That was Dave Kitson wasn't it?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Paul Kitson made bankrupt
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
That was Dave Kitson wasn't it?
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
Gambling really is a cancer - I wish governments would do more to curb it. People are free to do as they choose, but I would be quite happy to see the advertisements (intended to trigger gambling-related cues) banned. The Gambling Commission has recommended fixed odds betting terminals should be cut to £30 or less (from £100) - doesn't go nearly far enough.
Soon, Gambling Commission will require all online gambling websites to be part of www.gamstop.co.uk, where you can self-exclude from gambling websites in one place (instead of having to go to each individual website). This is long overdue, but I'm happy to see something like this is finally in place.
Soon, Gambling Commission will require all online gambling websites to be part of www.gamstop.co.uk, where you can self-exclude from gambling websites in one place (instead of having to go to each individual website). This is long overdue, but I'm happy to see something like this is finally in place.
That Reading game was a brilliant night. We really weren't expected to win that game yet played superbly and fully deserved it.
Kitson is up there for me as one of our most disappointing signings. I had high expectations for him and he just never delivered. Similar to Livermore and Dobbie a few years later.
Kitson is up there for me as one of our most disappointing signings. I had high expectations for him and he just never delivered. Similar to Livermore and Dobbie a few years later.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,270
The beauty of that Reading game was that he scored moments after coming on. "Kitson's coming on" is one of my top 5 favourite Albion chants ever and the goal celebration straight after is in my top 10.
Cowfold Seagull
Fan of the 17 bus
One of the only two goals that he did score.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
No, you are thinking of Nicky Forster (in the Worthing end at Withdean)... before he started wearing stripes the right way up!
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,665
Ha! Remember that game so well. Not that I was there, I was in Spain and asked a cavernous Irish pub if they would put it on for me, which they did, on one screen in a corner. I was the only viewer. Brilliant quick thinking from Bobby and then that barely touched header from Kitson. Didn't he give it large to the fans after 'scoring'?
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Yes, you are quite correct, thanks for the memory jog!
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,183
It seems Kitson was great in generating ape shit - sadly for him it seems there’s no money in ape shit.
Weststander
Well-known member
Jason KitCat wasn't it?
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,183
No - you’re thinking of Dave Kitson’s cat called Jason
Arthur
Well-known member
FOBTs are the issue?? Crikey put the paper down and grow an educated opinion. There is a thread on here every single week saying I'm backing this or that. You switch the TV or radio on and its adverts for bookmakers. I'm watching snooker at the moment and its got Betfred blasted all around the side. Ban sports betting and a shit load of sports would disappear from our TV screens not to mention the amount of jobs lost on the highstreet.
How on earth do you think that campaign is funded? Ditto the when the fun stops stop?
I can tell you from first hand experience that for all the good it does it just creates another channel for people to try an exploit!
Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions rather than being desperate to find someone to blame?
maffew
Well-known member
Without FOBTs there wouldnt be high street bookies now probably. The people placing a fiver on an accy on here and backing blooms horse/the latest NSC greyhound is not the same thing as playing the crack cocaine machines that are betting terminals. Would there be less sports on TV? Maybe, maybe not. Used to be Embassy cigarettes plastered all over the snooker and F1. Now its Betfred and Redbull. It'll be something else next
Saying someone should take responsibility for their own actions? Go and share that a a Gamblers Anonymous meeting or to the families and businesses and people who have lost everything to their addiction. Not all people can bet just on the Grand National/Xmas number 1/royal babies names. There wouldnt be bookies or casinos without addicts, and there likely wouldnt be pubs either without regular drinkers/addicts. And if a few country pubs and high street bookies closed down cos of it, so be it
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
Wow. You are asking me to grow an educated opinion?!
Gambling can be an addiction, the same as smoking can be an addiction. It is a pathological disorder. The amount of people who are problem gamblers is very high. With online betting, it has become far easier to sign up to websites and lose money very quickly. This is a big problem. The 'where the fun stops' campaign was entirely flawed because it fails to understand the neurobiological reality of addiction. For those who follow football, it's hard to get away from gambling-related cues, because you can't watch football on TV or go to a football match without these cues being presented to you, which are designed to trigger relapse. Now GAMSTOP will allow people to sign up to a SINGLE website, where they can self-exclude from online gambling. Currently, someone can just self-exclude from one website, and then simply sign up to another - so that doesn't really help addicts. I don't CARE how it's funded. How on earth is that NOT a good idea?
As you say, there's adverts everywhere. This is part of the problem. Smoking adverts were (rightly) banned, because of the harmful consequences of smoking. So why not gambling adverts? People are still free to gamble - cues won't just be in their face all the time. Some people will inevitably lose jobs if companies lose revenue, etc - but given it's an entire industry based on profiting from and exploiting the misfortune of others, I don't think that's a valid reason not to do it. When industries and/or companies are exploiting others, action needs to be taken. There's plenty of examples where this has rightly happened in other industries.
FOBTs are one of many issues. There's been campaigns against them, and recently the Gambling Commission made some recommendations (which have been criticised), which is one of the reasons why I highlighted it. It's a BIG issue, given it makes up more than HALF of bookmakers' revenue. £1.8billion per year.
Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions? Well let me tell you how addiction is defined - 'the inability to to control the desire ... despite the negative consequences'. To put it simply, it is the result of structural and chemical changes in the brain. Gambling addicts don't WANT to gamble, they can't help it - the same way drug addicts cannot control their desire to take drugs. It's not a CHOICE. There is lots of research going on into potential treatments for relapse to drug addiction, and it's thought that a shared model could allow treatments to work across not only addictive drugs, but other forms of addiction too - such as gambling.
