| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 09:49 - Oct 4 with 2087 views | soupytwist |
Guardian published quite a long article about Bet365, and Denise Coates specifically, earlier in the week https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/02/the-ultimate-gambler-how-denise-
It was quite balanced positioning the societal costs of largely unfettered access to gambling against the some of the benefits Bet 365 has brought to the Stoke area, which it's badly in need of.
My view? She could be worse but some things need to have a close eye kept on them. |  | |  |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:10 - Oct 4 with 2005 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 09:49 - Oct 4 by soupytwist |
Guardian published quite a long article about Bet365, and Denise Coates specifically, earlier in the week https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/02/the-ultimate-gambler-how-denise-
It was quite balanced positioning the societal costs of largely unfettered access to gambling against the some of the benefits Bet 365 has brought to the Stoke area, which it's badly in need of.
My view? She could be worse but some things need to have a close eye kept on them. |
Agree, there is almost £100m given to charities that otherwise wouldn't, but there is tax money that could have gone on public services that they haven't received.
I'm just naturally cynical! |  | | |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:15 - Oct 4 with 1988 views | J2BLUE |
Bet365 are disgusting.
They have banned me and many others. The whole game is rigged. If you win money you get banned. If you lose money you get emailed daily offers to encourage you to lose more. |  |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:19 - Oct 4 with 1935 views | ellaandred |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:15 - Oct 4 by J2BLUE |
Bet365 are disgusting.
They have banned me and many others. The whole game is rigged. If you win money you get banned. If you lose money you get emailed daily offers to encourage you to lose more. |
This.
My account was closed (by them) for winning. |  | | |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:28 - Oct 4 with 1893 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:10 - Oct 4 by ElderGrizzly |
Agree, there is almost £100m given to charities that otherwise wouldn't, but there is tax money that could have gone on public services that they haven't received.
I'm just naturally cynical! |
I sometimes think tax laws are written with future misuse in mind. Does the Treasury still rely on experts on secondment from major financial institutions to assist with the drafting of tax rules? |  |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:47 - Oct 4 with 1814 views | HighgateBlue |
The Denise Coates Foundation IS a charity.
So £730m has gone to charity.
They've distributed £78m of it, to date. What charity gives away all of its assets within a few years and leaves itself with nothing? That would be ludicrous. The charity is of course regulated by the Charity Commission, and the £730m cannot simply disappear. A prudent charity of this kind will derive an income from its assets and distribute that income to the causes which are consistent with its objects (i.e. 'good' causes). That plainly preserves the capital so that future income continues to come in, which can then be distributed.
I have no particular view on the tax element of this story, in terms of what the relevant tax laws should say. But trying to compare the amount of money saved in tax by a company or individual with the amount of money given away by the Foundation is daft. The money is in the Foundation and will benefit good causes only for as long as the money lasts. If there is mismanagement, the Charity Commission will be on it. It's fine not to like some or all gambling companies, but there's no logical link between that and assuming that charitable trustees are up to no good.
Put it this way, if I own an office block bringing in a really good rent, and I give the office block to charity, and they then give all of the rents from that office block to really good causes on an annual basis, I would be delighted. I wouldn't be angry that they didn't give the office block away. |  | | |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 11:57 - Oct 4 with 1658 views | Radlett_blue |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 09:49 - Oct 4 by soupytwist |
Guardian published quite a long article about Bet365, and Denise Coates specifically, earlier in the week https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/02/the-ultimate-gambler-how-denise-
It was quite balanced positioning the societal costs of largely unfettered access to gambling against the some of the benefits Bet 365 has brought to the Stoke area, which it's badly in need of.
My view? She could be worse but some things need to have a close eye kept on them. |
It's a good article. Gambling is an unpleasant business, where a large proportion of the industry's profits come from the small minority of problem gamblers. The issue is regulation., but on line gambling is notoriously hard to regulate. At least 365 to contribute a decent amount to UK tax & hence governments of whatever political colour are hesitant about increasing regulation.
As you said, Coates doesn't seem to be an inherently bad person & if it wasn't her & Bet 365 fleecing unwary punters, it would be someone else. |  |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 12:44 - Oct 4 with 1554 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:47 - Oct 4 by HighgateBlue |
The Denise Coates Foundation IS a charity.
So £730m has gone to charity.
They've distributed £78m of it, to date. What charity gives away all of its assets within a few years and leaves itself with nothing? That would be ludicrous. The charity is of course regulated by the Charity Commission, and the £730m cannot simply disappear. A prudent charity of this kind will derive an income from its assets and distribute that income to the causes which are consistent with its objects (i.e. 'good' causes). That plainly preserves the capital so that future income continues to come in, which can then be distributed.
