Betdaq , I believe , is a betting exchange where one punter bets with another and the exchange take a commission off the winner like betfair . To me these are a much better thing than normal bookies which in my years of experience are a complete and utter joke . They won't close you down but they will restrict you to a minuscule bet affectively closing you down . I spoke to someone at the racing post to try and raise the issue but they weren't really interested because it's an old pals game I suppose .
If you start to win or have a winner they don't like you and you are affectively closed down .... I was closed down by firms and was the worlds worst gambler ! When we got relegated the first time to league One I lumped On us to be relegated with Boylesports at 6/4 or something and said I'll only open an account if I can get £4k on it because they were best price I told em it's a sentimental hedge .... 3 months later they were best price 1/4 I asked for £2k and they restricted me to £50 .... Bet365 similar story backing the scum to go up and then restricted When I asked them what my history was the clown on the end of the phone said I was a net loser of £850 a year whilst the account was open , I said why close me , we don't like your style of betting , weirdos I understand they are a business but they only want losers on board or ones that bet in a way they like .... But they missed out on me and betfair punters benefitted !!
All theses gambling companies love a loser and for most gamblers they are exactly that more or less. I think the only way to win is to bet on dead certs (if there is such a thing), like one of my friends would. He would only bet on odds like 1/10, which to most seemed a bit crap but as he would say , you don't get 10% on your savings over night. But he too, found betting companies didn't like his style. Heads we win, tails you lose should be put above all bookies logos. Gambling has never remotely interested me so it will be easy for me to boycott the shirt sponsor, shame Richard Murray has changed his stance on shirt sponsors or maybe no one listens to him nowadays.
Banning winners is what the industry really means by its responsible gambling concept. "When the fun stops stop" is a warning to bookmakers not punters. It cares not a jot about the loser pouring his benefit money into a machine.
Betdaq , I believe , is a betting exchange where one punter bets with another and the exchange take a commission off the winner like betfair . To me these are a much better thing than normal bookies which in my years of experience are a complete and utter joke . They won't close you down but they will restrict you to a minuscule bet affectively closing you down . I spoke to someone at the racing post to try and raise the issue but they weren't really interested because it's an old pals game I suppose .
If you start to win or have a winner they don't like you and you are affectively closed down .... I was closed down by firms and was the worlds worst gambler ! When we got relegated the first time to league One I lumped On us to be relegated with Boylesports at 6/4 or something and said I'll only open an account if I can get £4k on it because they were best price I told em it's a sentimental hedge .... 3 months later they were best price 1/4 I asked for £2k and they restricted me to £50 .... Bet365 similar story backing the scum to go up and then restricted When I asked them what my history was the clown on the end of the phone said I was a net loser of £850 a year whilst the account was open , I said why close me , we don't like your style of betting , weirdos I understand they are a business but they only want losers on board or ones that bet in a way they like .... But they missed out on me and betfair punters benefitted !!
All theses gambling companies love a loser and for most gamblers they are exactly that more or less. I think the only way to win is to bet on dead certs (if there is such a thing), like one of my friends would. He would only bet on odds like 1/10, which to most seemed a bit crap but as he would say , you don't get 10% on your savings over night. But he too, found betting companies didn't like his style. Heads we win, tails you lose should be put above all bookies logos. Gambling has never remotely interested me so it will be easy for me to boycott the shirt sponsor, shame Richard Murray has changed his stance on shirt sponsors or maybe no one listens to him nowadays.
I agree.
As I've said to friends and family on many occasions: Have you ever seen a bookie living on the streets?
(And, yes, I have been known to have the occasional flutter...)
People banging on about bookies like they're educating us. Of course we know the bookies win, the odds are always stacked in their favour!!!!! People like having a bet with money they can afford to lose. Just because some people don't have the self control, like piss heads or fat people, doesn't mean the 99.99% of other people have to suffer or be called 'mugs'.
