Dulwich Hamlet FC back campaign to ban all gambling ads in football, but...

[B.I.G]

Peter Crouch is only a director for the purposes of this tv series and anyone that believes otherwise I can't really deal with.

However, the reason Dulwich began to take a stand against gambling was because a member of the then football committee raised it at their meeting, I assume it was George Parnavelas but several members of the then committee are on record stating that it made sense because everyone in football is forbidden from having anything to do with gambling.

 

[editor]

I've already said further up the thread, "For me, if his relationship with them is ongoing then there's a conflict of interest. If it has ended, then not so much." Does that not answer your question?

I've just checked back and you were the one who introduced the subject of estate agents into the conversation. You can't bring up a subject and then call it "a distraction and a cop out" if someone responds to it.

And I still say it's fair enough to question why the club is so against gambling but not against alcohol. They're both very harmful if misused/abused, but they're also both completely legal for adults.

Has he stated that he will never do any more gambling adverts during his stay at Hamlet?

 

[blueheaven]

Has he stated that he will never do any more gambling adverts during his stay at Hamlet?

As far as I know he hasn't publicly mentioned the subject since joining the club.

As a fan-owned club, is there no avenue in place for fans to raise questions of this sort with the club hierarchy?

 

[scousedom]

Has he stated that he will never do any more gambling adverts during his stay at Hamlet?

That's a different question though isn't it?

Logically there are three positions to have on this.
1. If you have ever done anything "against the Club's values" you can never work for the Club
2. If you want to do something "against the Club's values" and you currently work for the Club, you have to stop working for the Club (or not do the thing).
3. You can work for the Club and do things "against the Club's values".

It's fair to say you are in the 1 camp. I understand that and respect that. I would also for the record respect people in the 3 camp, on the basis say that millions of people across the country work for companies who do things they don't agree with and vice versa. I'm in the 2 camp, as is (on the face of what he's saying blueheaven). As and when PC works for a gambling firm while working for the Club, he'll have fallen foul of the 2 camp rule as it were and fall into "that's not compatible" territory. But until he does, he hasn't, and he doesn't fall into it by not saying "I won't do ads" - or for that matter by not saying "I won't cross all these other things that the Club stands for". We didn't on day one make him sign a pledge to wear rainbow laces, to take one example. It's in the doing that he crosses the line, not in the not saying he won't do the doing.

I understand you really resent his presence, for this and for other reasons (maybe more for the other reasons, I don't know), but why not fight the issue not the man (and not the fellow fans)?

For starters, you could be one of the five supporters I need to get this gambling tax petition I just wrote launched...?!

Petition: Tax bettors' gambling winnings: reduce problem gambling by changing the product.

 

[Latahs]

I've signed this, good work Dom. Now wouldn't it be useful if the club had somehow forged linkeds with a high profile member of the government (who while not necessarily politically aligned with fans) has some animus towards gambling, and could give this some momentum...

 

[Bugpowder Dust]

OT but I never twigged scousedom was called Dom, I was reading it like 'kingdom' or 'fiefdom'

 

[DHFC_Community]

Evening,
I normally stay well clear of responding to posts on here. However, I feel this is the perfect opportunity to make a point.

We have never said that any one of our community initiatives are planned to solve a problem. We aim to raise important issues and get people talking about it.

Whether you agree or disagree with Peter’s involvement with the club, the important point is that this campaign is designed to get people talking about an important issue. We’re not saying gambling should be banned however plastering sports arenas and sports kits with advertising aimed at encouraging it should be stopped. Whether there is an advert at a football ground or not, people will still place bets on football matches.

This weekend we’re trying to raise awareness that some people struggle with addictions to gambling. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to help them recover or manage their addiction?

To be fair, this thread alone means the campaign has already been a success.
You’re talking about it, thinking about it and arguing about it. It’s music to my ears - thank you!

Rob

 

[editor]

Evening,
I normally stay well clear of responding to posts on here. However, I feel this is the perfect opportunity to make a point.

We have never said that any one of our community initiatives are planned to solve a problem. We aim to raise important issues and get people talking about it.

Whether you agree or disagree with Peter’s involvement with the club, the important point is that this campaign is designed to get people talking about an important issue. We’re not saying gambling should be banned however plastering sports arenas and sports kits with advertising aimed at encouraging it should be stopped. Whether there is an advert at a football ground or not, people will still place bets on football matches.

This weekend we’re trying to raise awareness that some people struggle with addictions to gambling. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to help them recover or manage their addiction?

