Next seasons shirt sponsor.

[Rileybobs]

Maybe a good opportunity for Paul Weller’s used car company W18 to get a slice of the action on the kids kits with the similar name - although probably not financially viable for either party.

[ClaretTony]

If I’d of worded it saying the club website is saying W88 will help with community and charities you wouldn’t of made a comment, so are you saying the club have made their statement off their own back or will you dodge that question again? You don’t know for a fact that W88 didn’t ask the club to write that

The way you have gone about the argument is splitting hairs, someone else not involved in the discussion thought so to

I AM NOT SPLITTING ANY HAIRS - I'M COMMENTING ON WHAT IS ON THE CLUB'S WEBSITE, IT'S NOT FROM A STATEMENT BUT FROM A QUOTE AND THAT QUOTE IS NOT FROM SOMEONE AT W88.

You were the one who claimed W88 had said that.

Now for Christ's sake give it a ******* rest

[123EasyasBFC]

There’s only you arguing about this

Plenty of people have had their say, you then reply to a post that was hours ago, almost Asif your looking for an argument

[ClaretTony]

So you can’t answer where you think the statement/quote came from

I've told you where it's come from but it doesn't suit your agenda. You got it wrong, it was explained to you, but you've just decided to then try and disrupt this message board. Now for the sake of everyone, stop.

[Casper2]

Plenty of people have had their say, you then reply to a post that was hours ago, almost Asif your looking for an argument

I’ll leave that to you , goodbye

[Big Vinny K]

Plenty of people have had their say, you then reply to a post that was hours ago, almost Asif your looking for an argument

Not sure who this Asif guy is but there’s only one person on this thread looking for an argument and it ain’t Asif.

[123EasyasBFC]

MOD: Unnecessary and personal comment removed - poster warned

[123EasyasBFC]

MOD: Unnecessary and personal comment removed - poster warned for second time

[boyyanno]

The sooner this guy gets banned the better

[Rileybobs]

Username should be BFCEasyas123, to reflect the song lyric too, which I’d be kicking myself about.

[Cooclaret]

Why’s my comment been removed without an explanation or am I just missing it?

[Cooclaret]

Why’s my comment been removed without an explanation or am I just missing it?

It was a calm and rationale explanation that explained the confusion? Christ on a bike that’s a little silly!

[Cooclaret]

It’s implied in the publication/statement that there is a business relationship that directly involves the sponsor and the club being involved together in community activities. If that’s false then there’s a breach of contract somewhere between the two.

Therefore you can conclude there is an intention for the club and sponsor to work together in or on community projects and activities as part of the the agreement and relationship.

[Casper2]

It’s implied in the publication/statement that there is a business relationship that directly involves the sponsor and the club being involved together in community activities. If that’s false then there’s a breach of contract somewhere between the two.

Therefore you can conclude there is an intention for the club and sponsor to work together in or on community projects and activities as part of the the agreement and relationship.

Implied and conclude aren’t facts

As Pace is a Mormon you could conclude that he wouldn’t entertain a betting company as a sponsor or be involved in a leveraged buyout but as we know that isn’t the case.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Implied and conclude aren’t facts

As Pace is a Mormon you could conclude that he wouldn’t entertain a betting company as a sponsor or be involved in a leveraged buyout but as we know that isn’t the case.

I didn’t think they’d have a betting company again, but after all the stuff that’s come out about the finances of the Mormon church, it doesn’t surprise me anymore that we’ve got one now

[Cooclaret]

Implied and conclude aren’t facts

As Pace is a Mormon you could conclude that he wouldn’t entertain a betting company as a sponsor or be involved in a leveraged buyout but as we know that isn’t the case.

Don’t claim it’s fact, it’s a very natural conclusion in my opinion.

Bothered that posts are deleted, without comment or explanation, but an idiot is given clear feedback by mods around violation and reason.


Doesn’t seem a transparent process of moderation.

[ClaretsPadiham]

A betting company on our shirts doesn’t affect anyone in any way. People just love to moan.

I’m an addicted gambler who has blew tens of thousands and a weeks wages in 2 hours, I’m currently in GA meetings which help.

Betting is fun if done proper so why should they not be allowed on shirts ?

People are exposed to everything online now if they want to gamble they will and a football team with a gambling logo on there shirts won’t make them start and one without it won’t make them quit.

[kentonclaret]

The decision had already been made and betting sponsorship will not be allowed on shirts from the start of the 2026/27 season.

[roperclaret]

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

Actually I am, Chester does an amazing job with that.