People banging on about bookies like they're educating us. Of course we know the bookies win, the odds are always stacked in their favour!!!!! People like having a bet with money they can afford to lose. Just because some people don't have the self control, like piss heads or fat people, doesn't mean the 99.99% of other people have to suffer or be called 'mugs'.
You expect to lose and enjoy the experience. Very Charlton. ;-)
People banging on about bookies like they're educating us. Of course we know the bookies win, the odds are always stacked in their favour!!!!! People like having a bet with money they can afford to lose. Just because some people don't have the self control, like piss heads or fat people, doesn't mean the 99.99% of other people have to suffer or be called 'mugs'.
You expect to lose and enjoy the experience. Very Charlton. ;-)
It makes the winning that much more special. Extremely Charlton.
Getting on for 200 posts about a sponsor on a shirt that the vast majority of people on here weren't going to buy anyway.
Let's be honest, people would've moaned whoever the sponsor was simply because they've aligned themselves with our wonderful owners.
As others have said, half the premier league have betting companies sponsoring them so if it's good enough for them, why not us?
Because the club has previously taken a stance against betting companies being the shirt sponsor, for very good reasons. I know the club could of in the past received more money through these betting firms and still choose a different sponsor instead. But I also understand things and times change and the owners maybe are feeling the squeeze financial after their mismanagement and a relegation. Doesn't mean I have change my opinion that sponsor like theses are not good for the image of the club.
Getting on for 200 posts about a sponsor on a shirt that the vast majority of people on here weren't going to buy anyway.
Let's be honest, people would've moaned whoever the sponsor was simply because they've aligned themselves with our wonderful owners.
As others have said, half the premier league have betting companies sponsoring them so if it's good enough for them, why not us?
Because the club has previously taken a stance against betting companies being the shirt sponsor, for very good reasons. I know the club could of in the past received more money through these betting firms and still choose a different sponsor instead. But I also understand things and times change and the owners maybe are feeling the squeeze financial after their mismanagement and a relegation. Doesn't mean I have change my opinion that sponsor like theses are not good for the image of the club.
We've nearly always had an 'Official Betting Partner' with links direct from the website, betting facilities in the ground, and we've always taken the shilling for perimeter advertising. Is the shirt really that much different?
I really don't see the big deal with being sponsored by a betting company. Years ago lots of teams were sponsored by companies such as Carling, Holsten and the like. They just didn't put it on kids shirts.
As for the image of the club - I don't think it could get much worse, so a shirt sponsor isn't really going to make much difference.
Budweiser used to sponsor the FA Cup, I can't imagine fans saying, "oh no, we don't want to win that as its sponsored by a Alcohol company" A shirt sponsor is exactly that, and I'm sure we weren't spoilt for choice. I'm more amazed that we've managed to get 3 companies to be associated with us.
If they think that they will get publicity from protests they're wrong - the people wearing the shirts will be in the ground.
Besides do people think - "look Charlton are sponsored by UOG, I'll send my child there to do a degree" or "Llanera, I'll buy a villa from them"
Most companies that have there logo across out shirt end up going out of business anyway. I might see what odds Betdaq are offering on that.
Getting on for 200 posts about a sponsor on a shirt that the vast majority of people on here weren't going to buy anyway.
Let's be honest, people would've moaned whoever the sponsor was simply because they've aligned themselves with our wonderful owners.
As others have said, half the premier league have betting companies sponsoring them so if it's good enough for them, why not us?
Because the club has previously taken a stance against betting companies being the shirt sponsor, for very good reasons. I know the club could of in the past received more money through these betting firms and still choose a different sponsor instead. But I also understand things and times change and the owners maybe are feeling the squeeze financial after their mismanagement and a relegation. Doesn't mean I have change my opinion that sponsor like theses are not good for the image of the club.
We've nearly always had an 'Official Betting Partner' with links direct from the website, betting facilities in the ground, and we've always taken the schilling for perimeter advertising. Is the shirt really that much different?
I would say that yes it is significantly different.
