New Sponsor BC.GAME

[MPH]

4 hours ago, TJB-fox said:

She’s also been the CEO of a complete car crash the last few years, with shambolic decisions on and off the pitch really leading to an unrecognisable Leicester city.

 

If that happened at any other business the CEO would be long gone, she’s lucky she last as long as she did.

 

she’s not scouted any players, hasn’t decided their contracts nor been responsible for hiring any of the joke managers we have had recently 

[baldeagle]

14 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I’m honestly not bothered, wasn’t that long ago you could have a punt on the concourse. I don’t think a shirt sponsor affects anything when gambling is so engrained in the sport. The league is sponsored by gambling, the presentation and advertisements constantly promote it. I don’t think anybody has had the compulsion to grab a bag of walkers because they were on the shirt before and I doubt people are going to get a vpn to use BC Games services tbh. 

There are always people that get addicted to many things . Drink drugs,  gambling , steroids , physical exercise sex I could go on . Do we ban all these things  and the advertising just because a small minority have an  addiction . As you said these people are already addicted and seeing a name of a company on front of a shirt isn’t going to change that or make the blind bit of difference .  

Edited 19 October 2025 by baldeagle

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

she’s not scouted any players, hasn’t decided their contracts nor been responsible for hiring any of the joke managers we have had recently 

In fairness, TJB is right. In any other business, the sort of failure we've seen in recent years would see the CEO leaving. She might not have scouted the players or picked the team, but CEO is ultimately responsible for everything under them. 

 

That said, a football club isn't a normal company and the role of other clearly has a big impact on decisions that would sit with the CEO elsewhere. It's not really clear what Whelan's role was and how free her hand was to do it. 

[MPH]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

In fairness, TJB is right. In any other business, the sort of failure we've seen in recent years would see the CEO leaving. She might not have scouted the players or picked the team, but CEO is ultimately responsible for everything under them. 

 

That said, a football club isn't a normal company and the role of other clearly has a big impact on decisions that would sit with the CEO elsewhere. It's not really clear what Whelan's role was and how free her hand was to do it. 

 

Well what’s clear is what rudkins role was and that is everything to do with the footballing side of things… everything to do with the players/ hiring and firing of coaches and managers.

 

that should make it clearer as to what Susan’s role was…

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

Well what’s clear is what rudkins role was and that is everything to do with the footballing side of things… everything to do with the players/ hiring and firing of coaches and managers.

 

that should make it clearer as to what Susan’s role was…

Yes but director of finance, director of football, director of whatever all fall under the CEO. The CEO is their line manager. She is responsible for all.

[MPH]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

Yes but director of finance, director of football, director of whatever all fall under the CEO. The CEO is their line manager. She is responsible for all.

Nope.  Sorry bud but that’s not how we work.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

20 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Did she learn? Looked pretty set to be KBet until the backlash to the leaked images early in the summer. I don't think she was a moral bastion re: shirt sponsorships.

I mean all we actually have to go on was that when she was here this season we didn't have a money laundering sponsor and as soon as she left we now do.

[SpacedX]

Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I mean 

 

[TJB-fox]

24 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

It's been widely reported and accepted that SW did everything non football related and Rudkin handled basically everything you've listed above.

 

The only one she would have had a hand in was the sponsor last season, which she evidently did learn lessons on hence why we ditched them, and as soon as she left went back to them immediately.

Please can you show this to me? 

[TJB-fox]

13 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

she’s not scouted any players, hasn’t decided their contracts nor been responsible for hiring any of the joke managers we have had recently 

You’re telling me she wouldn’t have had any involvement in the appointment of the clubs first team managers? Or had any oversight of large multi year contracts being handed out? 
 

I know for a fact she has to sign off operational-related contracts (eg IT) for anything over approx 600k, so she would definitely have had involvement in player contracts. Not necessarily the playing side, but financial aspects absolutely. Even if it is just signing off her side.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, TJB-fox said:

You’re telling me she wouldn’t have had any involvement in the appointment of the clubs first team managers? Or had any oversight of large multi year contracts being handed out? 
 

I know for a fact she has to sign off operational-related contracts (eg IT) for anything over approx 600k, so she would definitely have had involvement in player contracts. Not necessarily the playing side, but financial aspects absolutely. Even if it is just signing off her side.

 

Rudkin is the golden child.

[Ric Flair]

35 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

I'd rather we protect the club against administration if funds are tight which they clearly are considering we signed no one in the summer than go under because of a shirt sponsor.

 

Gambling is plastered everywhere so hardly going to have a direct effect in the general.

Such an idiotic outlook. You're a prat then.

