Jump to content

Next Years Sponsor


Squirrelhumper

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Riccarton Bluebell said:

Surely the anti betting stance by the club can’t be true? At any live TV game at RP,the moving adverts I see on the Frank Beattie Stand are mostly all adverts for betting companies. 

 

Pushed by the tv companies, we wouldn’t have a choice in that. It’s their advertising boards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PrestersKtid said:

Pushed by the tv companies, we wouldn’t have a choice in that. It’s their advertising boards. 

True, but we aren't refusing the cash from the TV companies or the league sponsors, Ladbrokes. That would be financial suicide and the board know it. If Kenny Alexander offered millions, which he had made from gambling companies, would we refuse that cash too ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 2:44 PM, Prahakillie said:

 

eople already know that if they want to 

1.  Gamble -  they can sit on their phone while at the match.

2. Drink -  go to the bar before or after the match. 

People know what coca cola is or mcdonalds but they still spend hundreds of millions a year advertising so bit of a silly statement 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, killie1961 said:

killie lotto ended years ago remember when we had 10,000 members in the TB era

Killie Lotto is still going, either that or my bank are taking £4 a month off for nothing. Results on the club site are sporadic, some weeks they show them, other weeks they don't. 

There is still a Killie Lotto website. 

Edited by Wrangodog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wrangodog said:

Killie Lotto is still going, either that or my bank are taking £4 a month off for nothing. Results on the club site are sporadic, some weeks they show them, other weeks they don't. 

There is still a Killie Lotto website. 

Yep, still operates under the name of the Killie Lotto, but is about to be relaunched as a community product according to a recent club announcement (was tucked in at the bottom of a weekly email or news article somewhere). Think they were planning to invite agents take them through th renewed offering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the doomed said:

Yep, still operates under the name of the Killie Lotto, but is about to be relaunched as a community product according to a recent club announcement (was tucked in at the bottom of a weekly email or news article somewhere). Think they were planning to invite agents take them through th renewed offering.

You're right. To be honest I blanked that first time I saw it. Relaunching as Killie Cares Fund. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many aspects to the Gambling / Drink sponsorship that would have been considered before coming to the difficult decision not to consider offers (if any). 

Football and Gambling/Drinking have been going hand in hand for decades (bookies, pools, booze fuelled trips, cheeky victory pints or 10 at the local) and it seems ludicrous that a football club would not want to be associated with a brand that would most likely appeal to the same general customers as the fans. As many have highlighted, it is everywhere you look in football and one less club (with a fairly small impression) not involved probably won't be changing the tide. 

However, just because a large number of customers are regular clients doesn't mean that it is a good fit. Firstly we have to look at the vulnerable members of society. Addicts are the obvious case here and more advertising is not going to help here but in reality the worst it could potentially be is the straw that breaks the camels back. The most obvious reason, as I see it, is to protect children and young adults. Advertisers know full well that planting the seed of brand recognition in a child brain will reap massive rewards in the long run. The evidence of how effective advertising is on kids via their trusted heroes is undeniable and sourced by multiple researchers. For this reason, this is why junk food is now banned for TV (and online) advertising at kids. Furthermore, gambling standards prohibit anyone who is, or seems to be, under 25 years to be featured gambling or playing a significant role in their communication. This is how they can circumvent this rule by having young footballers advertise on their chests instead. 

Money is good, cash is king but at what expense. Maybe not today but it might be the difference in a kid growing up to love the gambling or not taking part. For me this is worth Killie losing 100k a year over vs one of our own fans losing the same to gambling companies. Worse still, gambling debts contribute to the disgustingly high levels of suicide amongst young men. Stay clear please Killie. It's always been like that doesn't mean has has to always be like that    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, midgeace9 said:

There are many aspects to the Gambling / Drink sponsorship that would have been considered before coming to the difficult decision not to consider offers (if any). 

Football and Gambling/Drinking have been going hand in hand for decades (bookies, pools, booze fuelled trips, cheeky victory pints or 10 at the local) and it seems ludicrous that a football club would not want to be associated with a brand that would most likely appeal to the same general customers as the fans. As many have highlighted, it is everywhere you look in football and one less club (with a fairly small impression) not involved probably won't be changing the tide. 

However, just because a large number of customers are regular clients doesn't mean that it is a good fit. Firstly we have to look at the vulnerable members of society. Addicts are the obvious case here and more advertising is not going to help here but in reality the worst it could potentially be is the straw that breaks the camels back. The most obvious reason, as I see it, is to protect children and young adults. Advertisers know full well that planting the seed of brand recognition in a child brain will reap massive rewards in the long run. The evidence of how effective advertising is on kids via their trusted heroes is undeniable and sourced by multiple researchers. For this reason, this is why junk food is now banned for TV (and online) advertising at kids. Furthermore, gambling standards prohibit anyone who is, or seems to be, under 25 years to be featured gambling or playing a significant role in their communication. This is how they can circumvent this rule by having young footballers advertise on their chests instead. 

Money is good, cash is king but at what expense. Maybe not today but it might be the difference in a kid growing up to love the gambling or not taking part. For me this is worth Killie losing 100k a year over vs one of our own fans losing the same to gambling companies. Worse still, gambling debts contribute to the disgustingly high levels of suicide amongst young men. Stay clear please Killie. It's always been like that doesn't mean has has to always be like that    

Great post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2020 at 12:28 AM, midgeace9 said:

There are many aspects to the Gambling / Drink sponsorship that would have been considered before coming to the difficult decision not to consider offers (if any). 

Football and Gambling/Drinking have been going hand in hand for decades (bookies, pools, booze fuelled trips, cheeky victory pints or 10 at the local) and it seems ludicrous that a football club would not want to be associated with a brand that would most likely appeal to the same general customers as the fans. As many have highlighted, it is everywhere you look in football and one less club (with a fairly small impression) not involved probably won't be changing the tide. 

However, just because a large number of customers are regular clients doesn't mean that it is a good fit. Firstly we have to look at the vulnerable members of society. Addicts are the obvious case here and more advertising is not going to help here but in reality the worst it could potentially be is the straw that breaks the camels back. The most obvious reason, as I see it, is to protect children and young adults. Advertisers know full well that planting the seed of brand recognition in a child brain will reap massive rewards in the long run. The evidence of how effective advertising is on kids via their trusted heroes is undeniable and sourced by multiple researchers. For this reason, this is why junk food is now banned for TV (and online) advertising at kids. Furthermore, gambling standards prohibit anyone who is, or seems to be, under 25 years to be featured gambling or playing a significant role in their communication. This is how they can circumvent this rule by having young footballers advertise on their chests instead. 

Money is good, cash is king but at what expense. Maybe not today but it might be the difference in a kid growing up to love the gambling or not taking part. For me this is worth Killie losing 100k a year over vs one of our own fans losing the same to gambling companies. Worse still, gambling debts contribute to the disgustingly high levels of suicide a****st young men. Stay clear please Killie. It's always been like that doesn't mean has has to always be like that    


While I respect your well constructed post we are in absolutely no position to turn down whatever money comes our way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...