I'm an occasional gambler and it is quite legal but then so is safe sex but we wouldn't want Durex as main shirt sponsors even though it's a product many of us might have used.
There are two separate issues here.
1. Any shirt sponsor would have been seen as a target by protestors and more power to there elbows I say. Any sensible firm would have researched the club/fan relationship before signing a deal so would have expected some negative responses. betdaq either didn't or didn't think that they outweighed the advantages of the brand promotion it would bring.
2. The other issue is whether any betting firm would be a suitable main shirt sponsor at any time, regardless of regime. Not wanting the main shirt and stadium branding to be linked to gambling isn't the same as being against gambling.
I don't think it is the end of the world and it is far from the worse thing this regime has done. Other clubs have done it but I've always thought, naively perhaps, that we weren't just another club.
Getting on for 200 posts about a sponsor on a shirt that the vast majority of people on here weren't going to buy anyway.
Let's be honest, people would've moaned whoever the sponsor was simply because they've aligned themselves with our wonderful owners.
As others have said, half the premier league have betting companies sponsoring them so if it's good enough for them, why not us?
Because the club has previously taken a stance against betting companies being the shirt sponsor, for very good reasons. I know the club could of in the past received more money through these betting firms and still choose a different sponsor instead. But I also understand things and times change and the owners maybe are feeling the squeeze financial after their mismanagement and a relegation. Doesn't mean I have change my opinion that sponsor like theses are not good for the image of the club.
We've nearly always had an 'Official Betting Partner' with links direct from the website, betting facilities in the ground, and we've always taken the schilling for perimeter advertising. Is the shirt really that much different?
I would say that yes it is significantly different.
I'm an occasional gambler and it is quite legal but then so is safe sex but we wouldn't want Durex as main shirt sponsors even though it's a product many of us might have used.
There are two separate issues here.
1. Any shirt sponsor would have been seen as a target by protestors and more power to there elbows I say. Any sensible firm would have researched the club/fan relationship before signing a deal so would have expected some negative responses. betdaq either didn't or didn't think that they outweighed the advantages of the brand promotion it would bring.
2. The other issue is whether any betting firm would be a suitable main shirt sponsor at any time, regardless of regime. Not wanting the main shirt and stadium branding to be linked to gambling isn't the same as being against gambling.
I don't think it is the end of the world and it is far from the worse thing this regime has done. Other clubs have done it but I've always thought, naively perhaps, that we weren't just another club.
Don't tell me you're an occasional Durex user as well
Pleased that UOG, Andrews and Mitsubishi have seen that Charlton, in its current state, are a toxic brand and didn't renew their deals. A gambling company is probably the only option they had going for them in the current climate. I'm surprised that Staprix isn't on the front of the shirts. In any case, I won't be buying one, I won't be using BetDaq and I won't be buying a ST
Betdaq , I believe , is a betting exchange where one punter bets with another and the exchange take a commission off the winner like betfair . To me these are a much better thing than normal bookies which in my years of experience are a complete and utter joke . They won't close you down but they will restrict you to a minuscule bet affectively closing you down . I spoke to someone at the racing post to try and raise the issue but they weren't really interested because it's an old pals game I suppose .
If you start to win or have a winner they don't like you and you are affectively closed down .... I was closed down by firms and was the worlds worst gambler ! When we got relegated the first time to league One I lumped On us to be relegated with Boylesports at 6/4 or something and said I'll only open an account if I can get £4k on it because they were best price I told em it's a sentimental hedge .... 3 months later they were best price 1/4 I asked for £2k and they restricted me to £50 .... Bet365 similar story backing the scum to go up and then restricted When I asked them what my history was the clown on the end of the phone said I was a net loser of £850 a year whilst the account was open , I said why close me , we don't like your style of betting , weirdos I understand they are a business but they only want losers on board or ones that bet in a way they like .... But they missed out on me and betfair punters benefitted !!
