Next seasons shirt sponsor.

[Boss Hogg]

Smoking is different as any smoking at all is very bad for you and highly addictive for most. Drinking and gambling in moderation are not.

[123EasyasBFC]

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 ?”

I gave my opinion to what pace said, I said he never said he wouldn’t actually use a gambling sponsor and I said it had no relevance, but both posters completely ignored the alcohol question, nobody is jumping down anyone’s throat, they could of respected my opinion of gambling sponsor not being an issue rather than trying to provide potential figures of the leveraged buyout and an article Alan pace spoke in, as a reason they don’t want gambling sponsors, Everyone is allowed their own opinion

It’s a fine line to comment on what experiences posters on here have with gambling or alcohol so that should be left there.

[NottsClaret]

It's a quandary for sure. A disreputable Far East gambling firm promoting a damaging industry which football says it should be distancing itself from.. and yet the logo looks quite good on a Claret shirt.

That said, I've not bought a replica shirt since becoming an adult so it's no biggie for me.

[ŽižkovClaret]

We'd be daft to turn it down until it is banned. I had hoped for a US Bank or similar blue chip concern, but it hasn't happened.

Cue the hand wringing stuck record brigade pontificating but never actually doing anything. Its like being sat next to the office moaner who whines about anything and everything but will never do a single thing about it except drive you round the bend.

Don't like the shirt with a gambling sponsor? Don't buy it, but spare us the whinging. We've heard it all before and it achieves nowt.

[kentonclaret]

Ethics and morals are not natural bedfellows when it comes to Premier League football whether it be in club ownership or club sponsorship. It’s all about who is prepared to pay the most and bankroll future investment in new players.
Putin stated this week that one of the first phone calls he received was from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia congratulating him on quelling the rebellion and voicing his support for the “special military operation”.

[123EasyasBFC]

Ethics and morals are not natural bedfellows when it comes to Premier League football whether it be in club ownership or club sponsorship. It’s all about who is prepared to pay the most and bankroll future investment in new players.
Putin stated this week that one of the first phone calls he received was from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia congratulating him on quelling the rebellion and voicing his support for the “special military operation”.

Not just the premier league, the championship to, they are happy to be sponsored by sky bet

[box_of_frogs]

Money talks. Hey ho!

[Rileybobs]

I’ve not got an issue with gambling as a pastime, although I agree with the incoming ban on gambling firms’ shirt sponsorships - I also detest the in your face ‘bet now’ adverts which appear during tv coverage.

But there are moral and ethical questions which need to be asked. Chester Perry has taken time to post information and articles about this shady operation which is marketing itself to the Far Eastern market in countries where gambling is illegal and where they do the majority of their business. For some reason he appears to have been rounded upon by some posters who are so dismissive and protective of the owners of the club that they won’t tolerate any critical comments of their decisions or activities. I find the behaviour of some almost cult-like.

It also seems to me like a lot of people on here are happy to put money ahead of their moral compass which is quite sad to see. Maybe this is an indictment of the times in which we live and is only made worse by the greed in the football industry. Although I’d hazard a guess that some of the same people would be critical if our best players upped sticks to Saudi Arabia for a bumper pay packet.

I’m a company director and I would have to do a lot of due dilligence and ask myself some tough questions before doing business with an operation like this. Those claiming that the club need to make these decisions to be competitive are wrong - unless you think that the club should do anything within legal means, no matter how unethical, to bring in as much income as possible?

If the club is to market itself as a family club (One Club for All being the ethos) then that brand and message has to be consistent, yet is undermined completely by a decision like this which seems to have been based purely on financial gain.

Im not overly upset by this on a personal level, but it’s disappointing to see how many people are willing to put their morals to one side and also a bit strange to see how defensive some posters are about those who ask very valid questions of the owners and their decisions.