[Pickles]

The decision had already been made and betting sponsorship will not be allowed on shirts from the start of the 2026/27 season.

On the front of shirts. Still on sleeves and the back.

[IanMcL]

Not sure who this Asif guy is but there’s only one person on this thread looking for an argument and it ain’t Asif.

Didn't he used to play for Kent CCC?

[FeedTheArf]

Anyone who didn’t think we were going to have a gambling sponsor is naive at best, delusional at worst.

It’s where the money is, we need the money, it’s really that simple.

I don’t like it, I’d prefer us not to have a gambling sponsor, but if we’re to compete at the top table sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil, particularly when you have some pretty chunky loans to repay!

[IanMcL]

W88 is meaningless to me. Another getting outfit.

Given the Pace alleged statements on sponsors and betting, I think he has shrunk a lot, in one move.

[Cabbage]

Anyone who didn’t think we were going to have a gambling sponsor is naive at best, delusional at worst.

It’s where the money is, we need the money, it’s really that simple.

I don’t like it, I’d prefer us not to have a gambling sponsor, but if we’re to compete at the top table sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil, particularly when you have some pretty chunky loans to repay!

I thought we’d already done that with Rupert Murdoch?

[ŽižkovClaret]

No comment yet from JD Robbo. Should we send out a search party?

[Pickles]

The murky, shutters down, warehouse-on-an-industrial-estate UK "headquarters", an official Twitter account with 59 followers, and the addiction issues aside... shirts with betting sponsors on the front just look crap. No character or culture, indistinguishable, forgettable. The shirts we wore for our first European fixtures in decades, can many even remember them? They should be sought-after classics, instantly identifiable. But they aren't. You can pick them up on eBay etc for about £30.

Everton's new shirt is a classic example. Hummel designers must pull their hair out when a massive ugly logo is stuck over the top.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Everton's new shirt is a classic example. Hummel designers must pull their hair out when a massive ugly logo is stuck over the top.

Dunno, by European standards, our single front of shirt sponsor model is pretty conservative, however garish we find some sponsors

[NewClaret]

Dunno, by European standards, our single front of shirt sponsor model is pretty conservative, however garish we find some sponsors

I’d agree with that. Some of the European shirts plastered with sponsors are awful. Let’s hope we never get to that point but I imagine that’s where it’ll head when the gambling sponsors are banned.

[agreenwood]

I’d imagine that this firm probably offered double or even triple what we’d get from a non-gambling brand. We’re Burnley afterall, so very lucrative and more ethical sponsorship deals are probably far harder to secure.

It’s a quandary, but ultimately BFC is a business whether we like it or not and I’d imagine a large proportion of our fans are pretty indifferent to the issue.

There are always going to be prices to pay to swim with the big fish in modern football.

[NewClaret]

I’d imagine that this firm probably offered double or even triple what we’d get from a non-gambling brand. We’re Burnley afterall, so very lucrative and more ethical sponsorship deals are probably far harder to secure.

It’s a quandary, but ultimately BFC is a business whether we like it or not and I’d imagine a large proportion of our fans are pretty indifferent to the issue.

There are always going to be prices to pay to swim with the big fish in modern football.

Is there a list somewhere of PL sponsors? Off the top of my head I’d imagine at least half are gambling firms.

I just don’t see how we can be different and turn the money away when we already struggle to compete at this level.

[HagridsHut]

A lot of people need to get a grip with this. Why’s everyone turned into whinge bags about a betting sponsor all of a sudden? It’s a logo on a football shirt that you have no control over. We need all the money we can get and if it’s through something as minor as a shirt sponsor I’m all for it.

[Venkys4eva]

A lot of people need to get a grip with this. Why’s everyone turned into whinge bags about a betting sponsor all of a sudden? It’s a logo on a football shirt that you have no control over. We need all the money we can get and if it’s through something as minor as a shirt sponsor I’m all for it.

Agreed its pathetic. If people dont have the will power not to gamble then a logo on a football shirt won't make any difference at all.

[kentonclaret]

Is there a list somewhere of PL sponsors? Off the top of my head I’d imagine at least half are gambling firms.

I just don’t see how we can be different and turn the money away when we already struggle to compete at this level.

I posted earlier up this thread that 8 clubs had betting sponsorship on the front of shirts and the majority were clubs that finished in the bottom half of the table apart from Newcastle. Two of those clubs Leeds and Southampton were relegated.
Not easy for lesser clubs to attract the major sponsors so it is easy to understand how those clubs choose betting companies to secure the best investment on offer.