To be fair, this thread alone means the campaign has already been a success.
You’re talking about it, thinking about it and arguing about it. It’s music to my ears - thank you!

Rob

Not sure it's such a roaring success when it results in long serving supporters like myself finding themselves having to re-evaluate their relationship with the club.

Mind you, if you wanted a gesture that would really generate publicity, get people talking and underline Hamlet's anti-gambling stance, sacking Crouch because of his deep involvement with the gambling industry would do the job just fine! Even better, do it in front to the documentary crew cameras

 

[scousedom]

OT but I never twigged scousedom was called Dom, I was reading it like 'kingdom' or 'fiefdom'

It’s been my email address handle since like email started. So I kind of carried it over (although I was too late to get Twitter). I’m clearly far too much of an innocent though as I didn’t think of the possible misinterpretations of it - the most common of which is that I’m advertising myself as a Liverpudlian dominatrix.

I should probably bin it off tbh as I’ve long since lost my accent - I’ve now lived in London longer than I did in Liverpool.

 

[DHFC_Community]

Not sure it's such a roaring success when it results in long serving supporters like myself finding themselves having to re-evaluate their relationship with the club.

Mind you, if you wanted a gesture that would really generate publicity, get people talking and underline Hamlet's anti-gambling stance, sacking Crouch because of his deep involvement with the gambling industry would do the job just fine! Even better, do it in front to the documentary crew cameras

You’re re-evaluating your relationship with the club because we’re running a campaign to start a conversation about the impact on sports advertising on those who have had gambling addiction problems in the past?

From reading of your posts, your issue lies with Peter and not this campaign.

 

[B.I.G]

Evening,
I normally stay well clear of responding to posts on here. However, I feel this is the perfect opportunity to make a point.

We have never said that any one of our community initiatives are planned to solve a problem. We aim to raise important issues and get people talking about it.

Whether you agree or disagree with Peter’s involvement with the club, the important point is that this campaign is designed to get people talking about an important issue. We’re not saying gambling should be banned however plastering sports arenas and sports kits with advertising aimed at encouraging it should be stopped. Whether there is an advert at a football ground or not, people will still place bets on football matches.

This weekend we’re trying to raise awareness that some people struggle with addictions to gambling. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to help them recover or manage their addiction?

To be fair, this thread alone means the campaign has already been a success.
You’re talking about it, thinking about it and arguing about it. It’s music to my ears - thank you!

Rob

I for one, thank God, that you came down to the level of ordinary supporters.

 

[editor]

You’re re-evaluating your relationship with the club because we’re running a campaign to start a conversation about the impact on sports advertising on those who have had gambling addiction problems in the past?

From reading of your posts, your issue lies with Peter and not this campaign.

You elected Peter Crouch - when he was the current face of Paddy Power - to the board of Dulwich Hamlet.

Paddy Power are one of the biggest, most profitable gambling companies in Europe.

That is what I took issue with.

In October 2018, Paddy Power Betfair received a £2.2 million fine from the UK Gambling Commission, after an investigation revealed that the gaming giant broke the commission's rules regarding social responsibility and anti money laundering.[45]

In December 2018, Paddy Power and William Hill faced further criticism after allegations that they allowed a gambling addict to wager thousands of pounds in stolen cash. Victims of the theft seek £965,000 from Paddy Power that has not been compensated after the £2.2m fine from October 2018.[46]

 

[scousedom]

You elected Peter Crouch - when he was the current face of Paddy Power - to the board of Dulwich Hamlet.

Paddy Power are one of the biggest, most profitable gambling companies in Europe.

That is what I took issue with.

Just a polite suggestion but I think the use of “you” here could be reevaluated. Not sure what role if any the individual you’re talking to had in that decision. Unless you know differently of course in which case my apologies.

 

[editor]

Just a polite suggestion but I think the use of “you” here could be reevaluated. Not sure what role if any the individual you’re talking to had in that decision. Unless you know differently of course in which case my apologies.

OK.

'You' = Dulwich Hamlet and whoever was involved in Crouch's appointment.

 

[Christian Burt]

With those DHFC Community posts, are the club just trolling fans on here now. Embarrassing.
“We just post up these things to get people talking, and that itself is a success”
Good grief.

 

[blueheaven]

Evening,
I normally stay well clear of responding to posts on here. However, I feel this is the perfect opportunity to make a point.

We have never said that any one of our community initiatives are planned to solve a problem. We aim to raise important issues and get people talking about it.

