A thread on our new nefarious new front of shirt sponsor96.com

I'd love people from the club to explain to me their method of due diligence when making the decision to align themselves with this anonymous betting firm without simply saying 'money innit'. I'm let down by the FAB too for not being more resilient in their feeling about being associated with these types of firms.

96.com is a White Label betting firm operating under the trading name of TGP Europe Ltd, a tax dodge nestled in a broom cupboard at the back of a tiny office in the middle of a Douglas back street on the Isle of Man.






Who is TGP Europe? It's hard to actually find out. Owned by another 'group' in Asia, called Sun City Group.



Anyway, he seem nice... https://sigma.world/news/suncity-group- ... -gambling/



Also, on n TGP books is 6686.com. A betting firm who have previously sponsored Wolves in the EPL. Were found to be illegally streaming football matches. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... tches.html



I AM MORE THAN FED UP WITH SEEING MY CLUB BEING A SOUND-PIECE FOR THIS CRAP!

I hope this can start a healthy conversation and also, inspire you to look around and do some more digging ad the incredibly dodgy underworlds these betting companies are linked to.

(Please note, I am not against betting, I like a bet. I'm more offended by oversees using out proud and wonderful club to promote their heinous companies that are in the middle over organised crime, poverty and many many other wrongdoings.

It is a matter for Government. Our club's duty is to maximise legal revenue.

claretronnie wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:32 am

A thread on our new nefarious new front of shirt sponsor96.com

I'd love people from the club to explain to me their method of due diligence when making the decision to align themselves with this anonymous betting firm without simply saying 'money innit'. I'm let down by the FAB too for not being more resilient in their feeling about being associated with these types of firms.

96.com is a White Label betting firm operating under the trading name of TGP Europe Ltd, a tax dodge nestled in a broom cupboard at the back of a tiny office in the middle of a Douglas back street on the Isle of Man.






Who is TGP Europe? It's hard to actually find out. Owned by another 'group' in Asia, called Sun City Group.



Anyway, he seem nice... https://sigma.world/news/suncity-group- ... -gambling/



Also, on n TGP books is 6686.com. A betting firm who have previously sponsored Wolves in the EPL. Were found to be illegally streaming football matches. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... tches.html



I AM MORE THAN FED UP WITH SEEING MY CLUB BEING A SOUND-PIECE FOR THIS CRAP!

I hope this can start a healthy conversation and also, inspire you to look around and do some more digging ad the incredibly dodgy underworlds these betting companies are linked to.

(Please note, I am not against betting, I like a bet. I'm more offended by oversees using out proud and wonderful club to promote their heinous companies that are in the middle over organised crime, poverty and many many other wrongdoings.

Is there any difference from last seasons sponsor?

Aren't W88 owned by TGP Europe?

Didn't someone from this board raise this to Alan Pace as a concern early in his tenure. Vaguely remember him apparently saying he agreed and would look into it.

Looks like it was a pretty short review when he saw the money on offer.

Goliath wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:43 pm

Didn't someone from this board raise this to Alan Pace as a concern early in his tenure. Vaguely remember him apparently saying he agreed and would look into it.

Looks like it was a pretty short review when he saw the money on offer.

jdrobbo I think, and I'm sure Pace said he felt strongly on the subject (with him being a Mormon presumably) and there'd be a full review.

As you say though, money talks.

Agree with Zizkov.

Business leaders will do whatever they can to make money, which is why it's down to governments to legislate against harmful practices.

Until the government does that, football clubs will keep taking grubby money.

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:33 am

It is a matter for Government. Our club's duty is to maximise legal revenue.

Even though the Church of Latter Day Saints do not allow gambling. Perhaps it is ok to gain financially from it as long as it is only non Mormons who are gambling?

Jamesy wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:56 pm

Even though the Church of Latter Day Saints do not allow gambling. Perhaps it is ok to gain financially from it as long as it is only non Mormons who are gambling?

Plenty of Casinos owned by teetotal non gamblers. It's hardly a first

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:58 pm

Plenty of Casinos owned by teetotal non gamblers. It's hardly a first

I know, but it is very hypocritical.

Jamesy wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:01 pm

I know, but it is very hypocritical.

Such is life

1. 22A Castle Street Douglas is the door on the left in https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.15324 ... &entry=ttu

2. Last years shirt sponsor were white labelled out of a different location in Poole

3. TGP Europe also is the same white label that our training gear sponsor for the last two years operate out of. They also gave Villa £12mn last year for front of shirt sponsorship.

