Tom Waterhouse

Yeah, I just saw that on twitter.

Personally I just couldn't understand why any kid would want his autograph?!

Definitely a sign that the govt over there did the right thing in cutting back his permitted role in coverage, though.
 
They should have gone one step further and banned him from tv, or at least the live spots just air his adds and let that be all we see of the little weirdo
 
Saw someone post on twitter last night.

'Was watching the Tom Waterhouse show on Channel 9 and then all of a sudden this great game of footy broke out in between'

Thought it was appropriate.

It's overboard but he pays the big money to do it so why would Ch9 scrap it?
 
Jekk said:
YES because the 9 year olds see the success and not the gambling :brickwall:
Click to expand...

What does Tom waterhouse represent exactly then? It sounds as if you think he's a black sheep.

Do they? What are you basing that on? And say they do, is it out of the capability of a parent to convey the image of him that I've put forward?
 
It's a lot easier to have a strong business ethic and success when you come from a family of millionaires.

Given the negative impact gambling has on society, I think what Waterhouse was doing was totally over the top. Kids watching the broadcast are clearly going to be influenced ... it would have normalised gambling even more than what was already the case with Munsie in previous years. And the kids won't be going "ooh, look at that guy, I want to be a bookmaker and successful businessman when I grow up.", they'll be thinking who they'd be putting their money on. If Waterhouse was getting interviewed on 60 Minutes about his business achievements, then sure, you'd have a point.

I think it's the infiltration of the act of watching sport on tv that annoys people most.
 
jamesgould said:
It's a lot easier to have a strong business ethic and success when you come from a family of millionaires.

Given the negative impact gambling has on society, I think what Waterhouse was doing was totally over the top. Kids watching the broadcast are clearly going to be influenced ... it would have normalised gambling even more than what was already the case with Munsie in previous years. And the kids won't be going "ooh, look at that guy, I want to be a bookmaker and successful businessman when I grow up.", they'll be thinking who they'd be putting their money on. If Waterhouse was getting interviewed on 60 Minutes about his business achievements, then sure, you'd have a point.

I think it's the infiltration of the act of watching sport on tv that annoys people most.
Click to expand...


Okay so firstly, Tom Waterhouse isnt a villain because people are idiots and don't understand odds/choose to ignore them. Would a child really admire someone like him? I think an adult might aspire to be him though... (addressing Jekk's issue).

@ James, Your first point is definitely valid.

It appears that a few here are so sure that children will absorb the concept of gambling and have a dabble in the practice if not become consumed by it (please keep in mind that someone cant legally gamble until they are 18 (read: no longer a child and are capable of making their own decisions). So....where's the evidence to suggest this will happen? How old were these children? What was the nature of the event that he was signing autographs at, a rugby league training event? Do the children even know who he is? I question whether children grasp the full concept of gambling and whether it actually means anything to them, especially when they cannot legally participate in the act. Also, I think there is a false assumption here that any association to gambling induces bad gambling practices in those exposed to that association - seeing Tom Waterhouse = 16 year old gambling-induced zombies (see first sentence of paragraph).

Your last point James, also definitely valid.
 
Wow ok, I'm not entering into this debate and I'm not even sure you got my sarcasm but here is my final input on the matter of whether or not it's appropriate to have Tom Waterhouse signing childrens jerseys - I do not want Tom Waterhouse signing MY kids jerseys and I do not want them to look up to him or want to be him. I don't like the guy and I don't like the emphasise on gambling throughout the coverage. The End (from me).
 
callumtear said:
Okay so firstly, Tom Waterhouse isnt a villain because people are idiots and don't understand odds/choose to ignore them. Would a child really admire someone like him? I think an adult might aspire to be him though... (addressing Jekk's issue).

@ James, Your first point is definitely valid.

It appears that a few here are so sure that children will absorb the concept of gambling and have a dabble in the practice if not become consumed by it (please keep in mind that someone cant legally gamble until they are 18 (read: no longer a child and are capable of making their own decisions). So....where's the evidence to suggest this will happen? How old were these children? What was the nature of the event that he was signing autographs at, a rugby league training event? Do the children even know who he is? I question whether children grasp the full concept of gambling and whether it actually means anything to them, especially when they cannot legally participate in the act. Also, I think there is a false assumption here that any association to gambling induces bad gambling practices in those exposed to that association - seeing Tom Waterhouse = 16 year old gambling-induced zombies (see first sentence of paragraph).

Your last point James, also definitely valid.
Click to expand...

I don't know if there's been any research into it, but I read Andrew Johns said recently his kids now talk about league in terms of the odds for each team to win. This shows me it's definitely having some impact. Add to that things we know do effect children, like advertising junk food, or smoking back in the day, during kids programmes, and I don't think it's a huge leap to assume there will be some effect.

Smoking is a good example actually, it has always been illegal for kids, but did that stop Joe Camel from being hugely effective?

I don't think Waterhouse is particularly targetting kids with what he is/was doing, but I do think it has an effect.
 
jamesgould said:
I don't know if there's been any research into it, but I read Andrew Johns said recently his kids now talk about league in terms of the odds for each team to win. This shows me it's definitely having some impact. Add to that things we know do effect children, like advertising junk food, or smoking back in the day, during kids programmes, and I don't think it's a huge leap to assume there will be some effect.

Smoking is a good example actually, it has always been illegal for kids, but did that stop Joe Camel from being hugely effective?

I don't think Waterhouse is particularly targetting kids with what he is/was doing, but I do think it has an effect.
Click to expand...

That point about smoking is very good. Just because it is illegal doesn't stop teens smoking in the toilets during lunch or class. I used to hate going to the toilet. Just because drinking is illegal, it doesn't stop teens drinking at parties on the weekend.

