Next seasons shirt sponsor.

[CombatClaret]

that is an awful approach to taking on a sponsorship designed to circumvent legal restrictions in South East Asia
the fact that we now have two such sponsorships is even worse

Another dodgy betting company based in the Philippines with no UK presence that's only properly accessible using a VPN to get around the browser warnings.
Hate it, like I hated Fun88, Laba360 etc.

[elwaclaret]

I also didn't buy a computer from P3 Computers ...

Although our Kitchen Table and Side Board and Bed came from Oak Furniture Land, but not bought whilst they sponsored the shirt ... but because their products were what we wanted at a price that was right

Endsleigh had my car insurance for about 20years because they sponsored us.

[Chester Perry]

I've never really understood what Fun88, LoveBet, Dafabet, SpreadEx get out of it. Is it really worth the what? Six, seven, eight million they put in?

I have shared the information about that many times - just look at my last post on the MMT

[Chester Perry]

Also didn’t we have gambling sponsors before the new ownership, so the above is irrelevant

not really I have been critical about it for years

and you need to pay more attention to those posts of mine you are responding to - there is more relevant information in there than you appear to realise

[Chester Perry]

Another dodgy betting company based in the Philippines with no UK presence that's only properly accessible using a VPN to get around the browser warnings.
Hate it, like I hated Fun88, Laba360 etc.

technically it has to have a registered UK office, but that can be shared address - there is a suggestion that this is the one for W88 while label provider - Midnight Gaming Limited

https://twitter.com/MenarySteve/status/ ... 0173512704



whose address is found here
https://www.aihitdata.com/company/02AC1EE1/w88/overview

[123EasyasBFC]

not really I have been critical about it for years

and you need to pay more attention to those posts of mine you are responding to - there is more relevant information in there than you appear to realise

You used the ownership model as a reason as to why the club feel the need to use a gambling sponsor but we used it before the ownership model.

From you dodging the question, I take it that it’s just gambling sponsors you have a problem but you are fine with alcohol in the grounds, one certainly causes more problems than the other.

We won’t get into it eh, you have your opinion as to why with numbers and figures, I don’t think there’s a problem going with the best deal on the table

[Chester Perry]

You used the ownership model as a reason as to why the club feel the need to use a gambling sponsor but we used it before the ownership model.

From you dodging the question, I take it that it’s just gambling sponsors you have a problem but you are fine with alcohol in the grounds, one certainly causes more problems than the other.

We won’t get into it eh, you have your opinion as to why with numbers and figures, I don’t think there’s a problem going with the best deal on the table

you are making stuff up to suit your narrative

you said the club need the additional money that a gambling provider offers

I said the club wouldn't need the additional money if it didn't have to pay £3m a year in interest on loans that were taken out to pay for shares

I also said there were huge issues about White Label betting companies

Last time in the Premier League we had SpreadEx - a British gambling operation - I wasn't happy but found it preferential to the White Label operations - SpreadEx was operating in fully legally in the markets it served

White Label operations are circumventing south East Asian laws on gambling adverts - their target markets - while having zero or negligible operations in this country

you really need to be better informed before you make the statements you do

[forzagranata]

These companies have a budget each year to pay for sponsorship of Premier League clubs. The money is basically sat there waiting to be taken. They are by far the easiest 'deals' to do - in fact you can't really call them deals - the dosh is just there to be grabbed.

The alternative is to go out and strike an actual deal - have the ability to attract brands and sell them on the idea of sponsoring the club.

Given Alan Pace indicated the club wanted to move away from this sort of deals, the only conclusion that can be reached is that we haven't been able to pull off any deals that would bring in the same kind of revenue.

[claretonthecoast1882]

not true - every club can, they may not choose to, but they can - and it isn't £6m/£7m it is the difference between that and what non betting companies are offering

You can’t have it both ways, you are very quick to criticise the owners for not bringing in the sums you think they should through sponsorship now you are doing the same for taking probably the highest sum.