4. You are about a decade late on blaming the board for taking the money, we were doing this prior to ALK coming on board.

5. It's all well and good saying the club should turn these sponsors away. I'm quite sure that ALK agree with you. However, the club have a reason for taking the money. Well, around ten million reasons a season in the PL. If there is another company out there that isn't gambling/crypto/whatever dodginess and is willing to provide something approaching the same number of reasons a year, then I am absolutely sure that they would like to meet them. And I'm willing to bet (aha!) that there is some moral ambiguity with those companies too.

6. We're about to play in a division sponsored by a betting company

7. It sucks, but there is nothing we as fans can do about it unless someone out there is willing to make up the several million reasons a year shortfall taken by a moral stance.

Plissken wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:05 pm

1. 22A Castle Street Douglas is the door on the left in https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.15324 ... &entry=ttu

2. Last years shirt sponsor were white labelled out of a different location in Poole

3. TGP Europe also is the same white label that our training gear sponsor for the last two years operate out of. They also gave Villa £12mn last year for front of shirt sponsorship.

4. You are about a decade late on blaming the board for taking the money, we were doing this prior to ALK coming on board.

5. It's all well and good saying the club should turn these sponsors away. I'm quite sure that ALK agree with you. However, the club have a reason for taking the money. Well, around ten million reasons a season in the PL. If there is another company out there that isn't gambling/crypto/whatever dodginess and is willing to provide something approaching the same number of reasons a year, then I am absolutely sure that they would like to meet them. And I'm willing to bet (aha!) that there is some moral ambiguity with those companies too.

6. We're about to play in a division sponsored by a betting company

7. It sucks, but there is nothing we as fans can do about it unless someone out there is willing to make up the several million reasons a year shortfall taken by a moral stance.

You are an intelligent, considered and eloquent chap who is very aware of the nuances in what you are talking about, though you have not included them in you list

1 - yes, this fact has been well established even on this message board

2 - as 1

3 - as 1 and 2 though there is plenty of other much more disturbing information about that particular operation most of which has been supplied by Josimar Football Magazine and has been extensively covered on the MMT

4 - absolute fact, no quibbles

5 - Moral ambiguity in this day and age is impossible to avoid as the Arts are finding out to their considerable cost. Possibly a clearer indication of stance should be whether or not the club is aiding/facilitating criminal activity in it's commercial partners primary target markets and how that partner operates it's own activities.

6 - if we use the point I raise for 5 - SkyBet is a legal operation operating legally in it's target markets and treats its staff rather differently to BK8 who still appear to be in partnership with the club

7 - there is plenty that we can do, just look at what both Norwich and Chelsea fans have managed to do in recent seasons - I am well aware of the contradictions in some of the actions of Chelsea fans re the club's former owner - the point is that they were able to enforce a change of decision

the use of money as the only measure is a vacuously neo-liberal stance -it may fit the ownership group (and a depressing proportion of the fanbase), but it doesn't fit with the traditions of the club and the town.

Plissken wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:05 pm

1. 22A Castle Street Douglas is the door on the left in https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.15324 ... &entry=ttu


4. You are about a decade late on blaming the board for taking the money, we were doing this prior to ALK coming on board.

Aye, but when it was local people or Burnley fans doing this it is due to them wanting to bring revenue into the club. When it is American owners then it becomes immoral and disgraceful.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:47 pm

You are an intelligent, considered and eloquent chap who is very aware of the nuances in what you are talking about, though you have not included them in you list



6 - if we use the point I raise for 5 - SkyBet is a legal operation operating legally in it's target markets and treats its staff rather differently to BK8 who still appear to be in partnership with the club

Skybet limit peoples accounts to very small stakes if they do well for a while making it pointless to use them. Losing accounts are often awarded free spins on casino slots.

I wouldn't be rushing out to defend skybet if you are going to complain about the type you don't like

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:56 pm

Skybet limit peoples accounts to very small stakes if they do well for a while making it pointless to use them. Losing accounts are often awarded free spins on casino slots.

I wouldn't be rushing out to defend skybet if you are going to complain about the type you don't like

I am not and never have been an advocate of Betting in sport - the point I am making, and I believe you are fully aware of it, is the legal operational difference in commercial partners in in target markets. Which is removed from my personal views on the engagement of a commercial betting partner.

