Tom Waterhouse dropped

[Primmy]

Maybe its just that having gambling shoved in my face all the time makes my skin crawl.

[Meg]

There is a big difference between Tom Waterhouse and our other sponsors. Our Swan players can legitimately use the products of the other sponsors should they wish but the AFL bans players from betting on AFL matches (e.g. Heath Shaw banned for 8 matches.) There is something quite hypocritical about having our players promote a product they can't themselves buy.
I will be delighted if Tom Waterhouse (or any other gambling connection) is no longer associated with our club. I felt that the integrity of the Swans was dented by the harm that promotion of gambling is likely to do to some of our supporters and possibly some of our young players. Despite Tom Waterhouse's spin, he was not a sponsor for the good of the club. He wanted to encourage people to gamble and to legitimise his product through association with a well-regarded team and well known players; that is to normalise gambling particularly for young people, as part of enjoying the game. None of the other sponsors promote their products in that way. The Swans would further enhance their reputation for a club with a strong moral culture if they have backed away from the pursuit of gambling revenue.

[stellation]

I must admit that I don't like the promo models standing at the entrances and handing out betting info; I like that we don't have cheerleaders, and I personally am not too keen on gambling (I am anti-pokies, but otherwise somewhat indifferent on the whole thing and just concede it's probably not my cup of tea).

I walk with my son past them each game; I'm raising him to be (hopefully) a good man and respect women, the marketing (in my mind) goes against that and does annoy me.

[Meg]

I walk with my son past them each game; I'm raising him to be (hopefully) a good man and respect women, the marketing (in my mind) goes against that and does annoy me.

Another very good reason not to want this sponsor. Well said Stella.

[ShockOfHair]

Thanks Al exactly my point, we can take the high moral ground against any number of sponsors but it all boils down to one thing really - corporate sponsorship = success.

And Prims I do understand that there are many, many people adversely affected by the horrors of gambling addiction, but as Al pointed out in his very clever post, there are just as many people just as adversly affected by alcoholism, obesity, reading crap News Ltd journos garbage and yet no one seems to have an issue with those companies.

Fair enough, and we could add Collingwood supporters, thinking about Demetriou's salary, and this year's rules changes to that list: there are lots of things that are bad for us and drive us nuts.

But I think Prim made the right point that we should keep gambling business and sport at arms length, given that one stands to gain from outcomes in the other. The AFL should not have any incentive to do any favours for sports betting firms, or to be beholden to the financial health of those. You can see by the massive soccer match-fixing scandal unfolding in Europe right now the kind of catastrophe waiting to happen. The league has taken hits on its reputation from the relatively minor supplements and tanking sagas. Why take the risk?

[jono2707]

My issue with Tom was that he was being shoved in my face weekly by the Swans via my Facebook page. No other sponsor was foisted on me on a weekly basis by the Swans, and I made it clear to the club that I didn't like them doing that on Facebook.

For the record I don't mind the odd flutter now and again, for a few dollars leisure spend. I can't warm to young Mr Watercloset though....

[Jewels]

[QUOTE=Meg;605008]There is a big difference between Tom Waterhouse and our other sponsors. Our Swan players can legitimately use the products of the other sponsors should they wish but the AFL bans players from betting on AFL matches (e.g. Heath Shaw banned for 8 matches.) There is something quite hypocritical about having our players promote a product they can't themselves buy.
I will be delighted if Tom Waterhouse (or any other gambling connection) is no longer associated with our club. I felt that the integrity of the Swans was dented by the harm that promotion of gambling is likely to do to some of our supporters and possibly some of our young players. Despite Tom Waterhouse's spin, he was not a sponsor for the good of the club. He wanted to encourage people to gamble and to legitimise his product through association with a well-regarded team and well known players; that is to normalise gambling particularly for young people, as part of enjoying the game. None of the other sponsors promote their products in that way. The Swans would further enhance their reputation for a club with a strong moral culture if they have backed away from the pursuit of gambling revenue.[/QUOTE

Sorry Meg but I think you are slightly skewing the facts to help your argument.
You are quite correct in saying that AFL players are not allowed to bet on AFL games but they are allowed to bet on racing and other sports so there is nothing hypocritical about it. As for "He wanted to encourage people to gamble and to legitimise his product through association with a well-regarded team and well known players", isn't that the reason why Coke, Cellarbrations, Bsc etc all sponsor us? He is a business man who saw a good way to promote his product, that's it. And his product IS legitimate and until it isn't (which wouldn't worry me in the slightest) I personally have no trouble with his or any other business sponsoring us.

All moot points now anyway as he is no longer associated with us.

[Triple B]

Sorry Meg but I think you are slightly skewing the facts to help your argument.
You are quite correct in saying that AFL players are not allowed to bet on AFL games but they are allowed to bet on racing and other sports so there is nothing hypocritical about it. As for "He wanted to encourage people to gamble and to legitimise his product through association with a well-regarded team and well known players", isn't that the reason why Coke, Cellarbrations, Bsc etc all sponsor us? He is a business man who saw a good way to promote his product, that's it. And his product IS legitimate and until it isn't (which wouldn't worry me in the slightest) I personally have no trouble with his or any other business sponsoring us.

All moot points now anyway as he is no longer associated with us.

Quite correct...

[Meg]

Quite correct...

No not entirely correct. Tom Waterhouse used his sponsorship with the Swans to particularly promote betting on AFL matches. Yes he promoted all his other betting products as well but we were targeted for AFL and Swans matches in particular. Not sure if his emails to Swans members continued - I objected to member services after the first one and got no more. But he still had his own weekly message on Swans matches on the Swans site. And no, other sponsors are not trying to promote their products as part of normal enjoyment of the gamein the way that gambling promotions do. anyway if it is a moot point and he is gone, then excellent news.

[Big Al]

Re: Tom Waterhouse dropped

Quite correct...

+1

[Auntie.Gerald]

i dont know what to think.........

Im just gunna light a dart.......suck down a beer.......give the kids coke and Maccas for dinner then head down to the RSL to slap the pokies and bet on a few races

ill let you know what pops up

[Big Al]

Re: Tom Waterhouse dropped

i dont know what to think.........

Im just gunna light a dart.......suck down a beer.......give the kids coke and Maccas for dinner then head down to the RSL to slap the pokies and bet on a few races

ill let you know what pops up

As long as you do it all in a VW insured by QBE you'll be sweet.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I just didn't like him being associated with the club because of his smarmy wankerish face. He looked like a total sleeze.

Sorry, I don't have a logical reason for someone to critique.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Tom Waterhouse dropped

He does give off a very strong ' flog ' vibe

[magic.merkin]

It's nice some on here can form well reasoned arguments for and against.

I'll just say that personally I found him scummy. Scummy on my facebook, in my emails and in ads.