Gambling isn’t illegal in this country and a gambling sponsor isn’t against the law just because you don’t like it doesn’t make the club in the wrong. We have had vodka sponsor us as well as a pie firm and they were both deemed ok despite the potential for a small minority to develop a drink issue or obesity.

Still it provides you with something else to become fixated on I guess.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Given Alan Pace indicated the club wanted to move away from this sort of deals, the only conclusion that can be reached is that we haven't been able to pull off any deals that would bring in the same kind of revenue.

When did Pace indicate this?

[123EasyasBFC]

you are making stuff up to suit your narrative

you said the club need the additional money that a gambling provider offers

I said the club wouldn't need the additional money if it didn't have to pay £3m a year in interest on loans that were taken out to pay for shares

I also said there were huge issues about White Label betting companies

Last time in the Premier League we had SpreadEx - a British gambling operation - I wasn't happy but found it preferential to the White Label operations - SpreadEx was operating in fully legally in the markets it served

White Label operations are circumventing south East Asian laws on gambling adverts - their target markets - while having zero or negligible operations in this country

you really need to be better informed before you make the statements you do

Your also using figures to suit your narrative the new owners need a gambling sponsor because of the loans , you have you opinion which I respect, that doesn’t mean other people aren’t allowed to have a different opinion to you, why can’t you just accept and respect other people’s opinions, I also don’t know who you think you are to be replying to people saying ‘you really need to do this and that, nobody needs to do anything you tell them to do, you come across very aggressive on here at times.

Your fixated on gambling and figures but can’t answer a simple question about alcohol causing the same problems to fans

[claretonthecoast1882]

you really need to be better informed before you make the statements you do

Irony... you may want to remember this line when getting things wrong on the club finances. Reading something and not understanding it then writing articles isn't always the best approach.

[arise_sir_charge]

We had gambling sponsors prior to the new owners but lo and behold CP uses it as another stick to beat the new owners with. Anyone would think he had some kind of axe to grind. The fact he’s reported the new owners to an MP is a little odd also.

[roperclaret]

Well the club would be able to do a lot more if it hadn't had to:

- lend the owners £49.8m to pay for shares
- facilitate a loan with MSD to pay for shares that saw it pay over £10m in interest, over £2m in penalty fees and repay £33.2m
- before having to bear the burden on a refinancing loan of £39.7m (that cleared a debt of £32.8m) with annual interest of almost £3m a year, a figure that could be the difference between a gambling and non gambling sponsor

there is the further issue of what these 'white label' betting sponsors represent - there is much that is wrong with this beyond the issue of gambling per se

Chester, yet another thread where you spell out the detail of the leveraged buy out to have a go at the owners

[claretonthecoast1882]

We had gambling sponsors prior to the new owners but lo and behold CP uses it as another stick to beat the new owners with. Anyone would think he had some kind of axe to grind. The fact he’s reported the new owners to an MP is a little odd also.

Remember though he has no agenda, although his mask slips slightly with each post. Agreed on the reporting of the owners to an MP although I would class it as very odd rather than a little.

The counting posts though with the well well well the accounts are now 6 months late, then 2 weeks later updating to 6 months and 2 weeks are amusing though, the sheer desperation to find something is weird

[Casper2]

Chester, yet another thread where you spell out the detail of the leveraged buy out to have a go at the owners

Why is spelling out the details of the leveraged buyout classed as having a go at the owners ?

[123EasyasBFC]

Why is spelling out the details of the leveraged buyout classed as having a go at the owners ?

Because he was using the leveraged buyout as a way of having a go at the owners for taking a gambling sponsor, when in fact we had been using gambling sponsors long before the new ownership

[Casper2]

Because he was using the leveraged buyout as a way of having a go at the owners for taking a gambling sponsor, when in fact we had been using gambling sponsors long before the new ownership

Any thoughts on this

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... 562696.amp

[claretonthecoast1882]

Any thoughts on this

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... 562696.amp

Thoughts on what ?

Does he say we won't have a gambling sponsor ?

[123EasyasBFC]

Any thoughts on this

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... 562696.amp

What has got that got to do with what I replied to, if Chester wasn’t using the leveraged buy out and was saying ‘Alan pace said he didn’t want to use gambling sponsors’ than that link you have posted would be relevant.

