Noticed we don’t have one on the kit today.

Is that because we haven’t signed one yet & it’ll be added later, or have we taken a decision not to go with one?

We’ll have one soon enough. A club that chooses a betting firm as their main sponsor isn’t going to decide to give up on any revenue.

And we've just announced that dodgy gambling company BK8 as the training kit sponsor again

RickyBobby wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 10:56 am

We’ll have one soon enough. A club that chooses a betting firm as their main sponsor isn’t going to decide to give up on any revenue.

That will be every club then.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 11:25 am

And we've just announced that dodgy gambling company BK8 as the training kit sponsor again

dude, it's perfect

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 11:49 am

dude, it's perfect

If you're happy seeing them on our shirts then that's your choice. At least Norwich listened to their fans and pulled the plug on their deal with them.

i was being somewhat sarcastic. It is not ideal but Norwich are the exception to the rule in all of this really,

It's just anything to have a go at the club with you. Perhaps you don't like the lack of control,

CT is spot on with this one

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 12:19 pm

i was being somewhat sarcastic. It is not ideal but Norwich are the exception to the rule in all of this really,

It's just anything to have a go at the club with you. Perhaps you don't like the lack of control,

What a load of nonsense.

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 12:19 pm

i was being somewhat sarcastic. It is not ideal but Norwich are the exception to the rule in all of this really,

It's just anything to have a go at the club with you. Perhaps you don't like the lack of control,

Interestingly Sheffield United - with all their financial challenges have reportedly turned down offers from three different betting companies re front of shirt sponsorship - apparently because they don't want a betting company

Luton are also very reluctant to take a betting sponsor (having had offers) even though their chief exec has spoken public of the fact that £50m of the coming seasons earnings will be spent
- £25m on promotion costs (including upgrades at Kenilworth road and
- £25m towards the new ground

it can be done - it comes down to choice and as often the case in life the choices of good citizenship are usually the the ones that carry the biggest cost

so we have a few examples. Exception rather than the rule,

Makes you wonder how these club owners sleep at night having something perfectly legal sponsor the club. Had I been so against it I would find myself feeling a bit hypocritical if I had a bet, watched any games while we in the "Skybet" championship or even worse paid money to watch games in the said division.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 12:09 pm

If you're happy seeing them on our shirts then that's your choice. At least Norwich listened to their fans and pulled the plug on their deal with them.

I think we are in the minority at our club on this one - not for the first time and probably not the last, to my mind it is all so grubby and totally against what the club claims to be - 'One club for all'

Some will tell you that having different options is inclusive - that is wrong - inclusivity is offering exactly the same access/experience to everyone without demarcation, separation or variation. What the club offers is a limited range of choice at varying levels of access and price with the latter becoming a greater issue for those of lower means.

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:35 pm

so we have a few examples. Exception rather than the rule,

or if you look at the three promoted clubs - the majority

to date we have 8 of the 20 with a betting sponsor on the front of shirt - again a minority

that could be consider 8 of 13 - if we put Newcastle in with the big 6 which seems reasonable - it is a minority yes, but a minority with a growing trend of moving away from betting, so no longer an exception

Yeah lets put Newcastle and how they obtain money on a pedestal.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:57 pm

Yeah lets put Newcastle and how they obtain money on a pedestal.

As if i would

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:27 pm

Interestingly Sheffield United - with all their financial challenges have reportedly turned down offers from three different betting companies re front of shirt sponsorship - apparently because they don't want a betting company

Luton are also very reluctant to take a betting sponsor (having had offers) even though their chief exec has spoken public of the fact that £50m of the coming seasons earnings will be spent
- £25m on promotion costs (including upgrades at Kenilworth road and
- £25m towards the new ground

it can be done - it comes down to choice and as often the case in life the choices of good citizenship are usually the the ones that carry the biggest cost

Luton probably don't expect to stay up, which is a big difference

I don’t understand why football fans suddenly find a moral compass when it comes to a betting sponsor.