All theses gambling companies love a loser and for most gamblers they are exactly that more or less. I think the only way to win is to bet on dead certs (if there is such a thing), like one of my friends would. He would only bet on odds like 1/10, which to most seemed a bit crap but as he would say , you don't get 10% on your savings over night. But he too, found betting companies didn't like his style. Heads we win, tails you lose should be put above all bookies logos. Gambling has never remotely interested me so it will be easy for me to boycott the shirt sponsor, shame Richard Murray has changed his stance on shirt sponsors or maybe no one listens to him nowadays.
Pleased that UOG, Andrews and Mitsubishi have seen that Charlton, in its current state, are a toxic brand and didn't renew their deals. A gambling company is probably the only option they had going for them in the current climate. I'm surprised that Staprix isn't on the front of the shirts. In any case, I won't be buying one, I won't be using BetDaq and I won't be buying a ST
Betdaq , I believe , is a betting exchange where one punter bets with another and the exchange take a commission off the winner like betfair . To me these are a much better thing than normal bookies which in my years of experience are a complete and utter joke . They won't close you down but they will restrict you to a minuscule bet affectively closing you down . I spoke to someone at the racing post to try and raise the issue but they weren't really interested because it's an old pals game I suppose .
If you start to win or have a winner they don't like you and you are affectively closed down .... I was closed down by firms and was the worlds worst gambler ! When we got relegated the first time to league One I lumped On us to be relegated with Boylesports at 6/4 or something and said I'll only open an account if I can get £4k on it because they were best price I told em it's a sentimental hedge .... 3 months later they were best price 1/4 I asked for £2k and they restricted me to £50 .... Bet365 similar story backing the scum to go up and then restricted When I asked them what my history was the clown on the end of the phone said I was a net loser of £850 a year whilst the account was open , I said why close me , we don't like your style of betting , weirdos I understand they are a business but they only want losers on board or ones that bet in a way they like .... But they missed out on me and betfair punters benefitted !!
All theses gambling companies love a loser and for most gamblers they are exactly that more or less. I think the only way to win is to bet on dead certs (if there is such a thing), like one of my friends would. He would only bet on odds like 1/10, which to most seemed a bit crap but as he would say , you don't get 10% on your savings over night. But he too, found betting companies didn't like his style. Heads we win, tails you lose should be put above all bookies logos. Gambling has never remotely interested me so it will be easy for me to boycott the shirt sponsor, shame Richard Murray has changed his stance on shirt sponsors or maybe no one listens to him nowadays.
Who's Richard Murray?
That sour faced old toad - the who is still lingering around like the smell that you used to get before the Blackwell Tunnell.
Getting on for 200 posts about a sponsor on a shirt that the vast majority of people on here weren't going to buy anyway.
Let's be honest, people would've moaned whoever the sponsor was simply because they've aligned themselves with our wonderful owners.
As others have said, half the premier league have betting companies sponsoring them so if it's good enough for them, why not us?
Because the club has previously taken a stance against betting companies being the shirt sponsor, for very good reasons. I know the club could of in the past received more money through these betting firms and still choose a different sponsor instead. But I also understand things and times change and the owners maybe are feeling the squeeze financial after their mismanagement and a relegation. Doesn't mean I have change my opinion that sponsor like theses are not good for the image of the club.
We've nearly always had an 'Official Betting Partner' with links direct from the website, betting facilities in the ground, and we've always taken the schilling for perimeter advertising. Is the shirt really that much different?
I would say that yes it is significantly different.
I'm an occasional gambler and it is quite legal but then so is safe sex but we wouldn't want Durex as main shirt sponsors even though it's a product many of us might have used.
There are two separate issues here.
1. Any shirt sponsor would have been seen as a target by protestors and more power to there elbows I say. Any sensible firm would have researched the club/fan relationship before signing a deal so would have expected some negative responses. betdaq either didn't or didn't think that they outweighed the advantages of the brand promotion it would bring.