[Wokingclaret]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66040558

[Rileybobs]

A lot of people need to get a grip with this. Why’s everyone turned into whinge bags about a betting sponsor all of a sudden? It’s a logo on a football shirt that you have no control over. We need all the money we can get and if it’s through something as minor as a shirt sponsor I’m all for it.

Has everyone turned into a whinge bag? That’s an odd take. There’s hardly anyone whinging about it.

Out of interest though, is there a line that you wouldn’t like us to cross for ‘something as minor as a shirt sponsor’? A porn website? A ‘Visit Russia’ campaign? I’m not suggesting a gambling firm is anything like either, just wondering whether you would draw the line anywhere or take the biggest prize on offer regardless?

[Chester Perry]

I’d imagine that this firm probably offered double or even triple what we’d get from a non-gambling brand. We’re Burnley afterall, so very lucrative and more ethical sponsorship deals are probably far harder to secure.

It’s a quandary, but ultimately BFC is a business whether we like it or not and I’d imagine a large proportion of our fans are pretty indifferent to the issue.

There are always going to be prices to pay to swim with the big fish in modern football.

I have heard stories that the market is so inflated by these 'white label' companies that it is a multiple of what you are suggesting if the speculated £9m is true

It is pretty obvious that a large number of fans are indeed indifferent on the issue and wholly supportive of the club/owners for making the deal

The prices that are paid are the ones you choose to pay

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66040558

the impact of the independent regulator will be interesting, but I suspect there will be no quick judgement on this issue from such an entity, even then it is more likely to be based on true market value of a front of shirt sponsorship for a club like ours.

[agreenwood]

Has everyone turned into a whinge bag? That’s an odd take. There’s hardly anyone whinging about it.

Out of interest though, is there a line that you wouldn’t like us to cross for ‘something as minor as a shirt sponsor’? A porn website? A ‘Visit Russia’ campaign? I’m not suggesting a gambling firm is anything like either, just wondering whether you would draw the line anywhere or take the biggest prize on offer regardless?

The line will be different for everyone. I’m not keen on having a gambling firm on the front of our shirts, but equally understand why we’d go for a significantly more lucrative deal whilst it’s still within the rules. I’d certainly baulk at some of the alternatives you suggest, but accept that if I delved into these gambling entities I’d probably place them on the “wrong” side of my line.

There’s a lot of moral grey areas in football now and if I’m honest I find the prospect of railing against it too much. I’d be headed down the road of boycotting football and it forms to big a part of my life to countenance it.

[NewClaret]

I posted earlier up this thread that 8 clubs had betting sponsorship on the front of shirts and the majority were clubs that finished in the bottom half of the table apart from Newcastle. Two of those clubs Leeds and Southampton were relegated.
Not easy for lesser clubs to attract the major sponsors so it is easy to understand how those clubs choose betting companies to secure the best investment on offer.

Thanks Kenton & agreed.

[Ightenhill_Claret]

We've got an interesting interview with the journalist Philippe Auclair on this week's From The Bee Hole End podcast about W88 and the rise of 'white label' betting companies.

We're recording the main part of the podcast tonight so it will be out tomorrow - definitely worth a listen.

And worth checking out Philippe's writing on the subject on Josimar Football - https://josimarfootball.com/2022/07/06/ ... e-english/

[Rileybobs]

The line will be different for everyone. I’m not keen on having a gambling firm on the front of our shirts, but equally understand why we’d go for a significantly more lucrative deal whilst it’s still within the rules. I’d certainly baulk at some of the alternatives you suggest, but accept that if I delved into these gambling entities I’d probably place them on the “wrong” side of my line.

There’s a lot of moral grey areas in football now and if I’m honest I find the prospect of railing against it too much. I’d be headed down the road of boycotting football and it forms to big a part of my life to countenance it.

Good post, cheers.

I suppose I’m establishing whether some of those most critical of the people opposed to this sponsorship deal actually have a line. Because the criticism is that ‘it’s only a shirt sponsor’ - which suggests they’d be happy with anything on the front of the shirt such is the insignificance of a shirt sponsor. If they would draw the line at one of the examples I mentioned, or somewhere else, then it seems unreasonable that they dismiss the views of others and label them as ‘whingers’ just because they would draw the line somewhere else.

[Chester Perry]

We've got an interesting interview with the journalist Philippe Auclair on this week's From The Bee Hole End podcast about W88 and the rise of 'white label' betting companies.

We're recording the main part of the podcast tonight so it will be out tomorrow - definitely worth a listen.

