got to be nearly 20 years under this and my prior username) and considering some of the absolutely shite patter and takes that this place has generated over that time, being introduced to OSIB is one of the big positives to come from it, so I have no problem with it.

[Phileas Fogg]

28 minutes ago, Prinny said:

And also it's possible that that everyone on there always has views that align with the club enough, so even if they're being totally unfiltered or honest there wouldn't be a problem with the club. I'm very clear not to call people dishonest here. Because the conflict of interests exists, that's enough for me not to listen. No big deal, for me or them.

I think you've actually been very fair in your criticism and acknowledge that it's just from your point of view. It's a shame that some people are just giving you the predictable and overly simplistic "don't like it? don't listen then!" response.

You're raising a fairly nuanced point which some people either don't understand or are misrepresenting. It's right to raise these things imo. I hadn't thought about it before you raised it but I think it's worth asking about.

[Phileas Fogg]

1 minute ago, samo II said:

And as for ‘advertising’ on OTIB; been in here a long time (got to be nearly 20 years under this and my prior username) and considering some of the absolutely shite patter and takes that this place has generated over that time, being introduced to OSIB is one of the big positives to come from it, so I have no problem with it.

Exactly. I think OTIB's policy is actually very good on 'advertising'. Basically anything that is potential benefit to the fans and is City related is fine, as long as it's plugged within reason.

[samo II]

Just now, Phileas Fogg said:

I think you've actually been very fair in your criticism and acknowledge that it's just from your point of view. It's a shame that some people are just giving you the predictable and overly simplistic "don't like it? don't listen then!" response.

You're raising a fairly nuanced point which people either don't understand or are misrepresenting. It's right to raise these things imo. I hadn't thought about it before you raised it but I think it's worth asking about.

So anyone who has an issue with the commentary is either stupid or Machiavellian - pretty gross take tbh with you.

Thanks for being the one enlightened person who points out how dumb we all are; what would be do without you?

[Phileas Fogg]

1 minute ago, samo II said:

So anyone who has an issue with the commentary is either stupid or Machiavellian - pretty gross take tbh with you.

Thanks for being the one enlightened person who points out how dumb we all are; what would be do without you?

Not what I'm saying, there's a couple on this thread that are being silly about it but not everyone obviously. Apologies if it felt like I was tarring every person responding with that brush. 

I felt people on the whole were being a bit overly dismissive of the point which @Prinny admits is an issue that is just his point of view and that the creators of the podcast can take or leave.

[petehinton]

9 minutes ago, Prinny said:

It's a conflict of interest. There's no conspiracy here. I'm not saying anything has happened. If the aim is to provide honest chat about the club then it COULD be a problem. It's still a conflict of interest, even if nothing has actually happened yet.

I'm not saying he SHOULD, I'm saying he CAN. So there's no "necessary." You mean he did this if it was necessary to keep the podcast going. I don't know the financials behind it of course, but continuing the podcast isn't necessary. It is desirable, but not necessary.

Yeah it's entirely understandable. The criticism is from my POV only.

And also it's possible that that everyone on there always has views that align with the club enough, so even if they're being totally unfiltered or honest there wouldn't be a problem with the club. I'm very clear not to call people dishonest here. Because the conflict of interests exists, that's enough for me not to listen. No big deal, for me or them.

 

Still far from the truth mate, just gotta listen to the Holden appointment ep where the criticism of the board and the process was pretty clear!
 

Totally get the viewpoint and concern, but it’s just not the case. Also understand you probably would expect me to say that & dont believe it. I probably would too

[bcfc01]

This is warming up nicely - and all over a bit of sponsorship for a podcast 

[stokes7]

When do I get my free bet 

[samo II]

1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Not what I'm saying, there's a couple on this thread that are being silly about it but not everyone obviously. Apologies if it felt like I was tarring every person responding with that brush. 

I felt people on the whole were being a bit overly dismissive of the point which @Prinny admits is an issue that is just his point of view and that the creators of the podcast can take or leave.

Okay pal, no drama.

But for the record; I don’t think saying “don’t like it, don’t listen” is a reductive position - it’s the truth.

I respect that someone can hold the view they don’t like OSIB for whatever reason (sponsorship, conflict of interest etc.) but doesn’t mean anyone who disagrees has to listen to their take on it, so saying “don’t like it, don’t listen” is a completely fine take if that’s as far as they want to take that debate.

Holding an opinion doesn’t mean you’re owed a response.

[B1ackbird]

If I listen twice, do I get two free bets? 

[!james]

4 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I think you've actually been very fair in your criticism and acknowledge that it's just from your point of view. It's a shame that some people are just giving you the predictable and overly simplistic "don't like it? don't listen then!" response.

You're raising a fairly nuanced point which people either don't understand or are misrepresenting. It's right to raise these things imo. I hadn't thought about it before you raised it but I think it's worth asking about.

Not really... It's a free podcast to discuss Bristol City. Fairly simple to simpletons like me. If they were asking you to sign up to Mansion Bet to create accounts to listen it might warrant further discussion. If they offer free bets and listeners create accounts then that is their choice.

Fundamentally it's for the OSIB guys to weigh up how it will be done. I'm sure if they notice a significant drop in listener numbers if people take Prinnys views they might reconsider.