But if you want to go down that road with the link you have posted, pace has clearly gone for the best financial deal which doesn’t make it ok or right but I’ll ask you again, due to his religion are you calling for him to remove alcohol from the ground also?

[Casper2]

Thoughts on what ?

Does he say we won't have a gambling sponsor ?

Did I ask you ?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Did I ask you ?

cry more

I was just trying to help you read as you have clearly read the article you linked and read something that isn't there, treat it as me doing my care in the community bit

[Casper2]

What has got that got to do with what I replied to, if Chester wasn’t using the leveraged buy out and was saying ‘Alan pace said he didn’t want to use gambling sponsors’ than that link you have posted would be relevant.

But if you want to go down that road with the link you have posted, pace has clearly gone for the best financial deal which doesn’t make it ok or right but I’ll ask you again, due to his religion are you calling for him to remove alcohol from the ground also?

I know you are in the board can’t do no wrong camp , so it’s pointless discussing anything with you .

[Casper2]

cry more

I was just trying to help you read as you have clearly read the article you linked and read something that isn't there, treat it as me doing my care in the community bit

I see you haven’t changed, troll.

[Foshiznik]

When spreadEx were announced as sponsors, i am sure Pace said that he would be looking beyond gambling sponsors moving forward. Maybe i dreamt that.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I see you haven’t changed, troll.

You will have to remind me what your previous usernames were before they were banned love

[123EasyasBFC]

I know you are in the board can’t do no wrong camp , so it’s pointless discussing anything with you .

That is literally the reply of someone who tried to use a link that had nothing to do with the discussion and has no argument back, poor attempt, you couldn’t answer the part about alcohol. I have no feelings either way about the board/ownership, my opinion on which this thread is about, is that i don’t have any problem in any ownership taking the biggest shirt deal they can, nobody is telling you that you have to agree with me.

But if you want to argue and want to go out looking for an argument then using something relevant to the posts would be better

[StayingDown4Ever]

Chester, yet another thread where you spell out the detail of the leveraged buy out to have a go at the owners

I take it you are a fan of the Magic Money Thread?

[123EasyasBFC]

When spreadEx were announced as sponsors, i am sure Pace said that he would be looking beyond gambling sponsors moving forward. Maybe i dreamt that.

Yes looking beyond but didn’t totally say we would not have one, if it’s the best financial deal for the club then the decision they have made, you either don’t like it or it doesn’t bother you

[CrosspoolClarets]

Its a shame this thread has turned into yet another argument. Strikes me there are two polarised views on this that cannot be changed - some of us like or tolerate gambling and want the club as wealthy as possible, others (like me) find it reprehensible and would happily have a lesser player (e.g. spending £13m on player B not £17m on player A, plus slightly cheaper wages etc) even if there is a marginally higher risk of relegation. Both are valid opinions and some are formed from very unpleasant personal experience, we shouldn’t be too judgemental about it. I don’t condemn the club for it, they have just disappointed me thats all after I thought it was a new, healthy BFC ethos they were trying to promote.

I’m just glad I bought the shirt and training top plus the kids ones last season. Saves me a few bob now.

Moving onto the point I wanted to make. I quite liked the new badge with its one tone colour scheme matching whichever colour shirt it is on. However, now that I have seen the photos from training, it is clear that it fades into obscurity and the gambling sponsor’s name is sitting there proud, drawing your attention like never before. I find that a real shame. In the past we at least had a colourful badge to remind us who we are.

[Foshiznik]

Yes looking beyond but didn’t totally say we would not have one, if it’s the best financial deal for the club then the decision they have made, you either don’t like it or it doesn’t bother you

That's fair, i was just making the point. I personally don't have as strong an opinion for or against gambling sponsors but then again neither I or anyone i know have been impacted by a gambling addiction, so my opinion is somewhat uninformed.

