Common sense Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a sob story that links together a legal endorsement and a legal activity. I say the author and the OP are more butthurt over the fact that Luongo's still in town than the 10k itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaK Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 My first reaction when I heard this through an interview was a little bit of surprise, given that BCLC is a government entity. However, I realized that as far as endorsement deals go this one is pretty tame and actually more transparent than most. Does Luongo need BCLC to spot him the 10 grand for entry? No. Did BCLC see an opportunity for what they felt would be well spent marketing? Yup. Who knows who approached who... but my guess is that the lotto corp. pressed to get Luongo to wear that BCLC jacket. Was it incumbent upon Luongo to say "No"? I don't think so. Ultimately I doubt BCLC sprung an extra $10,000 that they hadn't budgeted for in marketing... they probably felt this was a good opportunity for a good return on investment. i.e. I think this opinion piece misses the other half of the equation. Presumably this is not our taxpayers money going into a millionaire's pocket without anticipated returns that are at least equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Last time I checked, gambling via the BCLC was completely legal. Never mind that the young fans you are concerned about aren't likely to be watching the WSOP or reading the Vancouver Sun to know he is there, Luongo is promoting gambling using the BCLC instead of going to some off-shore sketchy gambling site. At least with the BCLC the proceeds are going to our own elected crooks... I mean, into our own economy and not some strange crooks overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 My first reaction when I heard this through an interview was a little bit of surprise, given that BCLC is a government entity. However, I realized that as far as endorsement deals go this one is pretty tame and actually more transparent than most. Does Luongo need BCLC to spot him the 10 grand for entry? No. Did BCLC see an opportunity for what they felt would be well spent marketing? Yup. Who knows who approached who... but my guess is that the lotto corp. pressed to get Luongo to wear that BCLC jacket. Was it incumbent upon Luongo to say "No"? I don't think so. Ultimately I doubt BCLC sprung an extra $10,000 that they hadn't budgeted for in marketing... they probably felt this was a good opportunity for a good return on investment. i.e. I think this opinion piece misses the other half of the equation. Presumably this is not our taxpayers money going into a millionaire's pocket without anticipated returns that are at least equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Promoting gambling is like promoting smoking. Both terrible vices that ruin lives and tear families apart, and both, are quite fun to do sometimes. I don't think the BCLC should be advertising their casinos or sports betting tickets at all. People should be allowed to gamble, but for some with weaker constitutions, the advertisements legitimize their addictions and make them want to gamble more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Except promoting gambling is legal and promoting smoking is not. But what you raise is a different question - should promoting gambling be legal? How about alcohol? But that's not what the article was about. The original article complains that the money should not be going to a millionaire, but it does not take issue with the fact that the BCLC already markets its games and lotteries. That's the part I was arguing against. As long as gambling is legal, and promoting gambling is legal, I have no issue with Luongo making a little promotional cash or getting sponsored into a tournament like this. Let's face it, the BCLC is getting far more bang for their buck sponsoring Luongo into that tournament than they would if they sponsored me. Basically, I don't think that article would ever have been written if the BCLC had sponsored some random BC celeb. It's because they sponsored a Canuck. That's the part I have issue with the article on. If the BCLC is going to spend advertising dollars, what's wrong with Luongo getting some of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 So he has a sponsorship contract with BCLC. Part of that contract is to pay his entry fee into a poker tourney. Where is the problem? He shouldnt be endorsing anything? Saying he should be giving the money to needy people is idiotic. Every celeb endorsement should go to needy people then and maybe it should but this is the real world and in the real world we deal with how things are and not how we would like them to be. So he likes to gamble. Ive gambled, it was fun. Apparently hes good at it. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 A good argument doesn't appeal to emotion. There are a lot of needy people in the world but that doesn't impact whether this is a sound or even moral decision. I don't endorse BCLC's existence but with this specific decision I see no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 People will use anything to hate on Lui now, eh? Get a life you goofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 A good argument doesn't appeal to emotion. There are a lot of needy people in the world but that doesn't impact whether this is a sound or even moral decision. I don't endorse BCLC's existence but with this specific decision I see no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 This issue is a good opportunity to bring up important questions about state sponsored 'sin' though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sure. I'm against it. Casinos are hot spots for drug trafficking, prostitution and so forth. The problem is the government relies on the money to support its services. People won't accept services being cut, taxes being raised, etc. So they make the shortsighted decision to expand state sponsored gambling because essentially we, the public, won't let them do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sure. I'm against it. Casinos are hot spots for drug trafficking, prostitution and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 If the BCLC thinks that they get more value from the publicity of Luongo representing them than they do from the money they pay him to do it, who am I to disagree? I've never seen their budget so I can't make that judgment. Corporations pay celebrities all the time to boost their image so presumably it's an effective marketing tactic. No controversy if you ask me. If they weren't paying Luongo they'd probably pay some other celebrity who gets less exposure, which would mean taxpayers would lose value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sure. I'm against it. Casinos are hot spots for drug trafficking, prostitution and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 As someone who works at and visits Casinos on the regular, let me tell you, they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 where do you work now, anyways? i know you left alberta recently, not sure where you ended up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'm not advocated for or against gambling, but if that's your argument then a lot of other things should be banned first: bars, nightclubs, restaurants, social gatherings of any kind, etc... Have you ever actually been in a casino before? Try openly selling booze or prostituting inside. See how long it takes the security gaurds to get you. Now try finding those same things in your average Vancouver nightclub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'm not advocated for or against gambling, but if that's your argument then a lot of other things should be banned first: bars, nightclubs, restaurants, social gatherings of any kind, etc... Have you ever actually been in a casino before? Try openly selling drugs or prostituting inside. See how long it takes the security gaurds to get you. Now try finding those same things in your average Vancouver nightclub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 As someone who works at and visits Casinos on the regular, let me tell you, they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.