2. The other issue is whether any betting firm would be a suitable main shirt sponsor at any time, regardless of regime. Not wanting the main shirt and stadium branding to be linked to gambling isn't the same as being against gambling.
I don't think it is the end of the world and it is far from the worse thing this regime has done. Other clubs have done it but I've always thought, naively perhaps, that we weren't just another club.
Why not Durex?
It could be said that we have a few pricks playing for us.
Hmm. Interesting reading, with a lot of views on show here. As a problem gambler who has now severely reduced his activity from borrowing large amounts of money to gamble*, to the occasional flutter on the Grand National or similar, thought it might be best to give my two cents. Here is the list of things I have done as a result of shirt sponsorship:
- Not gone to the University of Greenwich - Not invested heavily in air conditioning or whatever it is Andrews Sykes do - Forgot that KRBS existed - Not bought any Carbrini sportswear - ... Okay, I have a FREE hat from Llanera which was signed by Zheng Zhi and Darren Bent - all:sports went bust lol - I have a Redbus home shirt which was originally my dad's that he got as a gift - I think we had a MESH computer but that was before the sponsorship - Still don't know what Viglen is (in my defence, I was born in 1994 so there's no real memories there)
*(NB large amounts is relative to situation and not an actual figure I plan on disclosing, as amount X may be a lot to one person and a mere drop in the ocean to another)
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't give a shit. Unwholesome? No more so than drinking or smoking. I think a lot of fans are eager to jump on "OOH THEY'RE A GAMBLING FIRM SO THEY'RE BAD" in order to continue to justify their already well-founded positions against the regime. Which is a little silly - it's more that they've associated themselves with us which is a bit stupid.
This isn't going to convince anyone. The odd person might sign up and take advantage of some CAFC only markets, but basically shit won't matter.
Derek Mills has worked at BETDAQ for twelve years, and he is the head of 'production and content ', so he is in a more elevated position than a person sitting behind the counter in a betting shop. As far as I can tell he responded to Charlton fans reaction to his company's shirt sponsorship by saying something like 'barrel of laughs these Charlton fans'. Absolutely not the nastiest words he could have published out there on the internet yet it is still telling. For a start is it the job of Charlton fans to provide him with laughs? He makes a sweeping statement about a body of people which is ill informed. He did it on the day his boss launched the partnership, calling Charlton fans 'passionate' The content of his statement suggests a perceived power relationship which says BETDAQ are doing Charlton fans a favour, and somehow we ought to be grateful, or at least fit into the template of response that he finds acceptable. He restricted access to his content as soon as WSS reported it. He then closed down his account on the platform upon which his comments appeared. If the company culture of BETDAQ is one where the culture of distain towards clients exist, however disguised, then it matters not that they encourage gambling, but it matters that they see us as mugs. As I said yesterday, Katrien and Roland repeatedly present evidence that they see the support base as mugs, so it is likely that BETDAQ have got connected with fellow travellers who feel no shame in exploiting a body of people. We are seen as customers, or as 'the public' and the implication is that those with power over us are more special, they see themselves as the 'masters of the universe' as Wolfs book 'Bonfire of the Vanities' would put it. The reality is that company bosses, Derek Mills, Tony Keohane, Katrien Miere, Roland Duchatelet, Richard Murray are no better or worse than the rest of us except in their own minds. I had the pleasure of meeting the head honcho of Data Techniques towards the end of last season, and despite being a person of some influence and power, he was friendly, good humoured, prepared to engage, informative and seemed an all round good bloke. Derek Mills actions yesterday indicate to me that he is one of the 'I am special, you are plebs' kind of people.
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
So we've gone from hey kids get yourself educated to nah sod it have a flutter instead?
I can't wait for the day this lot sell up.
Maybe if we had not pushed away the potential decent sponsors, we would not now be faced with the less savoury sponsors. I also suspect KM's view of us is rather tarnished having been called a C, slag, associated with the Nabby Sarr song, heard the incest song. perhaps in their desperation to getting funding they did not realise that the fanbase actually do believe we are a family club, albeit quite disfunctional!!