I had a debate on Facebook about this very issue and most of the points against me is gambling is everywhere. So it is, but it doesn't mean we should do zip all about the small things. I've heard NUMEROUS stories of 8 year olds talking about odds.
 
jamesgould said:
I don't know if there's been any research into it, but I read Andrew Johns said recently his kids now talk about league in terms of the odds for each team to win. This shows me it's definitely having some impact. Add to that things we know do effect children, like advertising junk food, or smoking back in the day, during kids programmes, and I don't think it's a huge leap to assume there will be some effect.

Smoking is a good example actually, it has always been illegal for kids, but did that stop Joe Camel from being hugely effective?

I don't think Waterhouse is particularly targetting kids with what he is/was doing, but I do think it has an effect.
Click to expand...


You're right on other stimuli influencing the attitudes of children. However, I think gambling is different. It is much harder for children to gamble than it is to smoke (they dont have money/many possessions to use in place of money and have to pass an ID check to enter a casino/pub). Add to this the ill effects of gambling are in the forefront - you will notice straight away if you dont have cash, you may not know that one cigarette has given you cancer until 20 years down the track. There perhaps isnt an instant deterrent that can have a big influence on someone's life when someone smokes.

Children are quite selfish in nature (which decreases as they develop), I'd imagine not too many children are going to want to continue gambling after a loss.
 
Sponsorship talks between Tom Waterhouse and NRL break down

  • NEWS LIMITED NETWORK
  • MAY 20, 2013 7:27AM

001105-tom-waterhouse.jpg

NO DEAL: Tom Waterhouse has walked away from sponsorship talks with the NRL. Picture: Getty Images Source: Getty Images


A SPONSORSHIP deal between bookmaker Tom Waterhouse and the NRL appears to have broken down with both parties walking away from negotiations.


"We failed to reach agreement around terms with Tom Waterhouse," the NRL's general manager for strategy, Shane Mattiske, told ABC's Four Corners in an interview to be broadcast tonight.Earlier this year, it was reported the NRL had clinched a deal with Waterhouse after the high-profile bookmaker started advertising heavily on Channel 9's NRL coverage.

It was reported his combined NRL-Channel 9 deal would be $50 million over five years.The NRL did not sign off on the deal for Waterhouse to replace Tabcorp as the NRL's sports betting sponsor.T

he breakdown in talks between Waterhouse and the NRL does not affect his deal with Channel 9 which has attracted widespread criticism because of his advertising intruding on broadcasts.

The NRL insists the breakdown was not a result of the public backlash against Mr Waterhouse after he appeared on Channel 9's expert commentary panel in March.

Tonight's Four Corners investigates the big changes underway in the sports betting business, from Waterhouse to his global competitors and the political backlash against it.

Read More: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/sponsorship-talks-between-tom-waterhouse-and-nrl-break-down/story-fni3fbgz-1226646411871
 
Last edited:
Codes are calculating which horse to back


106315-shane-mattiske.jpg

NRL general manager for strategy Shane Mattiske. Picture: Brett Costello Source: The Daily Telegraph


​
THE ARL Commission was locked behind glass doors at League Central for most of yesterday, and those who run the game spent much of that time debating whether they should dance with the devil.

Should they jump into bed with the corporate bookmakers and their wads of cash, or listen to the growing roar of disapproval from fans who cannot watch another second of Tom Waterhouse telling them what they want?Should they listen to mum and dad, who fear their seven-year-old will start barracking for Ben Barba but only on the proviso he is the first tryscorer, or the last so they can get their money back?(And remember kids, gamble responsibly).

Typically, the game's powerbrokers emerged around dinner time last night to offer a typical response -- no response."The commission has taken the view that it wants to assess this space," NRL general manager for strategy Shane Mattiske said last night."We're considering a range of factors, including the current landscape and the current debate."Was he referring to the avalanche of public criticism that has been levelled at Waterhouse and bookmakers in general since Monday night's Four Corners report into their excessive and growing relationship with sport.

"I'm simply talking about the current debate," Mattiske said.AFL boss Andrew Demetriou was slightly more direct -- as expected -- when asked about claims on Four Corners from former Demons champion David Schwarz that the AFL was getting drunk on gambling revenue."I've been at pains to say if the AFL wasn't involved with gambling agencies there'd still be betting," Demetriou told the ABC."The reason we're involved with gambling agencies is not for the revenue. It's so we've got access to information to protect the integrity of the code. We get access to betting sheets."That's how we catch people who bet on football."That's how we try to protect the game.

Secondly, we get the right to veto certain bet types."Integrity is a word being tossed about right now like the footy in the dying moments of golden point.Fears the codes could go the way of the Indian Premier League, in a country where betting is non-regulated, are naive and hysterical.Two years ago, Collingwood's Heath Shaw had a $10 bet on his captain to kick the opening goal in a match.

He was caught then suspended for eight matches and fined $20,000.The betting in the Bulldogs-Cowboys game was turned off well before Ryan Tandy lay all over the Cowboys' Grant Rovelli to give away the first penalty of the match.When the coalition of major sports decided in 2010 to address the volcanic eruption of sports betting, integrity was put up as the key factor in starting a relationship with gambling agencies.

The part they didn't publicise too loudly -- and Demetriou conveniently forgot yesterday -- was that they wanted their considerable slice of a sports betting market that has an estimated value of $4 billion.

The debate Mattiske won't mention is whether rugby league is prepared to snap up the $20 million or so Waterhouse was prepared to give them from another wagering operator, and at the same time feel the heat from fans, media commentators and excitable politicians sick of being told by the young bookie that he knows what they want.



Read More: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ch-horse-to-back/story-fni3fbgz-1226647953085
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top