And worth checking out Philippe's writing on the subject on Josimar Football - https://josimarfootball.com/2022/07/06/ ... e-english/

As you are probably aware I have been posting links to Philippe's articles for years - looking forward to the pod

[Wembley09]

Heard on global radio this morning about the protests to government for us, Villa and Fulham having betting sponsors.

So came on here to see if the new shirt was announced/shown No sign of it though.

[HagridsHut]

Has everyone turned into a whinge bag? That’s an odd take. There’s hardly anyone whinging about it.

Out of interest though, is there a line that you wouldn’t like us to cross for ‘something as minor as a shirt sponsor’? A porn website? A ‘Visit Russia’ campaign? I’m not suggesting a gambling firm is anything like either, just wondering whether you would draw the line anywhere or take the biggest prize on offer regardless?

I don’t know if you have Twitter but everyone is crying about it on there, it’s ridiculous. Out of interest or not, that’s a hypothetical question which can only be dealt with as and when.

[wilks_bfc]

Is there a list somewhere of PL sponsors? Off the top of my head I’d imagine at least half are gambling firms.

I just don’t see how we can be different and turn the money away when we already struggle to compete at this level.

The ones I can think of are

Aston Villa - BK8
Burnley - W88
Everton - Stake.com
Fulham - SBOTOP
West Ham - Betway

[Rileybobs]

I don’t know if you have Twitter but everyone is crying about it on there, it’s ridiculous. Out of interest or not, that’s a hypothetical question which can only be dealt with as and when.

I am on Twitter as an observer but I don’t really read any of the Burnley supporter stuff on there.

It’s really not that difficult a hypothetical question to ask. Would you be happy with a porn site or a ‘Visit Russia’ logo on the front of our shirts? If the answer is no then claiming that others are crying about this or being whinge bags for having different morals than you seems unfair.

[HagridsHut]

I’m not sure how you can compare a war related sponsor - which would probably not be allowed anyway, to a betting company? I wouldn’t be opposed to a porn company morally if they paid enough, no. I’d be opposed to that for different reasons.

[Rileybobs]

I’m not sure how you can compare a war related sponsor - which would probably not be allowed anyway, to a betting company? I wouldn’t be opposed to a porn company morally if they paid enough, no. I’d be opposed to that for different reasons.

I’m not comparing, I said that originally. I’m using other examples to just test whether there is a line you wouldn’t like us to cross as you claimed it’s just a shirt sponsor.

Interesting that you wouldn’t be opposed to having a porn site on the front of a kit seen by thousands of kids though. That would seem highly inappropriate to me.

Those who are opposed to this sponsorship deal have perfectly valid views whether you agree or not. As do those who have no problem with it.

[Foshiznik]

Premier League 2023/24 season sponsors for information:-

Arsenal - Emirates (Airline)
Aston Villa - BK8 (Gambling)
Bournmouth - Dafabet (Gambling)
Brentford - Hollywoodbets (Gambling)
Brighton - AMEX (Finance)
Burnley - W88 (Gambling)
Chelsea - TBA
Palace - Cinch (Motoring)
Everton - Stake.com (Gambling)
Fulham - SBOTOP (Gambling)
Liverpool - Standard Chartered (Finance)
Luton - Utilitia (Energy) - Away kit - Star Platforms (Platform hire) - Third kit - Ryebridge (Construction)
Man City - Etihad (Airline)
Man Utd - TeamViewer (IT)
Newcastle - Sela (Saudi Events)
Forest - UNHCR (Charity)
Sheff Utd - Randox (Health)
Spurs - AIA (Finance)
West Ham - Betway (Gambling)
Wolves - AstroPay (Finance)

Of all of those, only Wolves (6686.com) and Palace (Kaiyun Sports) have gambling companies as sleeve sponsors.

[jdrobbo]

I don’t know if you have Twitter but everyone is crying about it on there, it’s ridiculous. Out of interest or not, that’s a hypothetical question which can only be dealt with as and when.

Am I one of those you’re calling out?

[Big Vinny K]

I don’t know if you have Twitter but everyone is crying about it on there, it’s ridiculous. Out of interest or not, that’s a hypothetical question which can only be dealt with as and when.

Why is someone having a different view to you on this defined as crying, whining, whinging etc ?
That would be like describing you as immoral, evil, unethical, wicked etc because you support it.

It’s just different views and think this thread has been in general a pretty reasonable debate other than the odd poster who clearly wanted it to go the way of lots of other threads on this board.

For what it’s worth I am very much against gambling sponsorship in sport but understand why a club like Burnley cannot afford to take an isolated stance against it. I’d like to see a blanket ban (alongside a whole raft of other measures and support to reduce gambling addiction).