[AGENT_CLARET]

It's a £9 million deal, this alone goes towards bringing in a player like Tella

[martin_p]

Ethics and morals are not natural bedfellows when it comes to Premier League football whether it be in club ownership or club sponsorship. It’s all about who is prepared to pay the most and bankroll future investment in new players.
Putin stated this week that one of the first phone calls he received was from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia congratulating him on quelling the rebellion and voicing his support for the “special military operation”.

I’m not sure what is unethical and immoral about being sponsored by a gambling firm.

[bfcmik]

To be honest, however sad it is that some people get addicted to bad things, most people don't. I, for example, have never been tempted to bet on LaBa or any other betting sponsor, bought insurance from Endsleigh, a computer from P3, more Hollands pies, fuel from Coooke, car parts from Multipart, a new sofa from Oak Furnitureland (must go in their shop one day ) or anything else I see on footballer's shirts. If I was looking to do, or buy, something anyway then I may be influenced by the opinion I hold of the team that carries the sponsorship. So us having a betting sponsor may actually save some horse fiddler from becoming addicted!!!

Our football club is, by reasonable standards, too small to be a long term holder of our PL golden share. Unless we can suddenly find investors worth multi-billions or come up with another couple of million supporters who just crave to pay over the odds for our merchandise, then we will always be chasing every £ we can. £6/7m will pay 2 players' wages or VK for a season instead of only the 1 player wage we are would be looking at from a non-betting sponsor.

[123EasyasBFC]

I’ve not got an issue with gambling as a pastime, although I agree with the incoming ban on gambling firms’ shirt sponsorships - I also detest the in your face ‘bet now’ adverts which appear during tv coverage.

But there are moral and ethical questions which need to be asked. Chester Perry has taken time to post information and articles about this shady operation which is marketing itself to the Far Eastern market in countries where gambling is illegal and where they do the majority of their business. For some reason he appears to have been rounded upon by some posters who are so dismissive and protective of the owners of the club that they won’t tolerate any critical comments of their decisions or activities. I find the behaviour of some almost cult-like.

It also seems to me like a lot of people on here are happy to put money ahead of their moral compass which is quite sad to see. Maybe this is an indictment of the times in which we live and is only made worse by the greed in the football industry. Although I’d hazard a guess that some of the same people would be critical if our best players upped sticks to Saudi Arabia for a bumper pay packet.

I’m a company director and I would have to do a lot of due dilligence and ask myself some tough questions before doing business with an operation like this. Those claiming that the club need to make these decisions to be competitive are wrong - unless you think that the club should do anything within legal means, no matter how unethical, to bring in as much income as possible?

If the club is to market itself as a family club (One Club for All being the ethos) then that brand and message has to be consistent, yet is undermined completely by a decision like this which seems to have been based purely on financial gain.

Im not overly upset by this on a personal level, but it’s disappointing to see how many people are willing to put their morals to one side and also a bit strange to see how defensive some posters are about those who ask very valid questions of the owners and their decisions.

Will he take the time to post the article where W88 say they want to help in the community and local charities or…

[kentonclaret]

I’m not sure what is unethical and immoral about being sponsored by a gambling firm.

Gambling advertising on the front of shirts to be banned from the start of the 2026/27 season because of the harmful effects of gambling, especially on the younger generation.

[RVclaret]

I find the reaction to being sponsored by a gambling firm incredibly weird and struggle to see what is ‘immoral’ about it. Drawing comparisons with Saudi’s is also bizarre.

[123EasyasBFC]

I’ve not got an issue with gambling as a pastime, although I agree with the incoming ban on gambling firms’ shirt sponsorships - I also detest the in your face ‘bet now’ adverts which appear during tv coverage.

But there are moral and ethical questions which need to be asked. Chester Perry has taken time to post information and articles about this shady operation which is marketing itself to the Far Eastern market in countries where gambling is illegal and where they do the majority of their business. For some reason he appears to have been rounded upon by some posters who are so dismissive and protective of the owners of the club that they won’t tolerate any critical comments of their decisions or activities. I find the behaviour of some almost cult-like.

