Stake. Com

[Deleted member 48881]

75% do not approve, good to see! some humanity left

 

[Houghty19]

Why are they talking as if the publishing of a white paper makes it law. By the time it becomes law and the white paper has gone through all the legislative stages, the deal will likely already be over.

Even if it gets put into force within a year, they will also likely make allowances for clubs already with deals in place due to legal contracts etc.

Agreed but it's frightening how if you read that article how Everton are now the root of all problems wrt gambling addiction.

 

[allen]

Can see this getting a bit messy.

Everton slammed for 'short-sighted' shirt sponsorship deal with gambling firm

Government source criticises club's record £10m-a-year deal with Stake.com as 'a real strategic error' before imminent ban

www.telegraph.co.uk

“It’s a real strategic error by Everton and might force the Government to go further in its plans around sponsorship,” a Whitehall source said.

You know you're in trouble if Whitehall sources are highlighting your strategic errors. They are swimming in a river of their own farce with no end in sight.

We're playing 4D chess, though, obviously. Get sponsored by a gambling firm so that we can enrage the government enough to ban gambling sponsorship altogether.

We're mugging ourselves off for the civic good.

 

[Bedfordblue]

HMRC received £2.83b in revenue from gambling last year, the national lottery alone generated;
£1,887.5 million was raised for National Lottery projects
£1,004.8 million went to the Government in Lottery Duty
Gambling is not going anywhere and nor does the government want it to.
I’m not a fan of gambling myself, but I have no objections whatsoever to Everton being sponsored by Stake.

 

[matty1878]

Noddy question here but we’ve exercised our option to curtail the cazoo deal which was apparently worth £9.6m per year for a deal which is worth “over £10 mill” which in Everton speak will mean £10.0000001m.

Is it worth it for the bad PR? I could understand it if it was say £15-20m but it doesn’t seem worth the hassle of canning cazoo

so it’s not with more?

 

[matty1878]

You know you're in trouble if Whitehall sources are highlighting your strategic errors. They are swimming in a river of their own farce with no end in sight.

We're playing 4D chess, though, obviously. Get sponsored by a gambling firm so that we can enrage the government enough to ban gambling sponsorship altogether.

We're mugging ourselves off for the civic good.

na f boris

 

[Marius57]

I don’t really have a major problem with the sponsor. Sport is awash with gambling sponsors, and finding sponsorship from only ethically sound companies would be difficult, if not impossible.

But I think the Telegraph article points out and demonstrates that it’s a strategically bad move from the club in terms of a) the reputational damage it’s done - we’ve been absolutely hammered from all sides of the press, for doing what dozens of other clubs do without comment, b) the short-sightedness aspect. This deal could be dead in the water in a matter of weeks, if the government seek to ban in their upcoming reforms.

It looks to me like a bad call for business and strategic reasons rather than ethical ones, although I get the arguments from those bitterly opposed to gambling sponsors.

The legislation won't come into effect until 2023 at the earliest. And it affects numerous PL clubs and some championship clubs. It will be a ban of new deals with current deals being phased out. Otherwise there will be legal battles.

The next issue, is the entire EFL is sponsored by sky bet currently. I think that expires 23/24 but not sure if that's the start of end of season. So they will be given time to see that out.

 

[Amw79]

The legislation won't come into effect until 2023 at the earliest. And it affects numerous PL clubs and some championship clubs. It will be a ban of new deals with current deals being phased out. Otherwise there will be legal battles.

The next issue, is the entire EFL is sponsored by sky bet currently. I think that expires 23/24 but not sure if that's the start of end of season. So they will be given time to see that out.

Yeah, that’s true. But reports of the deal reckon it’s a ‘multi-year’ deal, so still the potential for us to have to bin it, and go back to the drawing board pretty quickly. You’d hope the contracts have been well written with exit clauses, given they knew this was on the horizon.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Everton don't have a shirt sponsor = fume.
Everton take a lesser option = poor commercial/friendly/peoples club/nice guys finish last = fume.
Everton have a record breaking deal, but it's gambling = fume.

Does feel whatever the club do some will moan.

They've took the most lucrative option on the table - financial regulations in the game dictate that it's needed.

You can't go to any match without gambling now, you can't watch it without gambling messaging.

Everton can't go fighting the good fight on their own at the moment..

"Good article this in the telegraph" that names a 'whitehall source' and focusses on Everton despite half the Prem having gambling shirt sponsors and I'd imagine pretty much all of them having gambling partners.

If you're not happy with the ethics of this sponsorship, then you must be foaming at the mouth of ethics of football in general.

 

[Simon Buttle]

I see sidney spreadsheets reckons the benefits of this are minimal and its not worth it.

 

[Nymzee]

Same sentiment I hold.

 

[Bedfordblue]

Noddy question here but we’ve exercised our option to curtail the cazoo deal which was apparently worth £9.6m per year for a deal which is worth “over £10 mill” which in Everton speak will mean £10.0000001m.

Is it worth it for the bad PR? I could understand it if it was say £15-20m but it doesn’t seem worth the hassle of canning cazoo

There was only 1 year of Cazoo left iirc so maybe veiw it more are guaranteeing £30m over 3 years rather than £9.6m over 1 year.
With the current global financial outlook it makes sense.
If the there’s an upturn in the economy or performance that will generate more, I’m sure the will bin off Stake at the earliest opportunity too.

