This is just doing the rounds.....

article here
https://insidersport.com/2025/05/16/pre ... g-sponsor/

Saw this. Presumably leaves us with an income gap this season, but could it be a good thing?

I assume we negotiated this as a Championship club and took the associated hit on the value of the deal. If we’re now free from the deal we can try and negotiate with a new sponsor on a PL footing.

Weird given they are meant to be sponsor us next season, although probably under the regular 96.com domain

from the MMT

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 2:47 pm

Indeed TGP Europe has long been under scrutiny much of which has appeared in this thread, of course our club has ignored all of this through successive ownerships


this is what the Gambling Commission have said on the matter

TGP Europe leaves GB market following Commission investigation
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/n ... estigation
https://archive.ph/7svbH

Suspected something like this would come up when the players all wore retro shirts rather than the current season's shirt for the celebrations.

It is a farce though, the Gambling comission "warning of the risks" is so wishy washy. F**king legislate against it or stfu

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 3:00 pm

It is a farce though, the Gambling comission "warning of the risks" is so wishy washy. F**king legislate against it or stfu

I find it funny when clowns like Ray Winstone advises people to gamble responsibly. If everyone who has a bet gambled responsibly they wouldn't even be able to afford to pay his wages.

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 2:57 pm

Suspected something like this would come up when the players all wore retro shirts rather than the current season's shirt for the celebrations.

Might also explain the back to front craze?

Well, in other news everyone expected: grass is green.

BBC News - Four Premier League clubs warned over gambling sponsors

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 9vnk2pky8o

If happily accept an LDS charity as sponsor if it meant getting rid of a betting company

KernowHouseClaret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 4:26 pm

If happily accept an LDS charity as sponsor if it meant getting rid of a betting company

Our accountant wouldn't, especially with interest alone on our debts being £11m a season. I think the very best deal we've done on a shirt sponsor wouldn't cover that.

ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 2:57 pm

Suspected something like this would come up when the players all wore retro shirts rather than the current season's shirt for the celebrations.

Quite a few were wearing the white third kit with this sponsor on.

I'm sure it's a breach of contract either way and will get out of the deal.

How about just not using unlicensed Thai betting firms as shirt sponsors. Really doesn't reflect the positive community all inclusive football club that we are. Not to mention how online betting and advertisement on our pitchside digital screens can affect and influence people and their mental health.

Isn't this now 2 dodgy sponsors we've been associated with in recent years

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 7:18 pm

Isn't this now 2 dodgy sponsors we've been associated with in recent years

Every foreign betting company is dodgy. We’ve been associated with them for a decade or more?

Fun88 were also part of the crackdown

This is the last season now anyway. Be interesting to see where clubs go next to chase the money.

Poulton-le-Claret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 4:16 pm

BBC News - Four Premier League clubs warned over gambling sponsors

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 9vnk2pky8o

I note that following the warning from the Gambling Commission that our club's website is still carrying click through links to 96uk.com (which says it isn't trading to new or existing customers)

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/mor ... ial/96-com

surely it would be easier to just take the links down even if the rest stays

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 7:23 pm

Every foreign betting company is dodgy. We’ve been associated with them for a decade or more?

I'd go as far as saying every gambling company is dodgy (although that's a debate for another day)

But I think there was another minor sponsor who had been in trouble when sponsoring Norwich?

PremierLeagueClass wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 7:31 pm

This is the last season now anyway. Be interesting to see where clubs go next to chase the money.

Follow Everton and get a solicitors involved. Biggest stadium naming deal supposedly.

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 7:56 pm

I'd go as far as saying every gambling company is dodgy (although that's a debate for another day)

But I think there was another minor sponsor who had been in trouble when sponsoring Norwich?

BK8 who sponsor the training kit (possibly Gawthorpe too) have also ceased to accept bets from new and existing clients

https://www.bk8.uk/#/lobby


there is reduced click-through on the club website for them

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/more/commercial/bk8

you have to go down to the list of sponsors at the bottom of the page and click the BK8 icon

the problems with BK8 have been discussed at length on this board - and are greater than that which caused Norwich to drop them - not that the seemed to care

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75856&p=2335262&hilit=bk8#p2335262

Oh well, something to keep the new CEO chap busy

Wokingclaret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 8:31 pm

Oh well, something to keep the new CEO chap busy

theoretically the commercial side should fall under the remit of Stuart Hunt at board level

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 8:36 pm

theoretically the commercial side should fall under the remit of Stuart Hunt at board level

is it time we got naming rights to the Turf ? I know nobody would like it but it seems a needs must scenario

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 8:38 pm

is it time we got naming rights to the Turf ? I know nobody would like it but it seems a needs must scenario

no it isn't - not for the money it the sponsorship is worth - the problem all sponsors have is that the whole world would just call it Turf Moor - that is what 142 years of history does

"James will take up the role this summer, reporting to Chairman Alan Pace, where he will lead Burnley’s off-pitch ambitions including brand, commercial, innovation, fan engagement, and global growth."

we don't know how things will change

Not surprised in the slightest. It’s an absolutely filthy business.