Cues for addiction trigger rapid changes between connections in the brain, which result in the activation of pathways that result in relapse. Doing all we can to reduce these cues being presented to addicts is not a bad thing, in my opinion. Further, it will help less people become addicts in the first place.
Last edited:
LowKarate
New member
He did and to those of us in the ground he celebrated in a cold style that said **** you to our fans.
Arthur
Well-known member
If you are desperate for a punt in this modern world you'll easily be able to find one and to be able to punt an awful lot more than the limits on the FOBTs
Tell that to the thousand of people that would lose their jobs. Tell that to the old folk that use retail outlets as their daily social hub. And for christ sake don't moan about the millions lost from the income tax pot.
I know exactly what GAMSTOP is I work in the industry. In fact I'm running a campaign promoting it at the moment. Something we are not required to do but are. As I said its already being exploited.
So should banks stop lending money to people in case they get in debt? Should pubs stop selling booze in case someone likes a drink a little bit too much?
If you are addicted to something then its not anyones fault other than your own. No one has put a gun to anyones head and said have a bet or a drink or take this. Anyone who has an addiction has my upmost sympathy but that doesn't mean it should spoil the fun the rest of the country. The gambling industry is massively regulated and most of the big players in this country go above and beyond to fund the programs to assist those who can't control themselves.
Getting rid of sports advertising isn't going to stop people having a punt in the same way banning fag ads hasn't stopped people smoking. Changing the limits on FOBTs will mean folk will find somewhere else to spend their hard earned. I was out with one of my retail colleagues yesterday and we were discussing this very subject. The general consensus is that the fun police will get their way which will mean the strategy will change for the machines. Games that will still be allowed to have higher stakes will be promoted and the margins for the rest (which are very punter friendly currently) will simply be increased. The only loser will be the punter.
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
The point is the easy access to FOBTs and the amount of money that people very quickly lose on them. People see them, have a punt, lose some money, try to make it back, and before they know it they've lost all their wages. If the limits are significantly lowered, they have far less appeal, and far less potential for the chasing element to kick in. But of course that would mean less money for the bookmakers based on other's misery, which is why there's industry pressure to resist the limits.
Different gambling situations work differently too, so it doesn't necessarily equate that someone desperate for a punt, if they can't do so at a FOBT, will go somewhere else and lose just as much money.
The exploitation of the many to benefit a few
At least you appear to understand that hundreds of thousands of addicts are providing lots of income for the industry.
Anyway, gambling outlets would still exist.
Yes, it's very obvious you have vested interests.
GAMSTOP very obviously has huge benefits for problem gamblers. If they self-exclude from all online betting companies, where else are they to go apart from physical shops? Online betting and betting in person in a shop is very different as well, such that they aren't necessarily linked with easy other due to different situation-dependent cues, meaning it doesn't automatically mean they'll go to shops if they can't bet online. The ease of access of online betting is a huge problem, and GAMSTOP will be of massive benefit to problem gamblers, if they're made aware of it.
What's that got to do with addiction?
The analogy doesn't quite work, but in any case, no one's said betting companies should stop allowing people to bet.
You might see addiction, but you clearly don't understand it. People decide to have a gamble or take a drug (like many do) - they don't decide to become addicted. It's not their fault their brains are wired differently to those who don't become addicted. Once they are addicted, giving up is difficult, because of very real cellular changes which take place in the brain. A big problem in overcoming addiction (despite them actually wanting to) is being exposed to addiction-related cues, such as gambling advertisements or social environments.
Above and beyond..
Yeah, I can tell you work in the industry. The big players do what's good for their image. They don't care about problem gamblers - of course not, as that's where a large chunk of their profits come from.
Erm, I believe smoking rates have dropped significantly over the years. How do you know banning advertisements hasn't had an affect on that?
You obviously don't know much about the neuropsychological basis of addiction and how cues work to trigger relapse, in a sometimes environment-dependent manner. I explained it as simply as I could in this and in my previous post.
Perhaps working in the industry you've become desensitised to gambling addiction. Working in the industry doesn't give you a scientific understanding addiction, which you evidently don't have - so "grow an educated opinion".
Last edited:
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Those poor old folk who have to go to the bookies for their social hub. 
Those poor old folk who have to go to the bookies for their social hub.
My colleague and I go into bookies daily in order to match bet (by and large, I'm not gambling) and it is absolutely astonishing how you do see the same dropout types in the same bookies every single day, usually jizzing their wages on the dogs. I can't help thinking that part of the reason that these types are so large in number is that these people simply haven't stopped to understand how the bookies make their money. They are all doing tri-casts and lucky 15s for pennies (that then add up) which are by far and away the most lucrative bets for the bookies.
I find myself on the fence over the whole gambling issue. I have an addictive personality so I can well understand how people get into this horrible downward spiral. On the other hand, it is relatively straight forward to make a money out of bookies (even shops) by rinsing them for their offers, but not if you're just going to play into their hands. Yesterday and the day before, Betfred and William Hill both offered tidy arbs which yielded us £20 each, and Paddy Power shops have a money back 2nd offer on every meeting. Today there is a high likelihood of us making a tidy profit out of the 3:40 at Punchestown for this reason. Matched betters will know why if they look at the odds.