[123EasyasBFC]

Its a shame this thread has turned into yet another argument. Strikes me there are two polarised views on this that cannot be changed - some of us like or tolerate gambling and want the club as wealthy as possible, others (like me) find it reprehensible and would happily have a lesser player (e.g. spending £13m on player B not £17m on player A, plus slightly cheaper wages etc) even if there is a marginally higher risk of relegation. Both are valid opinions and some are formed from very unpleasant personal experience, we shouldn’t be too judgemental about it. I don’t condemn the club for it, they have just disappointed me thats all after I thought it was a new, healthy BFC ethos they were trying to promote.

I’m just glad I bought the shirt and training top plus the kids ones last season. Saves me a few bob now.

Moving onto the point I wanted to make. I quite liked the new badge with its one tone colour scheme matching whichever colour shirt it is on. However, now that I have seen the photos from training, it is clear that it fades into obscurity and the gambling sponsor’s name is sitting there proud, drawing your attention like never before. I find that a real shame. In the past we at least had a colourful badge to remind us who we are.

The new badge was on the training kit last season also, and both away shirts

[123EasyasBFC]

That's fair, i was just making the point. I personally don't have as strong an opinion for or against gambling sponsors but then again neither I or anyone i know have been impacted by a gambling addiction, so my opinion is somewhat uninformed.

People that gambling has impacted is truly terrible for it to happen but then it can’t just be gambling that’s banned because drink can wreck lives so that would then need to be removed, then someone mentioned certain food would need to also be removed then

[Foshiznik]

People that gambling has impacted is truly terrible for it to happen but then it can’t just be gambling that’s banned because drink can wreck lives so that would then need to be removed, then someone mentioned certain food would need to also be removed then

Also fair in terms of alcohol. We had the same argument when tobacco sponsors were outlawed. However, gambling sponsors are as prevalent if not more than tobacco sponsors were at the time nowadays, so i understand why there is the debate.

In terms of certain food, i don't see this as comparable. Gambling, tobacco and alcohol has a direct link to negative health. Food does not, if part of a balanced diet. If for example, Coca-Cola was found to contain carcinogens or was addictive then i could agree.

That said, how far do you go? Caffeine drinks such as energy drinks and coffee? loan companies that cater for bad credit with high interest?

[MarkGreen]

W88 have removed the banner from their website.

Don't get your hopes up though, it will be re-uploaded once they are announced by the club one would imagine.

[Big Vinny K]

That is literally the reply of someone who tried to use a link that had nothing to do with the discussion and has no argument back, poor attempt, you couldn’t answer the part about alcohol. I have no feelings either way about the board/ownership, my opinion on which this thread is about, is that i don’t have any problem in any ownership taking the biggest shirt deal they can, nobody is telling you that you have to agree with me.

But if you want to argue and want to go out looking for an argument then using something relevant to the posts would be better

How can an article which references the owners intention to review the clubs relationship with gambling companies not be relevant to this thread discussion ?

Of course the current owners have done nothing different to the previous owners in having gambling firms as sponsors - but my own personal view is I would prefer both of the ownerships to have not gone down this route.

The growth in betting companies and online betting has had a direct impact on the significant increases in gambling addiction in this country. The growth in gambling addiction has contributed towards the growth in suicide rates - especially amongst the younger male generation.

Revenues and profits for online betting have never been higher. Spend on advertising and sponsorship by these firms not surprisingly has also never been higher.

What do these betting firms add to our economy ? Very little - the number of people they employ is not significant (for many of the uk firms it’s going down). Many are overseas companies and many of the old uk firms avoid tax where they possibly can by registering overseas.

That doesn’t mean that everyone who bets is an addict - but the number of people who bet has grown significantly and so has the number of addicts. Not sure how anyone can argue there is no correlation with the number of online platforms and companies and the amount of advertising and sponsorship.

Of course the alcohol advertising argument is often used. Personally that’s an easy one to answer for me. I’d ban that too in terms of shirt and other sponsorship in the same way we did with tobacco.