It also seems to me like a lot of people on here are happy to put money ahead of their moral compass which is quite sad to see. Maybe this is an indictment of the times in which we live and is only made worse by the greed in the football industry. Although I’d hazard a guess that some of the same people would be critical if our best players upped sticks to Saudi Arabia for a bumper pay packet.

I’m a company director and I would have to do a lot of due dilligence and ask myself some tough questions before doing business with an operation like this. Those claiming that the club need to make these decisions to be competitive are wrong - unless you think that the club should do anything within legal means, no matter how unethical, to bring in as much income as possible?

If the club is to market itself as a family club (One Club for All being the ethos) then that brand and message has to be consistent, yet is undermined completely by a decision like this which seems to have been based purely on financial gain.

Im not overly upset by this on a personal level, but it’s disappointing to see how many people are willing to put their morals to one side and also a bit strange to see how defensive some posters are about those who ask very valid questions of the owners and their decisions.

So where do you stand with it because you’ve changed your opinion on every paragraph

[martin_p]

Gambling advertising on the front of shirts to be banned from the start of the 2026/27 season because of the harmful effects of gambling, especially on the younger generation.

So presumably alcohol and vaping is also being banned?

I get some that people have a problem with addiction, but the vast majority don’t and the link between advertising on football shirts and addiction seem tenuous to say the least.

[martin_p]

It also seems to me like a lot of people on here are happy to put money ahead of their moral compass which is quite sad to see. Maybe this is an indictment of the times in which we live and is only made worse by the greed in the football industry. Although I’d hazard a guess that some of the same people would be critical if our best players upped sticks to Saudi Arabia for a bumper pay packet.

You said you’d no problem with gambling, so how is this upsetting your moral compass?

[Cornwallclaret]

I like it … big W for Wilkinson ( if only I was born in 1988 and not 1964 be perfect)

[kentonclaret]

So presumably alcohol and vaping is also being banned?

When it comes to the effect that it has on young people you are probably correct.
The head of the UK vaping industry quoted recently as saying “nobody under the age of 18 should be using a vape”.
Legislation already being considered to ban disposable vapes the preferred option for many young people.

[Rileybobs]

Will he take the time to post the article where W88 say they want to help in the community and local charities or…

He has done on another thread about gambling in football.

[martin_p]

When it comes to the effect that it has on young people you are probably correct.
The head of the UK vaping industry quoted recently as saying “nobody under the age of 18 should be using a vape”.
Legislation already being considered to ban disposable vapes the preferred option for many young people.

So no more ‘Totally Wicked’ on football gear then?

[Rileybobs]

I find the reaction to being sponsored by a gambling firm incredibly weird and struggle to see what is ‘immoral’ about it. Drawing comparisons with Saudi’s is also bizarre.

There is a distinction between a gambling firm and a gambling firm advertising to a market where gambling is illegal. It wasn’t a comparison to the Saudis, obviously, it was an example of where we as football fans should be questioning our morals rather than just considering the pound signs.

[123EasyasBFC]

He has done on another thread about gambling in football.

So no then he won’t, because that won’t have anything to do with the leveraged purchase of the club which is what he was referring to at the beginning of this thread

[Rileybobs]

So where do you stand with it because you’ve changed your opinion on every paragraph

I haven’t changed my opinion. I’ve offered what I consider to be my balanced thoughts on the subject rather than being entrenched on one extreme side of an argument.

Pretty sure I’ve told you where I stand in my rather long post, to summarise;
Not got a personal issue with gambling
Would prefer it not to be advertised on football shirts
From the limited reading I’ve done about this company I don’t really like the sound of them
Disappointed that some people only seem to care about the financial benefits of a deal like this

[Rileybobs]

You said you’d no problem with gambling, so how is this upsetting your moral compass?