[Ric Flair]

19 minutes ago, baldeagle said:

There are always people that get addicted to many things . Drink drugs,  gambling , steroids , physical exercise sex I could go on . Do we ban all these things  and the advertising just because a small minority have an  addiction . As you said these people are already addicted and seeing a name of a company on front of a shirt isn’t going to change that or make the blond bit of difference .  

Words fail me. Prat

[whoareyaaa]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Such an idiotic outlook. You're a prat then.

It's true though.

[TJB-fox]

22 minutes ago, baldeagle said:

There are always people that get addicted to many things . Drink drugs,  gambling , steroids , physical exercise sex I could go on . Do we ban all these things  and the advertising just because a small minority have an  addiction . As you said these people are already addicted and seeing a name of a company on front of a shirt isn’t going to change that or make the blond bit of difference .  

Disappointing to see this level of ignorance towards a horrible illness that directly affects a % of our fanbase. 

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

It's true though.

It isn't. As many have said, if advertising had little effect in gambling then these firms would not be spending hundreds of millions doing so. They do it because it is one of the industries and products that is so so effective but more importantly for them, it hones in on the small % they earn the majority of their profits from. So whilst there's such a lack of restrictions on the way they operate, it's too easy for them.

 

There's published reports and inquiries on the around the world, it was laid in the hpuse of commons.

 

I could go on and on about the despicable tactics these firms use to prey on the vulnerable. But yeah, doesn't have an impact 🙃

 

 

 

 

[whoareyaaa]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

It isn't. As many have said, if advertising had little effect in gambling then these firms would not be spending hundreds of millions doing so. They do it because it is one of the industries and products that is so so effective but more i.portantly for them, it hones in on the small % they earn the majority of their profits from.

 

There's published reports and inquiries on the around the world, it was laid in the hpuse of commons.

 

I could go on and on about the despicable tactics these firms use to prey on the vulnerable. But yeah, doesn't have an impact 🙃

 

 

 

 

Talksport actively promotes gambling daily so not sure how this deal will have a direct effect on a gambling addict. 

[Ric Flair]

Just now, whoareyaaa said:

Talksport actively promotes gambling daily so not sure how this deal will have a direct effect on a gambling addict. 

What on earth you on about? In an ideal world our government tightens the restrictions on this and less of an onus on the public and companies havibg to act morally against them but they still have a responsibility which our club chooses to ignore for greed.

 

 

[whoareyaaa]

21 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

What on earth you on about? In an ideal world our government tightens the restrictions on this and less of an onus on the public and companies havibg to act morally against them but they still have a responsibility which our club chooses to ignore for greed.

 

 

It could be the difference between keeping us afloat or being cash strapped at the end of the day it's only a shirt sponsor if it's the most profitable deal we have then we don't have much choice but to take it.

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

It could be the difference between keeping us afloat or being cash strapped at the end of the day it's only a shirt sponsor if it's the most profitable deal we have then we don't have much choice but to take it.

Morals out the window then, unfortunately we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It's our fault in the first place our finances are in a shit state. Selling our soul to keep the wolf from the door doesn't get a pass from me.

[Sly]

5 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

It could be the difference between keeping us afloat or being cash strapped at the end of the day it's only a shirt sponsor if it's the most profitable deal we have then we don't have much choice but to take it.

I disagree.

 

You have ultimately got to have morals.

 

I personally wouldn’t take that deal. 
 

Gambling has had a massively negative impact on so many people’s lives, and these companies are insanely profitable to the detriment of the people that utilise them. 
 

It’s semi subconscious marketing really.

 

It isn’t targeted at the UK market, however leverage on the wider Asian football viewing in other countries. Places like China etc 

[baldeagle]

1 hour ago, TJB-fox said:

Disappointing to see this level of ignorance towards a horrible illness that directly affects a % of our fanbase. 

So do we just ban everything or advertisement that people get addicted to ? 

[TJB-fox]

Have we ever had a player capable of taking a competent corner? Fvck me. Wow.

 

Wrong thread 

Edited 18 October 2025 by TJB-fox

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

I'd rather we protect the club against administration if funds are tight which they clearly are considering we signed no one in the summer than go under because of a shirt sponsor.

 

Gambling is plastered everywhere so hardly going to have a direct effect in the general.

A better way to protect the club is stop spending so much on contracts.

Edited 18 October 2025 by Chrysalis

[Ricey]

3 hours ago, baldeagle said:

There are always people that get addicted to many things . Drink drugs,  gambling , steroids , physical exercise sex I could go on . Do we ban all these things  and the advertising just because a small minority have an  addiction . As you said these people are already addicted and seeing a name of a company on front of a shirt isn’t going to change that or make the blond bit of difference .  

They aren’t just any gambling company though are they.