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
So we've gone from hey kids get yourself educated to nah sod it have a flutter instead?
I can't wait for the day this lot sell up.
Maybe if we had not pushed away the potential decent sponsors, we would not now be faced with the less savoury sponsors. I also suspect KM's view of us is rather tarnished having been called a C, slag, associated with the Nabby Sarr song, heard the incest song. perhaps in their desperation to getting funding they did not realise that the fanbase actually do believe we are a family club, albeit quite disfunctional!!
We didn't push away potential decent sponsors, we the fans that is, the club did it themselves. Ask Data Techniques for one example amongst several.
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
So we've gone from hey kids get yourself educated to nah sod it have a flutter instead?
I can't wait for the day this lot sell up.
Maybe if we had not pushed away the potential decent sponsors, we would not now be faced with the less savoury sponsors. I also suspect KM's view of us is rather tarnished having been called a C, slag, associated with the Nabby Sarr song, heard the incest song. perhaps in their desperation to getting funding they did not realise that the fanbase actually do believe we are a family club, albeit quite disfunctional!!
We didn't push away potential decent sponsors, we the fans that is, the club did it themselves. Ask Data Techniques for one example amongst several.
Don't delude yourself, the club are ultimately responsible but our fans wrote to companies that would have been acceptable, our fans sing the incest song, our fans used foul and abusive language ,... That is all encouragement for wholesome companies to sponsor us? In your dreams!!
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.
So we've gone from hey kids get yourself educated to nah sod it have a flutter instead?
I can't wait for the day this lot sell up.
Maybe if we had not pushed away the potential decent sponsors, we would not now be faced with the less savoury sponsors. I also suspect KM's view of us is rather tarnished having been called a C, slag, associated with the Nabby Sarr song, heard the incest song. perhaps in their desperation to getting funding they did not realise that the fanbase actually do believe we are a family club, albeit quite disfunctional!!
We didn't push away potential decent sponsors, we the fans that is, the club did it themselves. Ask Data Techniques for one example amongst several.
Don't delude yourself, the club are ultimately responsible but our fans wrote to companies that would have been acceptable, our fans sing the incest song, our fans used foul and abusive language ,... That is all encouragement for wholesome companies to sponsor us? In your dreams!!
Plus squirrel face and Duchatelet are destroying Charlton Athletic Football Club.
As an aside, are you a season ticket holder next season?
Comments
Heads we win, tails you lose should be put above all bookies logos.
Gambling has never remotely interested me so it will be easy for me to boycott the shirt sponsor, shame Richard Murray has changed his stance on shirt sponsors or maybe no one listens to him nowadays.
It cares not a jot about the loser pouring his benefit money into a machine.
As I've said to friends and family on many occasions: Have you ever seen a bookie living on the streets?
(And, yes, I have been known to have the occasional flutter...)
Right, I'm off to Ascot now.
Very Charlton. ;-)
Extremely Charlton.
Let's be honest, people would've moaned whoever the sponsor was simply because they've aligned themselves with our wonderful owners.
As others have said, half the premier league have betting companies sponsoring them so if it's good enough for them, why not us?
But I also understand things and times change and the owners maybe are feeling the squeeze financial after their mismanagement and a relegation. Doesn't mean I have change my opinion that sponsor like theses are not good for the image of the club.
As for the image of the club - I don't think it could get much worse, so a shirt sponsor isn't really going to make much difference.
Budweiser used to sponsor the FA Cup, I can't imagine fans saying, "oh no, we don't want to win that as its sponsored by a Alcohol company" A shirt sponsor is exactly that, and I'm sure we weren't spoilt for choice. I'm more amazed that we've managed to get 3 companies to be associated with us.
If they think that they will get publicity from protests they're wrong - the people wearing the shirts will be in the ground.
Besides do people think - "look Charlton are sponsored by UOG, I'll send my child there to do a degree" or "Llanera, I'll buy a villa from them"
Most companies that have there logo across out shirt end up going out of business anyway. I might see what odds Betdaq are offering on that.