All that said I would rather this be via regulation and across football and sport. It’s hard enough for clubs like Burnley to compete - almost impossible. For us as an individual club to take a moral stance against this will just be to our detriment and whilst it might get some positive publicity and also highlight gambling addiction issues this will be short lived and will have little or no direct impact on the issue of gambling addiction. That can only be through a series of measures brought in by the government of which stopping advertising and sponsorship in sport is just one measure.

[Boss Hogg]

It seems money talks regardless of football club owners’ own beliefs. This is the aspect I don’t understand and seems widespread across the PL. There may be separate rules for businesses though.

[Boss Hogg]

We can’t just ban advertising everything that might be bad or addictive to a minority though. Otherwise we need to start banning confectionary, pies, coke, the farmhouse biscuit sign and so on. There doesn’t seem to be much personal responsibility these days and it’s always someone else’s fault.

[GetIntoEm]

Hopefully got a good chunk of money in for the club.

Gambling sponsors don't bother me, I don't gamble anyway.

[123EasyasBFC]

How can an article which references the owners intention to review the clubs relationship with gambling companies not be relevant to this thread discussion ?

Of course the current owners have done nothing different to the previous owners in having gambling firms as sponsors - but my own personal view is I would prefer both of the ownerships to have not gone down this route.

The growth in betting companies and online betting has had a direct impact on the significant increases in gambling addiction in this country. The growth in gambling addiction has contributed towards the growth in suicide rates - especially amongst the younger male generation.

Revenues and profits for online betting have never been higher. Spend on advertising and sponsorship by these firms not surprisingly has also never been higher.

What do these betting firms add to our economy ? Very little - the number of people they employ is not significant (for many of the uk firms it’s going down). Many are overseas companies and many of the old uk firms avoid tax where they possibly can by registering overseas.

That doesn’t mean that everyone who bets is an addict - but the number of people who bet has grown significantly and so has the number of addicts. Not sure how anyone can argue there is no correlation with the number of online platforms and companies and the amount of advertising and sponsorship.

Of course the alcohol advertising argument is often used. Personally that’s an easy one to answer for me. I’d ban that too in terms of shirt and other sponsorship in the same way we did with tobacco.

All that said I would rather this be via regulation and across football and sport. It’s hard enough for clubs like Burnley to compete - almost impossible. For us as an individual club to take a moral stance against this will just be to our detriment and whilst it might get some positive publicity and also highlight gambling addiction issues this will be short lived and will have little or no direct impact on the issue of gambling addiction. That can only be through a series of measures brought in by the government of which stopping advertising and sponsorship in sport is just one measure.

It’s not relevant to me replying to someone as to why the leveraged buyout and the finances involved meant we could afford to not use a gambling sponsor, what has an interview from pace saying they may or may not use them got to do with what I replied?

[Big Vinny K]

It’s not relevant to me replying to someone as to why the leveraged buyout and the finances involved meant we could afford to not use a gambling sponsor, what has an interview from pace saying they may or may not use them got to do with what I replied?

Isn’t that just the same as you asking him about banning alcohol ?

TBH I ain’t bothered about your little spat. What he posted was a link to something which is relevant to the thread topic and discussion.

Apologies - should not have replied to you with my post as I’m more interested in the wider debate.

Though not sure it’s worth debating on this board when you see comments comparing gambling addiction and the lives it destroys to banning pies !!

[RammyClaret61]

It’s not relevant to me replying to someone as to why the leveraged buyout and the finances involved meant we could afford to not use a gambling sponsor, what has an interview from pace saying they may or may not use them got to do with what I replied?

The relevance is, and it’s easy to understand. The club/pace have got lots of interest payments relating to the “leveraged buyout”. Therefore, now back in the permier league,after a year of a minimal sponsor, they’re going for the highest bidder, no matter who they are, because they can. Rather than a “normal” company like classic football

[123EasyasBFC]

Isn’t that just the same as you asking him about banning alcohol ?

TBH I ain’t bothered about your little spat. What he posted was a link to something which is relevant to the thread topic and discussion.

Apologies - should not have replied to you with my post as I’m more interested in the wider debate.

Though not sure it’s worth debating on this board when you see comments comparing gambling addiction and the lives it destroys to banning pies !!