First time in a long while I've been accused of having a neo-liberal point of view. Interesting Chelsea should be mentioned who are sponsored by a company for an amount of money that exceeds its entire turnover, which the PL is looking the other way about because the reason that company is there is the PL won't allow competitors to advertise on its TV partners.

Anyway, point is, this ship sailed for football, let along Burnley FC a long time ago. And to quote a hero of mine, "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of 'em was one kinda sombitch or another.". You can pretty much pick any company and find some murkiness in its past.

The club have put shirts on sale without the logo. As someone who doesn't buy any merch with sponsors I disagree with, I am happy with that. You can take the positive view that by doing this the club are respecting the views of fans like me, or you can take the negative view that it shows that the money being put in by the sponsor isn't aimed at Burnley fans, never was and we are an irrelevance. Both are true, take your pick.

If you want to find morals, modern football isn't the place to start looking.

Does it really matter? The end line for all of us is the club being in business, & profitable. You want to look at the Gibraltar model?

Makes more sense if it is a front for something. Can’t understand the demand for all these gambling companies with combinations of letters and numbers otherwise. This outfit don’t look good based on the OP. Is the Newcastle or Man City money clean ? Do the footballing authorities care ? Where are the morals when clubs go bust and players get paid but the small business owners don’t ? Money talks in football but it is a grubby business with few morals particularly the higher up the pyramid you go.

Plissken wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:13 pm

First time in a long while I've been accused of having a neo-liberal point of view. Interesting Chelsea should be mentioned who are sponsored by a company for an amount of money that exceeds its entire turnover, which the PL is looking the other way about because the reason that company is there is the PL won't allow competitors to advertise on its TV partners.

Anyway, point is, this ship sailed for football, let along Burnley FC a long time ago. And to quote a hero of mine, "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of 'em was one kinda sombitch or another.". You can pretty much pick any company and find some murkiness in its past.

The club have put shirts on sale without the logo. As someone who doesn't buy any merch with sponsors I disagree with, I am happy with that. You can take the positive view that by doing this the club are respecting the views of fans like me, or you can take the negative view that it shows that the money being put in by the sponsor isn't aimed at Burnley fans, never was and we are an irrelevance. Both are true, take your pick.

If you want to find morals, modern football isn't the place to start looking.

Eloquent post.

Every year we have the same debate and it’s a bit tiresome, although I think in general the level of interest in the topic is dwindling as less people engage in threads like this. It’s just about par for the course with us and other clubs in a similar position and I think therefore what fans expect.

I’d love us to be sponsored by a big, super clean corporate whose products don’t cause cancer, contain alcohol, sugar, fats, ruin the environment or promote some other activity that society would consider a vice, but sadly they don’t seem interested or willing to pay the going rate to sponsor us.

Hopefully that will change in future but I’m the meantime I’m at one with it. Fortunately now everyone who has an objection has a route to show the club by buying a sponsorless shirt.

We could always follow the first Forrest Green model, which I do respect, but ultimately the football is crap.

Plissken wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:13 pm

First time in a long while I've been accused of having a neo-liberal point of view. Interesting Chelsea should be mentioned who are sponsored by a company for an amount of money that exceeds its entire turnover, which the PL is looking the other way about because the reason that company is there is the PL won't allow competitors to advertise on its TV partners.

Anyway, point is, this ship sailed for football, let along Burnley FC a long time ago. And to quote a hero of mine, "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of 'em was one kinda sombitch or another.". You can pretty much pick any company and find some murkiness in its past.

The club have put shirts on sale without the logo. As someone who doesn't buy any merch with sponsors I disagree with, I am happy with that. You can take the positive view that by doing this the club are respecting the views of fans like me, or you can take the negative view that it shows that the money being put in by the sponsor isn't aimed at Burnley fans, never was and we are an irrelevance. Both are true, take your pick.

If you want to find morals, modern football isn't the place to start looking.

I do not consider you Neo-Liberal in any way, my surprise was in your narrow choice of measure

I concur with the statue point

I do not put any money into football at all and haven't done for over 20 years, though like you I consider the option offered on (adult only shirts) to lose the sponsor logo a positive one.

If the club wants to operate and build a global fan/client base then surely it needs to respect the laws of all countries and can do this more easily if it does not enter into commercial partnerships with organisations that are primarily focussed on encouraging illegal activities within its target markets

Finding morals anywhere these days is challenge, but if we want change, it has to start somewhere and football clubs have an incredible ability to bring people together.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:37 pm

I’d love us to be sponsored by a big, super clean corporate whose products don’t cause cancer.....