Whether you agree or disagree with Peter’s involvement with the club, the important point is that this campaign is designed to get people talking about an important issue. We’re not saying gambling should be banned however plastering sports arenas and sports kits with advertising aimed at encouraging it should be stopped. Whether there is an advert at a football ground or not, people will still place bets on football matches.

This weekend we’re trying to raise awareness that some people struggle with addictions to gambling. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to help them recover or manage their addiction?

To be fair, this thread alone means the campaign has already been a success.
You’re talking about it, thinking about it and arguing about it. It’s music to my ears - thank you!

Rob

Apologies, I'm not clear on who you actually are - but if you're posting as a representative of the club, it would be good to see a response to the actual issue being discussed, i.e. does Peter Crouch's (ongoing?) promotion of the gambling industry conflict with the club's stance on advertising gambling within football?

 

[DHFC_Community]

With those DHFC Community posts, are the club just trolling fans on here now. Embarrassing.
“We just post up these things to get people talking, and that itself is a success”
Good grief.

Intrigued by this. How do you think we’ve been trolling fans?

 

[DHFC_Community]

Apologies, I'm not clear on who you actually are - but if you're posting as a representative of the club, it would be good to see a response to the actual issue being discussed, i.e. does Peter Crouch's (ongoing?) promotion of the gambling industry conflict with the club's stance on advertising gambling within football?

No need to apologise. I’m Rob, I’m the community lead at the club and have been for the last 3 years. I oversee the school links, mascots and community initiatives.

I can’t comment on the club’s behalf but from a personal point of view I can completely understand the question/ concerns. Would I promote this campaign if I were the face of a gambling firm? Absolutely not. Is it my place to say it’s wrong or right? Probably not. I’m not going to type here and comment on Peter’s decisions that’s down to his moral compass. Maybe this campaign will make him think about his relationship with betting companies. Who knows? I haven’t spoken to him directly about it so I can’t comment with any true facts!

 

[editor]

I haven’t spoken to him directly about it so I can’t comment with any true facts!

Maybe you should.

 

[skyscraper101]

If anyone needs any assurance of just how devastating the gambling industry is, how embedded it is within football, and how it preys on, and feeds off the addictions of problem gamblers for around 60% of its profits then this is well worth a watch.

BBC One - Paul Merson: Football, Gambling and Me

Footballer Paul Merson sets out to understand his 35-year addiction to gambling.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[tonysingh]

If anyone needs any assurance of just how devastating the gambling industry is, how embedded it is within football, and how it preys on, and feeds off the addictions of problem gamblers for around 60% of its profits then this is well worth a watch.

BBC One - Paul Merson: Football, Gambling and Me

Footballer Paul Merson sets out to understand his 35-year addiction to gambling.

www.bbc.co.uk

Gambling is a pernicious and evil industry that I cam quite easily put in the same bracket as drug dealers with the only difference being that one is meant to benefit the public purse and the other, not so much. Both infest the lives and areas that can least bear the burden. I moved out from my old manor a few years back and now live 5 minutes from Chatham Town centre. There are 6 betting shops all with in a few minutes of each other and this in a town that is one of the more deprived in the south east. You don't see Paddy Power or William Hill rocking up in middle-class areas.

The appointment of Crouch to any sort of position at DHFC was, for me personally, a major nail in the coffin and one of the main reasons I've felt antipathy towards my club recently and that's something I never dreamed of happening.

Whilst I anticipate being told I've overdosed on hyperbole pills, I think that saying Peter Crouch arrival is part of a wider conversation around gambling and its affects is like us appointing a Tory and then chatting about our work with food banks.

I'm sure our Lord and saviour Mr Crouch is a nice guy personally and for the purposes of this post the TV show is irrelevant but he is still a very visible representive ofnthe gambling industry, regardless of when he last filmed an advert for them. Blimey, if Ray Winstone stopped his ones and never did another, he'd still be remembered for them for years to come. For the record, I'd have felt the same were it Ian Wright or whoever else.

Sorry for the rant but this whole thing leaves a stench like an ardent groundhopper.

 

[editor]

Gambling is a pernicious and evil industry that I cam quite easily put in the same bracket as drug dealers with the only difference being that one is meant to benefit the public purse and the other, not so much. Both infest the lives and areas that can least bear the burden. I moved out from my old manor a few years back and now live 5 minutes from Chatham Town centre. There are 6 betting shops all with in a few minutes of each other and this in a town that is one of the more deprived in the south east. You don't see Paddy Power or William Hill rocking up in middle-class areas.