I was comparing banning alcohol as the same as banning gambling and wanted to know the opinions on alcohol from people who are so vocal about not having gambling sponsors, that’s abit different than using the clubs ownership model as to a reason we are using a gambling sponsor don’t you think?

You’re not bothered about the ‘little spat’ but was bothered enough to feel the need to comment, so that’s slightly confusing.

Gambling addiction is the exact same as alcohol addiction in my eyes, equally importance but you don’t see people shouting from the rooftops about banning alcohol

[123EasyasBFC]

The relevance is, and it’s easy to understand. The club/pace have got lots of interest payments relating to the “leveraged buyout”. Therefore, now back in the permier league,after a year of a minimal sponsor, they’re going for the highest bidder, no matter who they are, because they can. Rather than a “normal” company like classic football

Eh? What relevance does any of what you just said have to do with Pace saying he may not use a gambling sponsor in future and the point that we used a gambling sponsor before the ‘leveraged buyout’? For years the club has chosen the best financial sponsor not just the new ownership because they can

[Boss Hogg]

Isn’t that just the same as you asking him about banning alcohol ?

TBH I ain’t bothered about your little spat. What he posted was a link to something which is relevant to the thread topic and discussion.

Apologies - should not have replied to you with my post as I’m more interested in the wider debate.

Though not sure it’s worth debating on this board when you see comments comparing gambling addiction and the lives it destroys to banning pies !!

In the UK there are about 250 to 650 gambling related deaths each year. There are 160,000 deaths a year from Coronary Heart Disease or 438 per day. So dietary advertising is relevant to this topic.

[kentonclaret]

If we had a Pie shirt sponsor the player would not receive a 6 months ban from the sport for sampling the product that he was being forced to advertise.

[ClaretTony]

Burnley have just confirmed the new sponsor in a move that will enable the Club to challenge and invest in our exciting return to the Premier League. (The club's words, not mine).

Kit available mid-July.

[claretonthecoast1882]

If we had a Pie shirt sponsor the player would not receive a 6 months ban from the sport for sampling the product that he was being forced to advertise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41181979


You can get banned for having a bet on yourself eating a pie during a game then doing so

[Big Vinny K]

I was comparing banning alcohol as the same as banning gambling and wanted to know the opinions on alcohol from people who are so vocal about not having gambling sponsors, that’s abit different than using the clubs ownership model as to a reason we are using a gambling sponsor don’t you think?

You’re not bothered about the ‘little spat’ but was bothered enough to feel the need to comment, so that’s slightly confusing.

Gambling addiction is the exact same as alcohol addiction in my eyes, equally importance but you don’t see people shouting from the rooftops about banning alcohol

And didn’t he want to know your opinion on what Pace said ? Not really sure why you kicked off about what he asked you and you do something similar ?
I think the questions you both asked are relevant to the discussion thread.

I was “bothered enough” to comment because firstly I care a lot about the subject matter but secondly (and far less importantly) you and another poster seemed to be jumping down someone’s throat for nothing.

I’ve already commented on agreeing banning alcohol advertising (not banning alcohol as you have said)
If you think gambling addiction is exactly the same as alcohol addiction then with all due respect it does not sound like you have much knowledge or experience of at least one of these (which is a good thing for you btw). The one common factor is that they can both lead to addiction (and of course destroy lives).

Oh and there are plenty of people who shout from the rooftops about banning alcohol advertising in sport and across society. Regulation around this is quite different in other countries.

But banning alcohol advertising is in itself a whole different debate - as is promoting better diets and eating better. Conflating all these with gambling addiction I never really get as they are all very complex areas in themselves and pretty sure the debates are a lot more nuanced then “why don’t we ban everything then ?”

[ClaretTony]

Burnley have just confirmed the new sponsor in a move that will enable the Club to challenge and invest in our exciting return to the Premier League. (The club's words, not mine).

Kit available mid-July.

Just to add, the leak from W88 last night, linked further up the thread, was removed. Didn't similar happen with the kit last season?