This isn’t upsetting my moral compass and I didn’t say it did. I didn’t sign the deal. I was challenging those who have a ‘don’t care, look how many players we can pay with the benefits’. Because to those people, where do you draw the line, or does that line not exist? There becomes a point where a sponsor undermines the company’s stated values and ethos.

[Chester Perry]

For the record, I am against the following types of shirt sponsorship,

Alcohol
Tabbacco/Vaping
Gambling
Crypto/Fan Tokens
Fast Food (there may be a debate to be had about Hollands, but I did not count that as fast food per se, though I would include Papa John's, Coca Cola and Red Bull etc)

I expressed the same opinions about Dafabet/Laba 360 and Lovebet under the previous regime as I have about BK8 and W88 under this one.

I was also critical of the Totally Wicked sponsorship of the Bob Lord Stand (again one of the few) - a shameful deal from that previous regime in more ways than one

I have been critical of the Sorare (fan/token) deal that the club made last year and that Premier League also have

I am saddened by the fact that the title we won so thrillingly last year was called the 'Sky Bet' Championship, the fact is that name (even in ribbons) tarnishes 'The Lady'. The football League has been shameless, in that its three competitions are 'Sky Bet' leagues, Carabao Cup and the Papa John's Trophy.

The club currently purports to be 'one club for all' the BK8 and W88 deals are just one example of why that just isn't true.

I have never smoked or vaped, I don't do crypto or fan tokens, I have gambled on rare occasion, I drink alcohol now and again, I have had fast food, though not for years and do not do takeaways, never had a red bull or such like and occasionally use coke as a mixer with spirits. I do not take my positioning on shirt sponsorship as being hypocritical.

Many have opposing views, though some hold views even stronger than mine on the sponsorship front, that is their want even if they do not see the dichotomy in the different contradictory messages the club is sending with its 'one club for all' messaging. It is impossible to make the claim that the club needs all the additional monies such sponsorship provides without acknowledging why that additional money is needed and for what, it is not just to develop the club. Yes the event of the takeover is in the past, however, the burden it has created is still very much in the present (even if it is reduced) and likely in the future too - that cannot and should not be ignored.

To some I may be an idealist, I still believe in doing the 'right thing' even though it is usually the hardest (costliest) choice and I absolutely loathe the "take what you can" and "it'll be reyt" culture that pervades our society

I am still waiting for one of the many who are critical of this sponsorship stance to come and respond thoughtfully to the many issues of 'White Label' betting companies, based on all the information I have shared on the subject

[123EasyasBFC]

This isn’t upsetting my moral compass and I didn’t say it did. I didn’t sign the deal. I was challenging those who have a ‘don’t care, look how many players we can pay with the benefits’. Because to those people, where do you draw the line, or does that line not exist? There becomes a point where a sponsor undermines the company’s stated values and ethos.

You could do a deep dive into every single shirt sponsor in the league and fine things are don’t sit right with someone, what do you propose, do away with sponsorship completely, don’t understand how having a gambling sponsor means we aren’t following the ‘one club for all’ ethos

[Rileybobs]

So no then he won’t, because that won’t have anything to do with the leveraged purchase of the club which is what he was referring to at the beginning of this thread

He has though, he posted this link like I told you

https://josimarfootball.com/2023/06/23/ ... f-charity/

[123EasyasBFC]

He has though, he posted this link like I told you

https://josimarfootball.com/2023/06/23/ ... f-charity/

That isn’t a link about W88 commenting on wanting to help in the community and to local charities, you are getting yourself confused

[martin_p]

This isn’t upsetting my moral compass and I didn’t say it did. I didn’t sign the deal. I was challenging those who have a ‘don’t care, look how many players we can pay with the benefits’. Because to those people, where do you draw the line, or does that line not exist? There becomes a point where a sponsor undermines the company’s stated values and ethos.

I think that was a ‘don’t care about betting sponsorship’ rather than a ‘don’t care at all’. Everyone (hopefully) has some sort of moral compass and for those that would like to see a ban on gambling being against gambling sponsorship makes sense. For anyone else I’m not sure what the problem is.

