Tom Waterhouse dropped

[aardvark]

The difference is gambling on footy has the potential to ruin our sport. Cars, obesity, coke and insurance don't. I'm really glad we've chosen not to be connected to a betting agency.

[aardvark]

Don't like gambling being associated as a major sponsor of footy. Its bad enough with FTA but at least you can fast forward.
I hope it goes the way of smokes. And I will be very pleased if Jenny can confirm that Waterhouse gambling house is no longer associated with the Swans brand.

Couldn't agree more Prims.

[DamY]

The difference is gambling on footy has the potential to ruin our sport. Cars, obesity, coke and insurance don't. I'm really glad we've chosen not to be connected to a betting agency.

Have to disagree with you there. Alcohol has a pretty major effect on the sport and society as a whole. If we're going to have some sort of moral code by which the club will choose its partners, it should be applied fairly to all sponsors. You would expect that the club would attempt to identify partners with whom they would share common values, otherwise the relationship will be pretty shallow and unmaintainable. Coke has a pretty dubious health record, and as a company probably has done more damage to the environment and to human society than Tom Waterhouse alone (If we were going to use Tom Waterhouse to represent all gambling problems, it'd be akin to saying that Coke represented all problems associated with large beverage producers AND sugar's effect on the modern human).

To be honest, I don't like gambling much either because of personal experiences with my parents, but I have learnt to shut it out at the game (like the other things I may not like at the game). I too dislike the association with pies which are sooo bad for you (and I'm pretty sure the players aren't exactly chowing them down in the quarter-time breaks) but once again I just shut it out. There are two alcohol-related sponsors, two financial institutions, The Telegraph!!! At least Tom Waterhouse's logo never made it onto the guernsey :|

[Jewels]

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

He does give off a very strong ' flog ' vibe

Now this I agree with!

[Wardy]

Well if it came to having a choice between Waterhouse and say the Hillsong Church - young Tom would get my vote. At the end of the day sport is a business and it needs sponsors - now if the sponsors were "Axe Murderes are us" then you'd have something to complain about. But this "we are better than the others and we only want nice wholesome sponsors"and taking moral high ground is but much.

[undy]

Well if it came to having a choice between Waterhouse and say the Hillsong Church - young Tom would get my vote. At the end of the day sport is a business and it needs sponsors - now if the sponsors were "Axe Murderes are us" then you'd have something to complain about. But this "we are better than the others and we only want nice wholesome sponsors"and taking moral high ground is but much.

As Wardy points out, there are potential sponsors whose industries may be considered by some people to be unsuitable. It will be different things for different people - axe-murderers and Hillsong for Wardy, any gambling concern for some people, Tom Waterhouse specifically for others, maybe Collingwood FC for Big Al.

Gambling (in particular) has been kept at arms-length from many professional sports for what I would think are obvious reasons - The SMH has a quote from an NFL commissioner today: ?We want to protect our game and make sure that the people believe that what they see is not influenced by anything from the outside. Gambling is at the heart of that.?

Read a tiny bit more.

For the Swans, even if the management don't care about it, the dollars cut both ways - a number of long standing members have written to them saying that they will discontinue their membership if Waterhouse's sponsorship continues. I don't know how many people have done that in total - maybe only a handful. If it was getting on for three or four hundred then it should be a genuine monetary concern. Whilst they have got great membership numbers this year, rusted-on members are worth a lot.


Andy

[dimelb]

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.

I agree with Meg on this one, and was pleased to see tomwatercloset.com get flushed away.
A factor that hasn't been mentioned so far is the concern about gambling on sport and its potential links to organized crime. I'm glad the Swans are not going to use this sponsor any more, and I think the AFL, NRL and various other bodies ought to have a good look at themselves on this issue.
I'm in the UK atm and can't take time to find a link, but that well-known wowser Peter Fitzsimons ran a piece recently about the links between sport, gambling and organized crime.

[Big Al]

Re: Tom Waterhouse dropped

I agree with Meg on this one, and was pleased to see tomwatercloset.com get flushed away.
A factor that hasn't been mentioned so far is the concern about gambling on sport and its potential links to organized crime. I'm glad the Swans are not going to use this sponsor any more, and I think the AFL, NRL and various other bodies ought to have a good look at themselves on this issue.
I'm in the UK atm and can't take time to find a link, but that well-known wowser Peter Fitzsimons ran a piece recently about the links between sport, gambling and organized crime.

Is there any evidence that TW is anything but a reputable business going about providing a legal product??

Also can anyone tell me how not taking sponsorship dollars from legal businesses stops illegal activity from happening?? Do these underworld figures say to themselves "nah, we can't get involved with match fixing and the like because Centrebet is no longer sponsoring the footy"

My thinking is if the betting agencies are involved with footy they can better work with the AFL, NRL etc and put in practices that will help mediate the risk of the system being abused.

[poundpuppy]

I'm with Dimelb and Meg, I know smoking, drinking and drugs are also problems in society but the apparent link between organised crime and gambling on sport makes me very glad that the club have decided to dump TW as a sponsor.

[Wardy]

We are never all going to agree - we might be a great club, but even after winning the flag - are we having sponsors banging down our doors? We are still not that really high profile club - we need all the sponsorship dollars we can get!

[Jewels]

I'm with Dimelb and Meg, I know smoking, drinking and drugs are also problems in society but the apparent link between organised crime and gambling on sport makes me very glad that the club have decided to dump TW as a sponsor.

I think you'll find Tom left us rather than us taking the high moral ground and dumping him.

[Beerman]

As Wardy points out, there are potential sponsors whose industries may be considered by some people to be unsuitable. It will be different things for different people - axe-murderers and Hillsong for Wardy, any gambling concern for some people, Tom Waterhouse specifically for others, maybe Collingwood FC for Big Al.

Gambling (in particular) has been kept at arms-length from many professional sports for what I would think are obvious reasons - The SMH has a quote from an NFL commissioner today: ?We want to protect our game and make sure that the people believe that what they see is not influenced by anything from the outside. Gambling is at the heart of that.?

Read a tiny bit more.

For the Swans, even if the management don't care about it, the dollars cut both ways - a number of long standing members have written to them saying that they will discontinue their membership if Waterhouse's sponsorship continues. I don't know how many people have done that in total - maybe only a handful. If it was getting on for three or four hundred then it should be a genuine monetary concern. Whilst they have got great membership numbers this year, rusted-on members are worth a lot.

I see what you did there! Team sports are harder to fix than racing - spot betting seems to be a bigger problem. Maybe the AFL/government should consider restricting the types of spot bets that can be placed.

I don't gamble, I think it is a big problem in our society and that the way industry fights attempts to fix the problem are disgusting. But it isn't something I would cancel my membership over. I imagine others (particularly with very negative personal experiences) may feel differently, and I think the club would listen even to those that disapprove, even if they don't cancel their memberships.

[erica]

I think you'll find Tom left us rather than us taking the high moral ground and dumping him.

Whatever the process, the outcome is the same and I'm pleased with it.

[poundpuppy]

I think you'll find Tom left us rather than us taking the high moral ground and dumping him.

Whatever ..... either way I'm just glad he's gone

[Wardy]

He does give off a very strong ' flog ' vibe

You have obviously not met many high flyers in the insurance industry - most of them make young Tom look and act like a choir boy - how do I know ? I've worked with most if them st some point or other in the last 33 years and I've seen some pathetic things occur.
Sadly the next generation of insurance salesman isn't looking much better.