The game is literally rancid behind the scenes this is the least of anyone’s worries.

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:19 pm

Luton probably don't expect to stay up, which is a big difference

Luton have made a stance on gambling for a number of years - last season they worked with The Big Step (https://the-bigstep.com/) devoting a home game to the cause

They are one of only two clubs in the EFL/Premier League to sign up to that cause

So yes that very much puts them into a minority - before anyone makes the point

Luton will be like us in 2014, but have a long term plan to be in the top flight on a more regular basis while running themselves sustainably

At least it can't be as bad as Leeds' new sleeve sponsor.. can it??

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:26 pm

I don’t understand why football fans suddenly find a moral compass when it comes to a betting sponsor.

The game is literally rancid behind the scenes this is the least of anyone’s worries.

If you looking for a consistent perspective you will find that what you are speaking about is something I have been documenting and commenting on for almost 6 years on the MMT

Moan, bl____y moan.

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:26 pm

I don’t understand why football fans suddenly find a moral compass when it comes to a betting sponsor.

The game is literally rancid behind the scenes this is the least of anyone’s worries.

Agreed.

It’s ok to have gambling on numerous shirts, however Chelsea currently without a sponsor on their shirts wanted Paramount+ as their sponsor. It’s perceived to be a rival and therefore isn’t allowed. Funny how the EPL works.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:27 pm

Interestingly Sheffield United - with all their financial challenges have reportedly turned down offers from three different betting companies re front of shirt sponsorship - apparently because they don't want a betting company

Luton are also very reluctant to take a betting sponsor (having had offers) even though their chief exec has spoken public of the fact that £50m of the coming seasons earnings will be spent
- £25m on promotion costs (including upgrades at Kenilworth road and
- £25m towards the new ground

it can be done - it comes down to choice and as often the case in life the choices of good citizenship are usually the the ones that carry the biggest cost

Moralistic Sheff Utd? Is this the same Sheff Utd recently sponsored by Randox?

MrTopTier wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 5:10 pm

Agreed.

It’s ok to have gambling on numerous shirts, however Chelsea currently without a sponsor on their shirts wanted Paramount+ as their sponsor. It’s perceived to be a rival and therefore isn’t allowed. Funny how the EPL works.

This was mainly down to NBC kicking up a fuss due to owning the Premier league rights in the USA. Paramount plus (CBS) (own the Champions league rights) are a big rival in the USA to NBC's Peacock streaming service. They didn't want a rival to be advertising on their own streaming service and with the money they spend for the rights, the Premier league have gone along with it to support a high valued partner.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:34 pm

Luton have made a stance on gambling for a number of years - last season they worked with The Big Step (https://the-bigstep.com/) devoting a home game to the cause

They are one of only two clubs in the EFL/Premier League to sign up to that cause

So yes that very much puts them into a minority - before anyone makes the point

Luton will be like us in 2014, but have a long term plan to be in the top flight on a more regular basis while running themselves sustainably

TBF we found it easy to not have a gambling shirt sponsor in the championship..... although we did nix that somewhat with the BK8 training wear deal

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:26 pm

I don’t understand why football fans suddenly find a moral compass when it comes to a betting sponsor.

The game is literally rancid behind the scenes this is the least of anyone’s worries.

Does the rancid stuff that goes on behind the scenes lead to hundreds of suicides a year?

JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 14, 2023 2:30 pm

Does the rancid stuff that goes on behind the scenes lead to hundreds of suicides a year?

In the past we've had alcohol sponsors (and not just alcohol...more like alcopop), oil, and even banks... And that's just Burnley. Each one of them can be construed as damaging in their own way, but I don't remember much kickback regarding those.

Belial wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 14, 2023 2:40 pm

In the past we've had alcohol sponsors (and not just alcohol...more like alcopop), oil, and even banks... And that's just Burnley. Each one of them can be construed as damaging in their own way, but I don't remember much kickback regarding those.

Totally wicked have been a sponsor too, obviously there wasn't a bandwagon passing by during the alcohol or vaping sponsors