[Rileybobs]

You could do a deep dive into every single shirt sponsor in the league and fine things are don’t sit right with someone, what do you propose, do away with sponsorship completely, don’t understand how having a gambling sponsor means we aren’t following the ‘one club for all’ ethos

Of course you could. And the owners of the club are responsible to make sure that the companies that they do business with meet certain standards.

An obvious example of how this contradicts the ‘one club for all’ ethos is that children’s kits have a different logo on the front than the adult’s kits. Not a huge issue, maybe, but a contradiction nonetheless.

Just a random hypothetical (and not a comparison before someone misses the point) - how would you feel if we had a porn website sponsoring our shirt?

[Rileybobs]

That isn’t a link about W88 commenting on wanting to help in the community and to local charities, you are getting yourself confused

You need to read the article.

[CrosspoolClarets]

It's a £9 million deal, this alone goes towards bringing in a player like Tella

£9m isn’t the correct figure to use, it is the EXTRA per year over and above reputable alternatives.

Almost certainly a less material sum in the context of the overall turnover of £150m or whatever it is currently.

[123EasyasBFC]

Of course you could. And the owners of the club are responsible to make sure that the companies that they do business with meet certain standards.

An obvious example of how this contradicts the ‘one club for all’ ethos is that children’s kits have a different logo on the front than the adult’s kits. Not a huge issue, maybe, but a contradiction nonetheless.

Just a random hypothetical (and not a comparison before someone misses the point) - how would you feel if we had a porn website sponsoring our shirt?

If they paid the most it wouldn’t bother me as that still wouldn’t be on my kids shirts,

We have been sponsored by Tik Tok in the women’s teams where tik tok can cause as much problems to young people as gambling but there wasn’t the same uproar then, there are multiple things on a match day that wouldn’t fit the ‘one club for all’ it’s not a gambling sponsor that changes it

[Rileybobs]

I think that was a ‘don’t care about betting sponsorship’ rather than a ‘don’t care at all’. Everyone (hopefully) has some sort of moral compass and for those that would like to see a ban on gambling being against gambling sponsorship makes sense. For anyone else I’m not sure what the problem is.

So you don’t think that someone can be fine with the practice of gambling but at the same time not want their club’s main sponsor to be a gambling firm?

Where do you stand with this company blatantly using our club as a means to advertise to a market where gambling is illegal? Do you not have any kind of moral issue with this?

[NewClaret]

I think if we had been sponsored by Mars or Cadbury we wouldn’t be having this debate, but you could argue that their products do far greater damage to a larger populations health than gambling sponsors.

I’d prefer we could attract a big corporate brand but we can’t. Even the bigger clubs seem to be struggling with that actually. But maybe if ALK execute a good strategy & we become US-famous we stand half a chance. That’s what I hope anyway.

[AGENT_CLARET]

£9m isn’t the correct figure to use, it is the EXTRA per year over and above reputable alternatives.

Almost certainly a less material sum in the context of the overall turnover of £150m or whatever it is currently.

Still 9m in

[123EasyasBFC]

You need to read the article.

You are not understanding what I’m saying at all, W88 on the club website today they would he helping with the community and local charities, so an article on 23rd June doesn’t tell me that, my original question to you was will Chester be so vocal in posting that from the club website

[Rileybobs]

If they paid the most it wouldn’t bother me as that still wouldn’t be on my kids shirts,

We have been sponsored by Tik Tok in the women’s teams where tik tok can cause as much problems to young people as gambling but there wasn’t the same uproar then, there are multiple things on a match day that wouldn’t fit the ‘one club for all’ it’s not a gambling sponsor that changes it

You asked for an example where this deal contradicts our ‘one club for all’ ethos and I gave you one. All you’ve done is provided other examples where this ethos is contradicted.