I'm an occasional gambler and it is quite legal but then so is safe sex but we wouldn't want Durex as main shirt sponsors even though it's a product many of us might have used.
There are two separate issues here.
1. Any shirt sponsor would have been seen as a target by protestors and more power to there elbows I say. Any sensible firm would have researched the club/fan relationship before signing a deal so would have expected some negative responses. betdaq either didn't or didn't think that they outweighed the advantages of the brand promotion it would bring.
2. The other issue is whether any betting firm would be a suitable main shirt sponsor at any time, regardless of regime. Not wanting the main shirt and stadium branding to be linked to gambling isn't the same as being against gambling.
I don't think it is the end of the world and it is far from the worse thing this regime has done. Other clubs have done it but I've always thought, naively perhaps, that we weren't just another club.
It could be said that we have a few pricks playing for us.
- Not gone to the University of Greenwich
- Not invested heavily in air conditioning or whatever it is Andrews Sykes do
- Forgot that KRBS existed
- Not bought any Carbrini sportswear
- ... Okay, I have a FREE hat from Llanera which was signed by Zheng Zhi and Darren Bent
- all:sports went bust lol
- I have a Redbus home shirt which was originally my dad's that he got as a gift
- I think we had a MESH computer but that was before the sponsorship
- Still don't know what Viglen is (in my defence, I was born in 1994 so there's no real memories there)
*(NB large amounts is relative to situation and not an actual figure I plan on disclosing, as amount X may be a lot to one person and a mere drop in the ocean to another)
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't give a shit. Unwholesome? No more so than drinking or smoking. I think a lot of fans are eager to jump on "OOH THEY'RE A GAMBLING FIRM SO THEY'RE BAD" in order to continue to justify their already well-founded positions against the regime. Which is a little silly - it's more that they've associated themselves with us which is a bit stupid.
This isn't going to convince anyone. The odd person might sign up and take advantage of some CAFC only markets, but basically shit won't matter.
As far as I can tell he responded to Charlton fans reaction to his company's shirt sponsorship by saying something like 'barrel of laughs these Charlton fans'. Absolutely not the nastiest words he could have published out there on the internet yet it is still telling.
For a start is it the job of Charlton fans to provide him with laughs?
He makes a sweeping statement about a body of people which is ill informed.
He did it on the day his boss launched the partnership, calling Charlton fans 'passionate'
The content of his statement suggests a perceived power relationship which says BETDAQ are doing Charlton fans a favour, and somehow we ought to be grateful, or at least fit into the template of response that he finds acceptable.
He restricted access to his content as soon as WSS reported it.
He then closed down his account on the platform upon which his comments appeared.
If the company culture of BETDAQ is one where the culture of distain towards clients exist, however disguised, then it matters not that they encourage gambling, but it matters that they see us as mugs.
As I said yesterday, Katrien and Roland repeatedly present evidence that they see the support base as mugs, so it is likely that BETDAQ have got connected with fellow travellers who feel no shame in exploiting a body of people.
We are seen as customers, or as 'the public' and the implication is that those with power over us are more special, they see themselves as the 'masters of the universe' as Wolfs book 'Bonfire of the Vanities' would put it.
The reality is that company bosses, Derek Mills, Tony Keohane, Katrien Miere, Roland Duchatelet, Richard Murray are no better or worse than the rest of us except in their own minds.
I had the pleasure of meeting the head honcho of Data Techniques towards the end of last season, and despite being a person of some influence and power, he was friendly, good humoured, prepared to engage, informative and seemed an all round good bloke.
Derek Mills actions yesterday indicate to me that he is one of the 'I am special, you are plebs' kind of people.
Be careful as you'll have Swisdom on your case.
So it's not as if our shirt didn't already "promote gambling"
But to fair, we doing our damndest to get out of it.
As an aside, are you a season ticket holder next season?