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 8:46 pm

Not surprised in the slightest. It’s an absolutely filthy business.

It has been telegraphed for years yet our club has constantly chosen to look the other way

Dodgy betting companies aren't half as bad as fake businesses laundering the proceeds of drug sales and other criminal activities in full view of the authorities.

They are here on our streets, in our Towns and Cities. Never mind though eh, they are paying rates to Councils, VAT to the Government and make it look like the economy is booming.

Are we expecting to be sponsored by a Barbers?

We should take whatever the highest offer is. Whether you agree with betting sponsorships or not, it’s all about getting the most money in.

Four Premier League clubs have been warned by the Gambling Commission over their relationship with an unlicensed gambling business.
Bournemouth, Fulham, Newcastle, and Wolves - plus Burnley who have earned promotion from the Championship are all sponsored by betting websites run by TGP Europe.

The company surrendered its British licence after an investigation found it had failed to "carry out sufficient checks on business partners" and breached "anti-money laundering rules".

Premier League clubs have agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of their matchday shirts by the end of the 2025-26 season.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... 9vnk2pky8o

JohnMac wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 9:08 pm

Dodgy betting companies aren't half as bad as fake businesses laundering the proceeds of drug sales and other criminal activities in full view of the authorities.

They are here on our streets, in our Towns and Cities. Never mind though eh, they are paying rates to Councils, VAT to the Government and make it look like the economy is booming.

I'm not sure you thought your reply through. It just doesnt make sense.

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 7:18 pm

Isn't this now 2 dodgy sponsors we've been associated with in recent years

Fun88, also named, were our sponsors 2010-12 and 2014-16 - there have been issues with W88, Dafabet, Lovebet and Laba 360 all sponsors under one or other of the last two ownership regimes

It is a sorry but far from isolated recent history

already a thread

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=81576

claret wizard wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 8:02 pm

Follow Everton and get a solicitors involved. Biggest stadium naming deal supposedly.

They are a £145m revenue business so if they’ve paid a record fee for the naming rights they are very very stupid.

I genuinely don't understand how somebody with the religious beliefs of Alan Pace can sign off on sponsors such as this. There surely becomes.a moral responsibility when you follow certain ideologys.

Goliath wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 11:43 pm

I genuinely don't understand how somebody with the religious beliefs of Alan Pace can sign off on sponsors such as this. There surely becomes.a moral responsibility when you follow certain ideologys.

Not when you have investors to satisfy and performance on the pitch to achieve.

It’s nothing specific to Alan Pace though, our club have been at it for decades under successful owners.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Sat May 17, 2025 12:22 am

Not when you have investors to satisfy and performance on the pitch to achieve.

It’s nothing specific to Alan Pace though, our club have been at it for decades under successful owners.

Aren’t Pace & Co our first “owners”? All before were supporters who rose to be chairman. Jackson, Teasdale out, Kilby, Garlick all supporters. Yes, Bob Lord was a bit of a dictator. But he was Burnley through and through. Fans were shareholders, we had AGM’s that we could attend. I know some fans still have shares, but I’m sure they’re irrelevant in Paces world.

Visit Colombia .....
Sure the lads in CFS would be happy .

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 8:42 pm

no it isn't - not for the money it the sponsorship is worth - the problem all sponsors have is that the whole world would just call it Turf Moor - that is what 142 years of history does

I agree that supporters would still call the ground by it's original name, but that's not where the sponsorship is aimed at. The media would call it by it's sponsored name all over the world, the advertising boards for TV would all be the sponsors, I know who flys where by watching arsenal and city on sky.

Probably rubbish, but the lad in the club shop reckoned it’d either be ALK or Oak Furniture Land on the shirts instead

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Sat May 17, 2025 5:30 pm

Probably rubbish, but the lad in the club shop reckoned it’d either be ALK or Oak Furniture Land on the shirts instead

ALK? Or maybe EMA again.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat May 17, 2025 7:44 pm

ALK? Or maybe EMA again.

It was definitely ALK, but he also looked about 12 so it’s far from gospel.

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Sat May 17, 2025 8:06 pm

It was definitely ALK, but he also looked about 12 so it’s far from gospel.

I wasnt aware joking. EMA was on the blue shirts in 2022/23 but I’m not sure the company ever existed.

I got a shirt without this sponsor let’s leave it there

We should take the best paying, legal sponsor we can get.