 

[Upper Bullens Blue]

My chief objection to this deal is the horrible logo that will be plastered all over our beautiful blue shirts, to be honest. But it does seem to have brought the wrath of the media (and Newcastle fans of course) down on our heads. Obviously, the media have become incredibly lazy these days, and seem to have a list of easy targets that need lambasting on a daily basis, and it looks like Everton, Meghan Markle, and Boris are the top three at the moment, and that's a shame. Not the Meghan and Boris bit obviously, but the Everton bit.

I understand the argument that can be made against gambling, and I understand the argument that the majority of people can have a little flutter without ruining their lives. However, if betting companies are banned from sponsorship, there is going to be the most humungous funding gap across the entire game, and filling that gap with ethical sponsorship is going to be very difficult.

 

[davek]

Can see this getting a bit messy.

Everton slammed for 'short-sighted' shirt sponsorship deal with gambling firm

Government source criticises club's record £10m-a-year deal with Stake.com as 'a real strategic error' before imminent ban

www.telegraph.co.uk

Everton slammed for 'short-sighted' shirt sponsorship deal with gambling firm​

Government source criticises club's record £10m-a-year deal with Stake.com as 'a real strategic error' before imminent ban

Everton have signed a gambling company as their main shirt sponsor in defiance of plans to ban such deals and despite previously stating they would ideally not do so.
A government source told Telegraph Sport the club had made “a real strategic error” by agreeing a minimum three-year partnership with Stake.com ahead of the imminent publication of a White Paper following a review of the Gambling Act.
Campaigners against front-of-shirt gambling sponsors also condemned the club for a “remarkably short-sighted” decision during a “cost-of-living crisis”, adding: “How can Everton continue to call itself ‘The People’s Club’?”

The forthcoming White Paper had been due to stop short of outlawing such deals, with ministers expecting Premier League teams to adopt a voluntary ban.
But the Telegraph has been told that could change after financially-stricken Everton announced a record partnership worth more than £10 million-a-year on the same day top-flight teams were due to discuss the issue at their annual general meeting in Harrogate.

“It’s a real strategic error by Everton and might force the Government to go further in its plans around sponsorship,” a Whitehall source said.

They subsequently signed a three-year contract with online car retailer Cazoo but terminated that a year early as well.Everton signed the deal barely two years after terminating a similar partnership with Kenyan gambling giant SportPesa two years early, with chief executive Professor Denise Barrett-Baxendale stating at the time: “In an ideal world, moving forward, we would look to have a different type of sponsor on the front of our shirts, like all football clubs would, but that is a commercial decision that we make as a football club.”

Their deal with Stake.com, which sponsored Watford last season, comes after they suspended all commercial and sponsorship activities with companies linked to Alisher Usmanov, who was sanctioned over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
That compounded record losses of £371.8 million posted by the club in the previous three financial years.

Leeds United and Burnley last month threatened to sue both the Premier League and club over the scale of the losses unless they could prove how they had lost so much without breaking profit and sustainability rules.
Everton insisted they had complied with those rules.
Everton’s Stake.com partnership was condemned by Charles Ritchie, co-founder of Gambling with Lives, who lost his son Jack aged 24 to gambling-related suicide five years ago.

He said: “To announce this partnership on a day when research reveals hundreds of thousands of people are losing thousands of pounds each year on the most addictive online gambling products – with a third of these from most-deprived areas – is remarkably short-sighted, especially during a cost-of-living crisis.
“There are more than 400 gambling-related suicides in England each year and the way in to gambling for many is through football. Many Everton fans also come from deprived areas and many will become addicted to gambling and, tragically, some will die.

“How can Everton continue to call itself ‘The People’s Club’?”
Prof Barrett-Baxendale said: “Stake.com is an ambitious organisation with impressive growth plans and we’re all very excited to enter into a partnership with them at this stage in their journey.

“My talented colleagues in our new revenue team have made excellent progress in recent months and worked tirelessly to secure what is the biggest main partnership deal in the club’s history – I’d like to congratulate them on this achievement and, on behalf of everyone at the club, express my gratitude to Stake.com for choosing Everton as a long-term partner.”

The media are infested with disgruntled Kopites.

That feller who wrote that, Ben Rumsby, has been busy for the last 2 weeks defending Liverpool fans to the hilt.

 

[davek]

My chief objection to this deal is the horrible logo that will be plastered all over our beautiful blue shirts, to be honest. But it does seem to have brought the wrath of the media (and Newcastle fans of course) down on our heads. Obviously, the media have become incredibly lazy these days, and seem to have a list of easy targets that need lambasting on a daily basis, and it looks like Everton, Meghan Markle, and Boris are the top three at the moment, and that's a shame. Not the Meghan and Boris bit obviously, but the Everton bit.

I understand the argument that can be made against gambling, and I understand the argument that the majority of people can have a little flutter without ruining their lives. However, if betting companies are banned from sponsorship, there is going to be the most humungous funding gap across the entire game, and filling that gap with ethical sponsorship is going to be very difficult.

The chief objection I have is that our club's hierarchy have for years portrayed themselves as ethically pure and have now taken the utter piss in doing a u-turn on gambling.

But I can guarantee that there's worse sources of investment knocking about most PL clubs that makes a few million quid from a gambling firm very small beer indeed.

Look at the lot Liverpool are sponsored by: historically wrapped up in colonialism and imperialism and to this day one of the biggest institutional money launderers in the world...and you can imagine the type of filth they launder it for too.