Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
stu

New Sponsor BC.GAME

By stu, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

adam1

adam1

Posted
Posted

As someone who works within the gambling industry (not the online sector), I have a bit of an idea of what is going on.

 

Not surprised.

 

Oh and other clubs are just as bad in their choice of sponsors. If I recall the Wolves and Palace sponsor are "rather suspect".

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, adam1 said:

As someone who works within the gambling industry (not the online sector), I have a bit of an idea of what is going on.

 

Not surprised.

 

Oh and other clubs are just as bad in their choice of sponsors. If I recall the Wolves and Palace sponsor are "rather suspect".

 

@AjcW

 

Did I hallucinate this or were BC GAME related to a parent company that covered half the league? Betano, BJ88, Dafabet, Debet? 

AjcW

AjcW

Posted
Posted
Just now, Finnegan said:

 

@AjcW

 

Did I hallucinate this or were BC GAME related to a parent company that covered half the league? Betano, BJ88, Dafabet, Debet? 

I think that was more to do with the channel island licensing company. I’ll have to have a look back through again. 
 

That in itself all linked back to Bet365 and some dodgy dealings too! 

adam1

adam1

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

@AjcW

 

Did I hallucinate this or were BC GAME related to a parent company that covered half the league? Betano, BJ88, Dafabet, Debet? 

Net88 who were I was referring to.

 

Interesting that this happened.... I remember reading it. I thought he had evidenced it. Er be careful what you say.

Screenshot_20241128_133553_X.jpg

Screenshot_20241128_133638_X.jpg

Screenshot_20241128_133627_X.jpg

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, adam1 said:

 

Oh and other clubs are just as bad in their choice of sponsors. 

The "But sir, all thew other boys are doing it" line of defence is never very convincing though, eh.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, adam1 said:

Net88 who were I was referring to.

 

Interesting that this happened.... I remember reading it. I thought he had evidenced it. Er be careful what you say.

Screenshot_20241128_133553_X.jpg

Screenshot_20241128_133638_X.jpg

Screenshot_20241128_133627_X.jpg

Scare tactics 

no way would these companies take a libel case against anyone in this country because it would expose them to a level of scrutiny that they wouldn’t be prepared to take on.

 

  • Like 2
AjcW

AjcW

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

Hi this is Miquel can someone tell me if my BC GAME coin has any monetary value 

They'll soon be converted into KP COINS... but you can only spend them on Thai CSR x LCFC collab products.

OntarioFox

OntarioFox

Posted
Posted

If heads aren't going to roll right now with the managerial change, they bloody better do in the summer.

 

Whelan and Rudkin have both embarrassed the club beyond reason. I'm cautiously hopeful that this BC Game debacle coupled with Coopergate has finally made Top put on his big boy pants. He needs to fire them both before they do any more damage to his club.

  • Like 1
It'sblueupnorth

It'sblueupnorth

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

But it doesn't matter though right? Like I said, Top isn't cash poor and the club isn't cash poor. It's not administration we're trying to ward off, it's sanctions for OVER spending because we do have the cash there's just rules designed to keep us from challenging the established clubs. 

 

We don't necessarily need the cash in hand, we need it on paper and we had it on paper and now we can go and get more of it? 

10 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

But it doesn't matter though right? Like I said, Top isn't cash poor and the club isn't cash poor. It's not administration we're trying to ward off, it's sanctions for OVER spending because we do have the cash there's just rules designed to keep us from challenging the established clubs. 

 

We don't necessarily need the cash in hand, we need it on paper and we had it on paper and now we can go and get more of it? 

 

You're clutching at straws, from my understanding of fair market value rules it will actually hinder us because anyone who’s willing to touch us with a barge pole now will have to bid as much or more as King power sorry bc game did for your statement to be true

FoyleFox

FoyleFox

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Fun fact. Leicester have a General Counsel in charge of legal.

 

However, Leicester commercial director who is responsible (in theory as we don’t know how the club works) for this sort of deal is also a lawyer. Two lawyers at board level plus a CFO an accounts and legal team all in house. 

 

6 hours ago, Wymsey said:

It's strange, in particular with the club claiming that they do due-diligence on prospective sponsors.

Perhaps they did, but very badly. A selection of hot shot lawyers failed to uncover during due diligence, a world of shady dealings that FoxesTalk posters uncovered in minutes, just using common sense and Google. 

funkyrobot

funkyrobot

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Lako42 said:

Might mean something if sponsorship was paid up front

I’ve read that BC Game have already stumped up £15m of the 2 year £30m deal so presumably we would just need to secure a new shirt sponsor for next season. Presumably BC Game will stay on the shirt until a point that LCFC won’t get penalised for removing it. Whilst there’s even a tiny chance that BC Game survives, I’m sure it will stay on the shirts. 

ACF

ACF

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, FoyleFox said:

 

Perhaps they did, but very badly. A selection of hot shot lawyers failed to uncover during due diligence, a world of shady dealings that FoxesTalk posters uncovered , in minutes, just using common sense and Google. 

Or they thought this could happen, knew the risk of the company going bankrupt, got the pounds upfront, and took the deal because it was by far the best for PSR and avoided related party rules. Unethical, but capitalism rarely is.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...