[Rileybobs]

You are not understanding what I’m saying at all, W88 on the club website today they would he helping with the community and local charities, so an article on 23rd June doesn’t tell me that, my original question to you was will Chester be so vocal in posting that from the club website

I don’t know, you’re asking the wrong person.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I find the reaction to being sponsored by a gambling firm incredibly weird and struggle to see what is ‘immoral’ about it. Drawing comparisons with Saudi’s is also bizarre.

I knew somebody once who took their life over a gambling addiction that ended up ruining their finances and marriage. The companies involve know this happens to a minority using their product and still tailor ads and apps that “draw people in”. Aside from the legality difference and statistical difference (to some degree) I compare it to making and selling hard drugs - many enjoy it, but it ruins the lives of many more and I view it as immoral and unacceptable to promote it in a civilised society, its the advertising I object to not the gambling itself.

But each to their own.

(agree with you to not liking the Saudi comment though)

[NewClaret]

It's a £9 million deal, this alone goes towards bringing in a player like Tella

Where’s this come from? Has it been confirmed?

Astonishing if true.

[martin_p]

So you don’t think that someone can be fine with the practice of gambling but at the same time not want their club’s main sponsor to be a gambling firm?

Where do you stand with this company blatantly using our club as a means to advertise to a market where gambling is illegal? Do you not have any kind of moral issue with this?

Well no not really. There’s lots of things illegal in other countries that should probably be legal and I’m certainly not aligning my moral compass with that of Far Eastern governments.

[123EasyasBFC]

You asked for an example where this deal contradicts our ‘one club for all’ ethos and I gave you one. All you’ve done is provided other examples where this ethos is contradicted.

I didn’t say we don’t contradict the ethos, I just said that having a gambling sponsor doesn’t just damage the ethos

[123EasyasBFC]

I don’t know, you’re asking the wrong person.

You seem to be a spokesperson for him and providing links he has shared that don’t have anything to do with what I asked

[BurnleyFC]

If the £9m reported figure is true, then that’s a great deal for the club.

Well done Mr Pace and the commercial team.

[123EasyasBFC]

I knew somebody once who took their life over a gambling addiction that ended up ruining their finances and marriage. The companies involve know this happens to a minority using their product and still tailor ads and apps that “draw people in”. Aside from the legality difference and statistical difference (to some degree) I compare it to making and selling hard drugs - many enjoy it, but it ruins the lives of many more and I view it as immoral and unacceptable to promote it in a civilised society, its the advertising I object to not the gambling itself.

But each to their own.

(agree with you to not liking the Saudi comment though)

What more can gambling companies do, they have ‘please gamble responsibly’ on their adds and sites, many of them have deposit limits to, they can’t really do anymore

[Chester Perry]

I don’t know, you’re asking the wrong person.

This poster has been trolling for weeks now, I have been a particular target - best to ignore, particularly as I have given answers to all the proper questions posed - and that includes the charity one which applies to BK8 as well.

The charity side is just buying more local good will, for their very questionable operations. It is just another form of image washing

[martin_p]

You asked for an example where this deal contradicts our ‘one club for all’ ethos and I gave you one. All you’ve done is provided other examples where this ethos is contradicted.

I’m not sure your example contradicts anything, lots of things are different for kids at a football club including many things that are specifically for them. In fact you could equally well use your example as proof of the club’s commitment to ‘one club for all’ as they are making the necessary adjustments to make sure children can buy shirts.

[Rileybobs]

Well no not really. There’s lots of things illegal in other countries that should probably be legal and I’m certainly not aligning my moral compass with that of Far Eastern governments.

It’s not about aligning your moral compass with that of a far East Asian government. The club is being used as a front for people to tap into an illegal betting market - surely you can see that this could only serve to damage our image?

This for me is similar to the alleged attempted purchase of a lower league Dutch club. Completely legal and above board and of course the benefits to the club could be great, but the ethics of it within the wider context of the sport just doesn’t sit right with me.