We were sponsored by Classic Football Shirts two seasons ago. I don't know if they fit your criteria.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:52 pm

We were sponsored by Classic Football Shirts two seasons ago. I don't know if they fit your criteria.

Not really because they’re basically a relatively small outfit with two shops and not a sustainable sponsor for what is seeking to be one of the country’s top football teams.

That’s why I said large corporate.

Worth noting that the rumour was they got the sponsorship for nothing and they just advertised our shirts in return because literally nobody wanted to sponsor us in that post-relegation era… proving we’ve at least become a more commercially attractive proposition over the last few years.

claretronnie wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 4:22 pm

I'd just like to be sponsored by an actual business, not some seedy front for and oversees gambling firm. Alan the Moron, sorry Moron, sorry I keep doing it. Alan the Mormon is not a man of his word, ethics or morals he claims to be. I've had enough of it now. The club feel s different to me these days, it's loosing it identity, it's feel and what it stands fore more and more. I just don't love this iteration of Burnley Football Club, and that makes me sad.

Which bit of the tweet by Pace don't you understand. When someone says it will be reviewed it doesn't mean it won't happen it means it will be reviewed. Still you got a dig in so I am sure you achieved your goal

claretronnie wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 4:22 pm

I'd just like to be sponsored by an actual business, not some seedy front for and oversees gambling firm. Alan the Moron, sorry Moron, sorry I keep doing it. Alan the Mormon is not a man of his word, ethics or morals he claims to be. I've had enough of it now. The club feel s different to me these days, it's loosing it identity, it's feel and what it stands fore more and more. I just don't love this iteration of Burnley Football Club, and that makes me sad.

He's far from a moron, Ronnie.

Jury's out on yourself

Someone’s personal or even religious beliefs don’t always have to be reflected in a business they run. I used to know a Jewish guy who would not drive a German car under any circumstances but he would buy and sell one to make money. The board might feel a gambling sponsor suits the club at this moment in time financially although they personally wouldn’t have anything to do with it. There is a distinction although this particular organisation on the surface look a bit unsavoury.

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:33 am

It is a matter for Government. Our club's duty is to maximise legal revenue.

Well, that's one of them. They should also be considering (in fact it is a legal requirement to do so):

the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct

But like many things, these white label firms are a football problem, not just a Burnley problem. It would be nice to be a leader in these things but I'm not actually sure if that is what the majority of fans would want.

aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 12, 2024 10:51 am

Well, that's one of them. They should also be considering (in fact it is a legal requirement to do so):

the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct

But like many things, these white label firms are a football problem, not just a Burnley problem. It would be nice to be a leader in these things but I'm not actually sure if that is what the majority of fans would want.

Frankly, we can't afford to be some sort of white knight moral crusader here, or in many other aspects.

Where would it end? Turning down arguably "unfair" parachute payments? Capping our ground capacity to that of our smallest league competitor?

We should do, as a rule, what is right for Burnley FC.

I think it's pretty clear that on a personal level AP isn't happy about gambling or the promoting of gambling. His strong religious beliefs and the fact that in the past he's basically said as much mean it's a safe assumption he would prefer not to go down that route if it was avoidable. However as the guy in charge of a multi million pound business it's his job to maximise revenue, especially as after the season we just had, the future of the business could look pretty bleak in a couple of years if things don't work out. I, like many others, thought being sponsored by "Classic Football Shirts" was a breath of fresh air, but I also realise they probably paid a fraction of what the betting companies pay for the privilege unfortunately. Pace and co are in a difficult place with this, but they have to be pragmatic.

Asian betting. Not us. What is the problem?

I would like us to be sponsored by a nice Scottish Single Malt!

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 12, 2024 10:54 am

We should do, as a rule, what is right for Burnley FC.

If you ran a business, or if you do, would you do business with any individual or organisation as long as your company benifited?

Do are we all saying its hugely disappointing but necessary?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 12, 2024 10:21 pm

If you ran a business, or if you do, would you do business with any individual or organisation as long as your company benifited?

If legally and reputationally sound, sure.

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:55 am

If legally and reputationally sound, sure.

I think the point is they’re not reputationally sound.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:30 am

I think the point is they’re not reputationally sound.

You were asking what I would do, were you not?

Pace makes his own choices.