I have no particular view on the tax element of this story, in terms of what the relevant tax laws should say. But trying to compare the amount of money saved in tax by a company or individual with the amount of money given away by the Foundation is daft. The money is in the Foundation and will benefit good causes only for as long as the money lasts. If there is mismanagement, the Charity Commission will be on it. It's fine not to like some or all gambling companies, but there's no logical link between that and assuming that charitable trustees are up to no good.
Put it this way, if I own an office block bringing in a really good rent, and I give the office block to charity, and they then give all of the rents from that office block to really good causes on an annual basis, I would be delighted. I wouldn't be angry that they didn't give the office block away. |
Fair point, and I wouldn't expect it all to be given away at once.
The article is very much about tax and the 'loophole' that this likely to be closed or see rules changed hence my OP and the figures used are over a 10 year period too. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 12:46 - Oct 4 with 1539 views | unbelievablue |
Quite common isn't it. The old owner of the NFL team I follow was notorious for it. |  |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 12:53 - Oct 4 with 1499 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 12:44 - Oct 4 by ElderGrizzly |
Fair point, and I wouldn't expect it all to be given away at once.
The article is very much about tax and the 'loophole' that this likely to be closed or see rules changed hence my OP and the figures used are over a 10 year period too. |
Think it depends where the charitable trust set invests the money.
In the past I worked for a company whose pension fund invested in property the company occupied. Hopefully none of the trusts funds ends up working for 365. | |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:06 - Oct 4 with 1423 views | bsw72 |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 10:15 - Oct 4 by J2BLUE |
Bet365 are disgusting.
They have banned me and many others. The whole game is rigged. If you win money you get banned. If you lose money you get emailed daily offers to encourage you to lose more. |
Hang on, are you saying a betting company is rigged in the companies favour to maximize profits, and people that are successful in reducing their profits are prevented from doing so in the future?!?
Every £1 of the £1Bn+ that Denise Coates has been paid is taken from the pocket of a punter - the misery caused by gambling to families is extraordinary, but it's ok to keep on allowing them to advertise almost constantly on TV.
It's a massive social problem which is being ignored by the government. |  | | |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:12 - Oct 4 with 1372 views | J2BLUE |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:06 - Oct 4 by bsw72 |
Hang on, are you saying a betting company is rigged in the companies favour to maximize profits, and people that are successful in reducing their profits are prevented from doing so in the future?!?
Every £1 of the £1Bn+ that Denise Coates has been paid is taken from the pocket of a punter - the misery caused by gambling to families is extraordinary, but it's ok to keep on allowing them to advertise almost constantly on TV.
It's a massive social problem which is being ignored by the government. |
Can't tell if that's a genuine question or you're saying it's such an obvious point that you're being sarcastic!
But yes. Winners get banned. Losers get exploited. | |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:14 - Oct 4 with 1348 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:12 - Oct 4 by J2BLUE |
Can't tell if that's a genuine question or you're saying it's such an obvious point that you're being sarcastic!
But yes. Winners get banned. Losers get exploited. |
And football clubs help them find new people to exploit by accepting their sponsorship. | |
| |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:22 - Oct 4 with 1302 views | bsw72 |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:12 - Oct 4 by J2BLUE |
Can't tell if that's a genuine question or you're saying it's such an obvious point that you're being sarcastic!
But yes. Winners get banned. Losers get exploited. |
Sorry - bad example of me responding in a sarcastic manner when I should know better.
I'm not a big fan of the betting industry (did you guess), I find it all deeply unpleasant and destructive plus the fact it is just growing and growing everywhere is very worrying.
I know people will draw comparisons against banking / finance etc, and there are *some* similarities, but gambling addiction is such a massive social problem now which seems to be swept under the carpet while every 10 minutes on Sports TV are acca this, free £10 bet that etc, so you switch to other channels and it's bingo and slot adverts.
Oh, and I am not a gamnbling addict - although I *could* easily be if I allowed myself. I play the lottery and even enjoy the odd night at the casino - but the prevelance of internet / smartphone based gambling is my concern. | | | |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:33 - Oct 4 with 1250 views | Radlett_blue |
| Interesting article on the 'charity' of the Stoke owners today on 13:06 - Oct 4 by bsw72 |
Hang on, are you saying a betting company is rigged in the companies favour to maximize profits, and people that are successful in reducing their profits are prevented from doing so in the future?!?
Every £1 of the £1Bn+ that Denise Coates has been paid is taken from the pocket of a punter - the misery caused by gambling to families is extraordinary, but it's ok to keep on allowing them to advertise almost constantly on TV.
It's a massive social problem which is being ignored by the government. |
The problem is that (1) the government currently takes in around £3.5bn in tax revenue from gaming & (2) if we regulate the UK gaming industry more heavily, then more of the industry moves offshore, the problem gamblers remain & the UK loses the tax revenue.
Yes, I think gambling should be more heavily regulated in the UK. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