The appointment of Crouch to any sort of position at DHFC was, for me personally, a major nail in the coffin and one of the main reasons I've felt antipathy towards my club recently and that's something I never dreamed of happening.

Whilst I anticipate being told I've overdosed on hyperbole pills, I think that saying Peter Crouch arrival is part of a wider conversation around gambling and its affects is like us appointing a Tory and then chatting about our work with food banks.

I'm sure our Lord and saviour Mr Crouch is a nice guy personally and for the purposes of this post the TV show is irrelevant but he is still a very visible representive ofnthe gambling industry, regardless of when he last filmed an advert for them. Blimey, if Ray Winstone stopped his ones and never did another, he'd still be remembered for them for years to come. For the record, I'd have felt the same were it Ian Wright or whoever else.

Sorry for the rant but this whole thing leaves a stench like an ardent groundhopper.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. Quibbling about the fact that he hasn't made an advert in the last 12 weeks or whatever completely misses the point.

 

[scousedom]

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. Quibbling about the fact that he hasn't made an advert in the last 12 weeks or whatever completely misses the point.

On which point. I asked Tom (on Discord so you can go see if you want) what he knew of whether Peter Crouch is/was simultaneously a PP and DHFC employee. He said he couldn’t be certain but contract structures meant it was almost inevitable.

As I said earlier, for me that makes it wrong for him to be at the Club.

I understand you’re of the “if you’ve ever done anything for gambling ever you shouldn’t be here” camp and I respect that. But I think there are plenty of reasons why that isn’t always the right way as a general principle, and in our specific case it’s not always how people have thought (see William Hill’s Rio Ferdinand).

 

[editor]

On which point. I asked Tom (on Discord so you can go see if you want) what he knew of whether Peter Crouch is/was simultaneously a PP and DHFC employee. He said he couldn’t be certain but contract structures meant it was almost inevitable.

So despite Hamlet's anti gambling stance, they elected a high profile, celebrity board member who was simultaneously under contract to one of the UK's biggest gambling businesses.

Hypocrisy, much?

 

[B.I.G]

So despite Hamlet's anti gambling stance, they elected a high profile, celebrity board member who was simultaneously under contract to one of the UK's biggest gambling businesses.

Hypocrisy, much?

This post seems quaint now everyone else is behind the approved DirectorZine and the Discord where seemingly you can get answers but no one puts two and two together and demands an admission that Peter Crouch was just put on the board for the money from TV.

And they can have their anti-gambling media press at the same time.

Sing the old songs everyone, until someone writes a new one about the time everyone forgot what community meant.

 

[gnar182]

This post seems quaint now everyone else is behind the approved DirectorZine and the Discord where seemingly you can get answers but no one puts two and two together and demands an admission that Peter Crouch was just put on the board for the money from TV.

Is it not a positive to have an ‘official’ communication channel that a director is willing to discuss the club on though?

Surely must be worth utilising ?

 

[B.I.G]

Is it not a positive to have an ‘official’ communication channel that a director is willing to discuss the club on though?

Surely must be worth utilising ?

Positive if it wasn’t PR. Let me know when in your opinion they explain what the club got out of the crouch documentary in a truthful fashion.

Previously I have heard nothing on how they considered Crouch’s involvement in gambling and the club’s anti gambling in football advertising stance.

Nothing on how he has brought his “football knowledge” to the board.

Nothing on how the club needed saving. Although if he takes credit for the sell out crowd. We now need reverse saving where we need less money.

 

[gnar182]

Positive if it wasn’t PR. Let me know when in your opinion they explain what the club got out of the crouch documentary in a truthful fashion.

Previously I have heard nothing on how they considered Crouch’s involvement in gambling and the club’s anti gambling in football advertising stance.

Nothing on how he has brought his “football knowledge” to the board.

Nothing on how the club needed saving. Although if he takes credit for the sell out crowd. We now need reverse saving where we need less money.

Fair enough. Wasn’t criticising, just thought it might be a route you could take to lodge some of those questions and hopefully get answers.

 

[B.I.G]

Fair enough. Wasn’t criticising, just thought it might be a route you could take to lodge some of those questions and hopefully get answers.

Its fine. If you are on there feel free to ask the same questions and then you can judge the validity of their reply

I personally don’t need to hear excuses as the only reasons that make sense are they were unaware Crouch was involved in gambling advertising or they judged other things to be more important.

 

[scousedom]

So despite Hamlet's anti gambling stance, they elected a high profile, celebrity board member who was simultaneously under contract to one of the UK's biggest gambling businesses.

Hypocrisy, much?

Yes. I agree.